Dual Agency....Who Benefits Financially? Not The Buyer or The Seller!!!

I just read a “members only” post about dual agency, and I thought I’d express my opinion on this topic. The author of this post was not adverse to dual agency, and I was somewhat surprised because this person is “old school.” I, too, am old school real estate, and I have a big problem with dual agency.

There is no reason to work within a neutral zone other than to receive the full commission. Of course, everyone appreciates a full pop, and it does happen to us on occasion, but the majority of our transactions are with a co broke agent.

If we receive a call from a buyer, we fully explain that we represent the seller, and this is explained verbally and in writing. We go forth and discuss the buyers options of finding a buyer’s agent or having us provide them with a buyer’s agent. Those options are rarely chosen.

We will show the buyer the property and if they have interest, the options of representation are theirs to choose. We are always a seller’s agent. When a seller hires you to represent them, they want full representation. Providing dual agency is not providing anyone with representation. This was not what we were hired to do.

Select a side and stay with that side. If you are hired to list a property and market that property to find the right buyer, don’t jump ship when the right buyer appears. Don’t focus on that full commission. Focus on negotiating the best price, terms and conditions for the seller. It’s an “old school” mentality, but some things never get old!!!