I am a buyer but my agent wants me to agree that she is the sellers broker. Is this normal/right?

They made me sign the same thing once. It seems it is required now, but few brokers ask you to do it. There is no harm signing it. It actually shows she is a serious broker.

She is an experienced broker and showed me great places. It just seemed strange - particularly given the talk on the other thread about buyers brokers and sellers broker and who owes who loyalty. How can she owe me loyalty if contractually she is the sellers broker?

Technically I believe all brokers in NY are sellers' brokers. Some disclose this oddity in the law, some don't, but none actually represent you or act as your "agent" in a strict fiduciary sense. It is why there is such conflict inherent in the interests of NY brokers. To be a buyer's broker, the buyer would have to remunerate the broker which is not how it works. Perhaps others could weigh in with more articulate answers describing the relationships. Ali?

Ask the broker & see what her explanation is - then tell us & we'll all know ;) Thanx.

This link will explain the various Agency Relationships;
www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/realestate/pdfs/1736.pdf

The form does (dryly) spell out the meanings of Buyers Agent and Sellers Agent but doesn't give you too much flavor about why an agent would want to be one or the other in a particular transaction.

Since your broker by law has to choose one side of the other to owe loyalty to, he/she has chosen the seller side....probably because he/she has other customers who are also looking at this property and so avoids the problem of having to be loyal to several people competing for the same property at the same time.

Bottom line....keep your cards close to your vest when dealing with anyone except your closest trusted advisors when it comes to big ticket purchases like real estate.

And PS...I agree that "your" agent gets a gold star for compliance here....though she/he could have done a better job explaining candidly the situation

Agent does not get a gold star. Agent gets big lump of coal. Agent broke the law by waiting so long to tell potential buyer who she's working for. It's the law, people, it's not just a polite suggestion.

The law says agency disclosure must occur "at first substantive contact." Whether it has to be in writing, or not, varies with the configuration of the real estate. Some things are exempt from the written requirement, but nothing I know of in residential real estate is exempt from the oral disclosure requirement. Nothing.

looking2buy:

It's not a contract she is asking you to sign. It even says at the top, "This is not a contract."

She is asking you to sign an agency disclosure form because she has to get you to sign it. IF you won't, she can fill out another form to keep in her files in case somebody sues her.

But she should have given that to you when you first met; at a minimum, at that first meeting she should have said, "I represent the seller. We can make it otherwise, but that's what it is by default."

In New York State, All Brokers/Agents Work for the Seller Unless Otherwise Disclosed! This is the law. It sucks.

In other states it's not like that; "your" broker is assumed to be working for you, how quaint is that, and eventually you get a piece of paper that indicates that sometimes.

Why does she not want to be your buyer's broker instead? You could sign the form that says that. That is a damn good question. You might want to ask her. There are a lot of possible reasons why, none of them good for you.

I personally like getting buyers to sign agreements with me so I can represent them clearly and cleanly. I think it levels the playing field and I like getting good deals for buyers, it's fun.

Everything will probably be OK, looking2bye, just don't tell this broker anything that would help the seller. Unfortunately, you probably already have. ("We love it, we could go up another $10K...") Because she has a legal (fiduciary) responsibility to take whatever you say and use it against you to benefit the seller.

No wonder everybody hates real estate agents/brokers.

{Manhattan real estate agent.}

Fluter: I raised this question a few months ago, before I got my license, and received some helpful - if slightly contradictory - feedback.

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/8661-question-for-brokers-and-others-to-whom-does-the-selling-broker-owe-allegiance

Fluter, this isn't the first time you've come down hard on agency disclosure, am I right? Out of curiosity, do you have all your clients sign an agency disclosure form when you meet them for the first time?

But as to the statement "Why does she not want to be your buyer's broker instead? You could sign the form that says that. That is a damn good question. You might want to ask her. There are a lot of possible reasons why, none of them good for you." Well, one reason might be that if the buyer requests "buyer's broker" services from the agent, then the buyer owes the agent a commission at closing. If not, the seller pays.

I'm not trying to be argumentative - I find our state's approach to agency to be, at the very least, weird. But I do feel it's unfair to award the OP's agent a lump of coal for her efforts when the alternatives are equally awkward.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

my understanding is that when the seller's broker and your broker work for the same company, then your broker must work in the interests of the seller... otherwise, I don't understand what your broker is talking about.

"my understanding is that when the seller's broker and your broker work for the same company, then your broker must work in the interests of the seller"

This is clearly an area of common misunderstanding. Even if the agents both work for the same brokerage, it is possible for one of those two to owe agency loyalty to the buyer....however in this case since both agents work for the same brokerage, the resulting relationship has the awkward name of "disclosed dual agency with designated sales agents". The form at NYDOS above describes this.

Such a relationship to a single brokerage is workable....but carries an increased risk of conflicting loyalty...which is why NY tries in some ways to discourage it. The OP's agent has decided to be clear that she cannot provide the undivided loyalty required of a buyer's agent....good for her....no reason to not work with her...just a reason to be clear that OP has to watch what he/she tells her....

Interesting mjsalisb, a rebny form clearly discloses that when a sellers and buyers broker work for the same agency, then the buyers broker also represents the seller's interests in the transaction.

"Interesting mjsalisb, a rebny form clearly discloses that when a sellers and buyers broker work for the same agency, then the buyers broker also represents the seller's interests in the transaction"

I've seen that same disclosure on the fine print of brokerage websites and it is clearly the cleanest agency arrangement....but it is not required....disclosed dual agency is permitted provided all parties agree (in writing?) to the arrangement...including the seller BTW.

MJS

When you are co-broking, even if you bring the buyer, you are a sub-agent of the seller.