NY Times article on "Buyers Brokers".

From an outsiders point of view, a buyers broker that knows his market is more valuable.

I think Brokers should be mandatory and not an option. Especially a buyers brokers and a renters Broker. If a seller is using a broker, a buyer must have one to represent him, unless they are an attorney or a broker themselves. I have represented both sides of the deal many times, and while I love the full commission, there have been occasional grey areas in terms of who interests I'm really serving and its a very careful balancing act. I try really hard to make sure both sides are happy and its a win/win deal. But its much better when I get to yell at the buyers broker for bringing me such a horrible offer and having him get his buyer up. Saves me so much time and its in the interest of my seller that I dont know or care for the buyers needs. Same way when i am solely representing the buyer, it allows me to really pile on my case and really help them negotiate the best deal.

>>>I have represented both sides of the deal many times, and while I love the full commission, there have been occasional grey areas in terms of who interests I'm really serving ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

READ-- Get your own representation!

"I think Brokers should be mandatory and not an option." Wow. WOW. Mandatory? Why on earth should someone be REQUIRED to use a broker? Oh, that's right, you're a broker so you need to justify your existence. News flash: there are many people out there who are intelligent and competent who do not have a real estate broker or salesperson license, and have no need of a broker when buying or selling real estate. Many people, however, should absolutely use one. Brokers will always have an important role in real estate. I don't want to turn this into a broker vs. non-broker argument, but your use of the word "mandatory" is shocking.

"I think Brokers should be mandatory and not an option"

Mandatory? No way. Having the option is best - in fact, I bet most people around here would prefer regulation that made it mandatory NOT to have brokers involved.

thx Keith!! I dont think it should be mandatory, no way, but I do happen to know many sell side agents that given the times and how deals are structured these days in terms of commissions that they prefer when a buyer has representation and they dont have to worry about the purchase application and board package and dealing with the buyer up to closing..they rather do a one time review prior to submission, and go about their business to do more sales volume. Then you have those agents that do less volume but prefer the slightly higher direct deal commission.

Like you, I believe in a certain level of service for buyers that is quite different than what is required for sell side. And I think most buyers would benefit from taking on buy side representation from their desired agent. But there will always be buyers out there for various reasons that prefer to utilize the latest technology and data to proceed with the transaction on their own.

Yup, absolutely right digs. I have had many sell-side brokers tell me exactly what you just wrote. This is from a very top tier broker to me:

http://ubivoletaudentunicornium.blogspot.com/2011/07/do-agents-prefer-direct-deal-this-may.html

i am still not sold on using a buyer's broker.
Some of the things mentioned in the article like the building finances or issues with the building should be uncovered by a competent lawyer. I have a good lawyer and he saved me from a bad buy last year.

Also, I've had a few situations where I was able to negotiate a lower price because i came without a buyer's broker.

the idea is to have choice..some buyers have more confidence, understanding about the buying process than others and prefer to go at it alone. Others, they prefer to have representation and someone in the field with knowledge and guidance that they dont have and need while they go about their everyday business/lives

Mandatory?? That's absurd. If that were the case then the cost of the broker should be already priced into the purchase price. Never heard of something so ridiculous. You can buy your own stocks without a broker and if you want to put the time and do you research why would you pay for stock broker? Many don't have time and pay for the service. Mandatory brokers would just add cost to both sides of the coin. It would change the way of doing business and just guarantee brokers can earn more money. Sorry for the Kindergarten term but "YUCKY" idea.

Oh and Angeloz if you cannot handle or blow off offers that are inappropriate you should not be a broker. It's part of the job. Sorry you don't want to do busy work. Everyone else does in all types of jobs.

The only thing that should be Mandatory is that Brokers be honest. I think honesty is Mandatory but so is waiting for the "Walking Man" at intersections and when "no one is looking" many of us JayWalk - what cop ever enforces such rules? Sorry brokers I have been shafted too many times by NY brokers to trust any. Yeah a buyers broker could help, but still how can you work with someone who you don't trust?

>but still how can you work with someone who you don't trust?

find one you do.

If you're new to the market or a first-time buyer, a good buyer's broker can help you navigate the system and get the board package together, esp when it comes to dealing w coops.

Most importantly, your broker must act with integrity. Remember, they're salespeople who have a vested interest in making a sale. I used a buyer's broker when I bought my first place. While he was helpful in some respects, he totally tried to sell me on a place I had doubts about, this was before the contract was signed. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

Bottom line: at the end of the day, it's YOU who's the buyer. Don't trust anyone.

I do some buyer's brokerage -- I have a client closing in the West 80s later this month.

But I don't think in general we do a good job of explaining two of the main advantages of a buyer's broker, one of which is to globally know the inventory and make the right "match" for your lifestyle, and another of which is to save you from a system in which so many participants don't do their jobs very well (for reference, see any of the threads complaining about lawyers and selling brokers).

That said, I'm with cccharley. I think people who want to go it alone should.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

i'll save myself, thank you, from all the brokers offering to protect me from all the bad brokers

and buying real estate is not remotely rocket science--why engage the "help" of someone with no more knowledge (often less) than I have or can easily get whose interest are simply different than mine--brokers want a deal---i want a good deal---very diffferent

and the last thing i want is this person filtering negotiation of my deal

In most cases using a buyers broker is FREE. The brokers commission is already in the contract and the seller has to pay that percentage of the sale no matter if you come alone or if you use representation. Why not enlist the help of someone who has done sales in the area and building before? The experience you can add on to your own can only benefit you. Your making a big financial decision, why go in it alone? A good broker, a good attorney and a savy buyer can make a great team.
Only person that stands to lose money is the Sellers Broker and as others have pointed out, they rather co-broke, its best for all parties. I can only speak for REBNY Brokers who are mandated to co-broke and share listing information.
Now if you feel more comfortable not using a free service that can save you time and money, then more power to you.

I think it should cost a smaller flat fee to broker a real estate transaction, not 6%.

angeloz... define free. I dispute your claim.

@angeloz I disagree that because it is "free" that there is no reason not to use one. First because something is free does not make it good for you. I from personal experience will tell you my buyers broker attempted to get me to buy an apartment at an inflated price and joined in with the sellers broker claiming they had an offer at the first open house close to ask. I found it impossible as it was a resale, the sponsor sold an apartment a few months before for much lower, etc. I walked and I was 100% correct it wound up selling 8% below ask.

I would agree that brokers are necessary once they are strictly licensed with high upfront costs to get that license so it stops being a fallback job for thos looking to get commissions. Until the current supply of brokers is weeded out so that only the ones who are actually there to do the job they represent themselves capable of doing do I feel that the money is well spent.

At this point there are just to many brokers, many of which when representing the seller do not even know enough about the apartment, the building, the area, etc, to do an effective job.

I have met and used some great brokers, but unfortunately the bad outweigh the good and that is why mostly what you see in comments is negative.

I would even give in to the point that most brokers on streeteasy actually care, however this is a small tiny fraction of those out there calling themselves brokers and giving you all a bad name.

i also disagree with angeloz.
In one case, i made an offer that was lower than another offer. but since the other offer came with a buyer's broker, the seller broker presented mine as the best offer to the seller since he was willing to take less commission on the deal.

Eventhough he has a contract with the seller to take 6%.There is nothing to prevent him from taking less (i.e. 4%)

also, one time i ask the broker if the price is negotiable.
he ask me if i have a broker. when i told him no, he said, "then it is negotiable".
It is unethical, but what can you do?
There is no way for you to tell the seller what he is doing.

all true--if only one borker needs to get paid, and that borker is already prepared to take 3% in a cobroke, his/her commission can be whittled so as to get me, the buyer, a better price---and if the borker won't whittle, seller should get new borker

and even if borker cares and is effective, they add no value for a buyer who has expended the minimal effort and intelligence required to advocate for oneself very effectively

like i said, brokers want to get deals done quickly and easily--they don't particularly care to get the best deal for their buyer---the more careful they are to get a good deal for a buyer, the liklier it is that they dont end up doing a deal

This is all very interesting! What if one is dealind with the sales office of a new development? Wouldn't new developments prefer to have buyers visit them directly, so as to cut cost?

The procedure is pretty streamlined/standardized for new developments that they just need to deal with the buyers attorneys...No?

I have also heard that buyers can negotiate better deals on new developments when they show up w/o brokers.

Any thoughts?

buyers can negotiate better deals on all properties if they do not use a buyers' broker