Dual agent discl form for buyer with no broker??

Any feedback on this one? Thanks!

I think ok to sign. It's a common one now in no buyer broker situations. But beware that this form only came about 2 years ago and the extreme cases have not been tested.

Just remember, the agent, dual or not, is not on your side. The agent and the seller will resist attempts to cut the price. The best way to realize incremental value if to either (or both) be the only bidder and to insist on stopping and force the broker to bridge the gap between your bid and the seller's ask.

It's very useful to you, if you can find out, if the seller has a deal where they pay 1% less if there is no buyer's broker.

Type "dual agency" in the search box to the right and you'll see all the previous discussions on it.

I bot my apt about 18 months ago with no buyers broker just after the dual agency agreement came out. I signed the agreement after doing quite of bit of research as the agreement does not harm you or have any impact on the transaction.

My recollection is that it provides another layer of protection to the teflon that coats the brokers.

I don't think the form itself is inherently evil. The problem is that brokers use it to protect themselves rather than to accurately disclose their agency relationship. Hence the paradox of REBNY supporting the more detailed disclosure form.

With regard to your specific question about negotiating a better deal because you don't bring an extra broker to the table, the agency disclosure question is probably irrelevant. What will matter is whether the seller and the listing agent agree (or have already agreed) to a lower commission rate on a direct sale. The checkboxes on the disclosure form won't influence that outcome. Once you submit a direct offer, you will be treated as a direct buyer whether you accept dual agency or not.

W81, wakeup it is evil. It only exists to 1) protect borkers and B) to attempt to persuade potential buyer that there is some commitment or implied relationship between the buyer and agent. Although it does no harm to buyer it reeks.

buyer beware!

With no buyer's borker in the transaction you should get it at 4%, that is 1 more than they would get in a co-borker arrangement. That 2% is your right! FPFU

NIKI -- Is the form "required?" For the agent, yes. If you choose not to sign, the agent has another form to protect his behind, recording that he gave you the form and that you chose not to sign.

"Why is he asking for me to sign the form when this was never discussed before?" (a) because he has to (as above); (b) in fact, he was supposed to at "first substantive contact" with you, so that you were aware that he represented the seller and not you. So, if you sign it, date it the day you sign it (meaning, if he puts an earlier date on it, cross that out).

As W81 says, whether you get "a better deal" or not because you do not bring a fee-sharing agent has nothing to do with the form, and mostly has to do with your bargaining ability and the terms already worked out between seller and agent.

To W81: I don't get your "brokers use it to protect themselves rather than to accurately disclose their agency relationship". Agents use it TO disclose the agency relationship BECAUSE the state requires that they do so. Yes, this "protects" agents in the sense that not complying with the law renders them vulnerable.

Yes, when left to their own devices, many agents did not give the *verbal* description of agency that has *always* been required; the change 2 years ago was to adopt for coops and condos (Manhattan, mostly) the form in universal use throughout NYS for years and years.

My understanding is you don't have to sign it. The listing agent can simply note you refused to sign.

Keith Burkhardt
The Burkhardt Group

Niki, it sounds like you're either misunderstanding the form (easy to do) or the selling broker has checked off the wrong boxes (I think this happens pretty often).

When working with a buyer as seller's agent, the boxes next to "Seller, Seller's agent, and Broker's agent" should be checked off. None of the dual agent/agency boxes should be checked. It's the seller (who also signs a copy of the disclosure form) who would need to acknowledge dual agency.

Like SMattingly said, you don't have to sign it, and either way it shouldn't have any affect on negotiating a better deal.

Niki-I just went through a very similar situation (I found an apartment by myself and decided to use the sellers's broker as my own hoping that it would bring down the cost). In retrospect it was one the biggest mistakes I could have made. The broker not only did act on my behalf during the pre-closing/closing process but she actually acted against me. At the time I made the decision to use the sellers's broker I didn't think any issues would arise where i would need help/someone to act on my behalf. My advice would be to get your own broker.

Thanks for all the responses. Just to reconfirm, he has checked Seller's agent, Buyer's agent and Dual agent boxes. Although he is not representing us and only representing the seller and thus we got a bit concerned.

happened to me, the seller broker did not like it - see thread

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/30709-dual-agency

Smattingly: I was referring to the very common case nikinyc and jasonl describe above, where the listing agent checks the wrong box(es).

As I understand the original legislative intent, the correct use of the form in this situation is to disclose the agency relationship, essentially: "I work for the seller, so caveat emptor. My job is to take as much of your money as possible without resorting to flagrant deception. Expect me to screw you, and don't go running to a lawyer or DoS if I do." Instead, the listing agent frequently uses the form to meet a narrow legal requirement - and reduce the likelihood of having to co-broke - by having the buyer accept a dual-agency arrangement that (as jasonl explains above) would require the seller's prior approval.

I feel like we've been through this on another thread (or maybe more than one).

Every firm seems to have different interpretations of the Dual Agency form (see how SMattingly and The Burkhardt Group reps view it very differently) but I believe that it is the position of REBNY counsel that this would NOT be a dual agency situation.

Dual agency is when the same broker represents both parties -- i.e. Seller is repped by Elliman agent A and buyer comes in with Elliman agent B. Elliman is the broker representing both parties. Or Buyer is working with Corcoran agent A, and Corcoran agent A says "come see this thing I've got listed on the Upper East Side." Suddenly Agent A knows specific financial information about both parties, and Corcoran is the broker representing both parties.

However, in this situation, as I understand it, Buyer is declining representation altogether. Fine for you to do that, OP; just be aware that you are doing it whether or not you sign the form acknowledging that that's what you are doing.

As others have pointed out, whether that's going to allow you to carve a discount out of the deal is going to depend not on the disclosure forms, but on listing agent's pre-existing agreement with seller.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

nikinyc, if this " in the hope that I can can better deal if seller doesn't have to pay commission to my agent." was the basis of your decision you didn't do enough research. It is almost certain that the seller is bound by the listing agreement to pay the full commission whether the agent acts as a dual agent and receives the entire commission or not.

There are many points in a transaction where it is helpful to have an agent that will act as your advocate. Some points are: 1. price negotiation strategy (do you have a back up house?), 2. home inspection issues negotiation (will your agent make you feel 'stuck' and will they PROACTIVELY help you discover issues that could affect your decision.) 3. Without an agent of your own how do you go about researching the background of the seller's agent.

Now you have put yourself into a situation where you are probably not going to even be able to get your own agent -since the seller's agent will likely claim procuring cause and scare away any other agent that you might want to have represent you.

You are going to pay more - not less - for this house, because of your decision to try and manipulate a system that you know very little about.

For anyone else reading this, find your own agent. And even if you start out with 'your own agent' if that agent works for a company that represents sellers you run the risk of losing 'your agent' because if you want a house that agent's company listed you are back to dual agency.

MOST agents that work for companies that do not represent seller's are members of the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents (NAEBA). Try to find an agent there at: http://www.naeba.org .