I am thinking about buying a house in Colorado. I met the person representing the house seller. He says that he represents the seller and is biased but he also baguely proposed that I could change his status to a transaction broker for a neutral position. Is this a good choice to hire him as my broker so that he can be a neutral transaction broker? Its my first time buying a house, so I am skeptical and cautious. ANy advice would be appreciated, and any comments on whether this is the right time to buy would be great too.. Thanks!
2007-08-19 15:07:37 · 5 answers · asked by answers 1 in Business & Finance ➔ Renting & Real Estate
Total crap. Neutral doesn't exist. If that Realtor represents the seller, his fiduciary responsibility is with the seller. Meaning, that the sellers priorities are in first position, not yours.
You are right to be skeptical.
2007-08-19 17:31:53 · answer #1 · answered by godged 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am a realtor in Colorado (colorado springs)
Did this other realtor give you form DD25? It's a requirement,by law here.
My job is to educate the consumer. The reason I got into real estate is because not many out there educates the consumer, which is why realtors have a reputation for being as slick as a "used car salesman"
In layman terms a transaction broker is a referree. Someone who helps both sides come together in a game. Someone who is completely NEUTRAL in the transaction. (Neutral to both sides)
An agency agreement means you have a personal coach for the purchase of your home. Someone who is paid to work for you! And we are paid by the seller!
Why someone would want to use a realtor as a transaction broker and not as an agency relationship, I have no ideal!
Especially since it costs nothing to get agency representation for a buyer!
A sellers representative is paid to get one thing and one thing only for there employer........that's the most money for the sale of the home.
People out there. Stop sign calling. These guys play for the other side!
See my website guardianofyourdreams.com
2007-08-19 22:42:04 · answer #2 · answered by massomia 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you were getting divorced, would you agree to have your soon to be exspouse's attorney represent you?
That wasn't meant to be mean or sarcastic, but I like to use that as a comparison. The seller's agent will always represent the interests of the seller.
I would recommend getting an agent of your own because 1. You don't pay them anything (they get commission from the seller) and 2. They're more likely to look out for your best interest and give you objective advice.
Since you're a first time buyer, there will be lots of new lingo and procedures for you, so you want someone who will take the time to explain it all to you and make sure you're getting a fair shake.
2007-08-19 22:18:58 · answer #3 · answered by Kite Fanatic 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would advise against it because he will have a conflict of interest, and since the seller pays his commission, he'll be more loyal to the seller. I would get your own broker to represent you. I mean most brokers help with finding the house as well as managing all the steps necessary for the buyer to close, and in your case you've already found the house, so maybe a reduced fee could be negotiated.
2007-08-19 22:18:10 · answer #4 · answered by hottotrot1_usa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
my peers are correct. The agent's attempt at earning both sides of the commission is coloring things.
Under NO circumstances should you
use anyone but an EXCLUSIVE
buyer's agent to rep you!
2007-08-23 00:26:35 · answer #5 · answered by kemperk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋