paddingtongreen

What I am saying is that unless you have a contract with your realtor, to act in your interest, and you are paying him a fee, he is part of the seller's team. There are two realtors involved in a sale, the listing agent, who puts it on the multiple listings and advertises it, and the selling agent who finds a buyer and does that end of the work, arranging title insurance, termite and building inspection, etc.

They both work for the Seller, who pays them for their services with the commission. They are happiest if they can get both ends of the commission. I'll bet your guy first showed you any properties listed by his own office that seemed to meet your wants, before going on to others.

I'm saying that you are on your own unless you have a contract with someone to act in your interest.

chartreuse

Actually, quite the contrary. On several occasions when we asked about properties listed with his office he told us not to even bother looking at them.

Ray

Thats often the ones they or there pals have low bidded
on for a steal ..

tamms_1965

In Ohio, when the seller's realtor happens to be the buyer's realtor (which does happen, esp. in smaller cities), they have to disclose that and the buyer/seller has to sign paperwork saying they are aware of the situation.

Steerpike

What you are describing, primarily, is a sellers arrangement still. Realtors are licensed to do certain aspects of the transaction, but not all; it requires a 'broker' to do other parts. Typically, all realtors are associated with an office, and the office has one or more brokers. So when you approach a realtor to sell your house, there are in effect two people involved (and they split the commission, too).

If you approach a realtor to help you locate a house, you will typically (at least in CA) sign a contract that specifically states they are representing you, the buyer. Now, that realtor may show you properties listed by his/her office, simply because this maximizes the returns of the office, but even if you bought a house listed by the same office, your realtor is contractually obligated to represent your interests.

To me, it goes without saying that you have this contractual relationship with your realtor. In fact, if you were to buy from the seller's realtor, I believe they make you sign a disclaimer to clearly show that you know that the realtor you are working with is NOT representing your interests.

Tarkak9

the nature, structure and types of defined agency relationships available to the public are state specific. eg some states may still have dual agents.. other's don't; some states may have transaction brokers. for "in-house" transactions, some states may or may not allow brokers to retain their buyer agency (and it may still also be an office policy too).

yes, caveat emptor applies.

chartreuse

Ooh, you cynical bugger!

Ray

Seen it happen both here and in the UK ... more than a few times

meauxna

I wonder if this sort of Buyer's Agent agreement (we have them here too) are only available in some States? I know it's a fairly new thing here.. had just started when I bought about 15 years ago IIRC.

paddingtongreen

I guess that's the point, if it is typical now, it is comparatively recent. The rules are set by the various states. Buyers agents started to pop up a while ago, but they were unusual. The work you describe used to be done by the selling agent, I see very little difference except you have a contract that says he works for you.

But don't be naive about it, the bottom line for both agents is that they only get paid after a house is bought and settled.

englishinfl

True dat. They call it a perk of the job... some might be inclined to call it a rip off, but it's no different than any "perk" that happens in any business in different ways. Any estate agent will tell you about itknow them if you , and that's why you saw so many with "realtor is owner" at the bottom of the sign, up til a year ago or so.
Oh well.

chartreuse

Oh, I've seen it in the UK (and been on the wrong end of it, once) and I suspect that the only reason I've yet to see it in the US is my relative lack of experience buying and selling property there.

On the plus side, the appraisal came back OK so we'll be closing Friday on our house in TX! Hooray!

tamms_1965

My big problem with UK system is that the buyers (or sellers for that matter) can back out at the last minute. My DH and I were so worried about this when he sold his, even though he knew the guy and his parents. From what I understand, there is no "contract" to purchase or earnest money involved to show that you're a serious buyer. DH said he was screwed on a deal once in the past when the buyer backed out at the last minute because they saw something they like better. This wouldn't happen in Ohio without you losing your earnest money (or worse).

Jerseygirl

There is a contract to purchase a property in the UK but it isn't drawn up until all the searches have been done. Therefore it can take several weeks/months...this is to cover the buyer. I think it's the same as many things when we compare differences between the two countries...you tend to prefer what you are used to.

Giantaxe

I've bought and sold in both England and the US. I think the system in England is totally dysfunctional. Give me the US system of immediate purchase contracts, earnest deposits and timed contingencies for inspections/financing etc any day. Little of this nonsense of buyers/sellers just walking away after months just becase they've "changed their minds" and little scope for gazumping (or its buyer equivalent in the other direction). And usually no chains, although this may be a cultural difference in that Americans seem more willing to more into temporary housing when moving.