Buyer-agent etiquiette

Part of our model is to copy our clients on all communications with listing agents as well as forward them all text and other emails. We also never call a listing agent unless our buyer has authorized us to do so.

Is it unusual? Yes. However you're the client, and can certainly request your agent to do that.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Do you not trust the agent to properly nuance the communication?

While it is an unusual request, if a client asked to be included on communications, I wouldn't have any issue with it. I think some agents might be offended, but then again, perhaps it's an indication that they aren't the right fit for you. A competent agent shouldn't have any problem with multiple moving parts- but make sure they have the level of competency that meets your needs. The agent should be able to clearly articulate how they have handled similar situations or other complex deals and added value.

I once worked with a buy-side agent who was so incompetent with communications to the sell-side that I literally had to tell her exactly what to say. It was an extremely frustrating experience which I hope never to repeat (not surprisingly the deal fell through).

If you trust your agent to be a good negotiator and be able to communicate well then let them go for it. If not, by all means insist you are fully looped in on all communications.

We bcc... Buyers aren't really getting involved but they do know what's being said. I also prefer this level of transparency so there's never a question of what was said or discussed especially if things go a little sideways for one reason or another.

I've found that the best brokers pick up the phone. In the multiple-bidder situation I was just in, the realtor worked some magic behind the scenes that I'm sure was helpful. I didn't need to be a part of it. In any sort of agency relationship, you should be able to give your agent instructions and expect them to be well-executed. If you don't trust the agent, get a new one.

We spend quite a bit of time on the phone and after we do we report to our clients what was discussed. We just operate in a environment of total transparency, yes it's different, but there are buyers who appreciate it. If a client such as yourself George doesn't feel a need to receive this level of transparency, we're happy to oblige you.

There are number things we do differently, and the clients that we work with certainly appreciate it. There is certainly trust, and there's also verification, and in my opinion there's nothing about this that takes away from the process, only enhances it.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

And to further show our appreciation for our clients, we rebated just over $1,000,000 last year. It might not work for everyone, but we've certainly found a niche client that appreciates it. The only problem is I have no advertising budget, we don't need one it's all referral-based.

George, I'm surprised that you think your agent worked 'some magic'. In a multiple bidding situation it comes down to terms, ability to close and price.... No magic needed. Its funny to hear you suddenly fawning over agents... Glad to hear you had a very good experience and perhaps a change of heart about real estate professionals.

In our case, one other offer was cash and no inspection contingency with about the same price. But they were going to bulldoze the place. So our agent had us play up some emotional components. Apparently that made the difference. Maybe she's BS'ing us, but we've found she's generally a straight shooter.

My experience with NY agents was that they often pressured us to make dumb offers. The classic was a broker who wanted us to buy a rent stabilized multifamily in May last year, when it was obvious that RS owners would be screwed. She seemed totally unaware of what was happening in Albany. Granted, it's easier to be a buyer in a rising market, but I've also found that there's less spin here. When the market was weak a year ago, they admitted as much rather than try to spin it into a positive. The industry in NY seems more designed to take advantage of people.

Clients are typically not looped in on communications. I don't know that that comes from agent paranoia as much as from the idea that you want the client to feel primary, and yet in most agent-to-agent communication there is information-seeking that isn't always about that client.

So I guess I would loop in a client on comms if they wanted me to, but I'd have to reset their expectations about what those comms would look like, and the kind of client that would tolerate being cc:d on messages where 50% of the content is not about them, or their deal, is probably not the type of client who cares about being cc:d in the first place.

To George's point, I'm going to say what 30 is probably going to say as well: there are just too many agents in NYC, so you get a wide variation in quality, whereas in smaller markets it's probably somewhat more "survival of the fittest."

Keith, I really like your transparent model because by giving your clients the option it lets them be as involved or uninvolved as they like which works for a wider variety of types of clients.

George, it's an interesting question about trust but I'm not sure I agree if you are implying one should blindly trust their agent once they have made a selection. I do think it's important to have a certain amount of trust, which to the extent of the client's knowledge, can be based on how competent the agent seems, a track record say number of deals, and a gut feeling.

But to what extent, given you've just come to know this person if you are looking to invest a large part of life savings? How about the fact that your agent has just come to know you and may already have relationships with agents on the other side, or would surely want to build those relationships? Even if we completely rule out the possibility of unethical behavior (which may be extremely rare indeed, I dont know), assuming the client has some knowledge about real estate / business, wouldn't it be better to have a second set of eyes to sift out possible mistakes or nuances in communication?

It's an odd request.

It's not for everybody but the clients that we work with appreciate the transparency, we consider it more of a partnership with our clients, rather than a traditional salesperson's relationship. And to Ali's point, we don't copy clients on every email, unless of course that's their preference. We spare them the back and forth regarding confirming appointments and other non material discussions.

There are quite a bit of other things we do differently, most have been built in over the years based on requests from clients we've worked with. When I first got on streeteasy in 2007 ish, there was quite a bit of negativity regarding the brokerage community and the process. Being part of some of those discussions is what led me to create my company along with the process that we follow.

Again it might not be for everyone, however I think it's good to have choices when buying or selling a property. And our success over the years has proven concept.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Problem is, traditionally a buy-side agent doesn't always act in the best interests of the buyer. The buy-side agent's goal is not only to close the deal, but often also to close the deal at a higher price, which means greater gain for said agent. Unless the client is a savvy buyer (and well-versed in how to determine value) a buy-side agent can steer them wrong and they wind up paying more than necessary. I've seen it happen and it pisses me off every time.

@rfields, do you want your attorneys to cc:you on the contract negotiation emails too?

That's rhetorical but it also speaks to Keith's point that most people seem to hate most brokers. I think the solution to that problem is to find a broker who you do trust. If you have to look over someone's shoulder to the level of reading each email, you're probably working with the wrong person.

@bram I have heard this complaint about buyside agents, but really on the buyside (I work both sides) we're not incentivized to push for a higher price as much as we are to push for volume. The incentive is to get the deal done so we can move on to the next one. It isn't that an agent is avoiding haggling over $20,000 on the listing price because their bite of it is so high -- that take-home will pay the electric bill for a month, not much else -- it's that they're trying to push you out of the cab so they can go pick up the next fare. I try to avoid that by running a boutique that's not dependent on doing that many deals in the first place.

There is also a downside. Lots of professionals (brokers, lawyers, doctors, etc) include a bunch of banter about a bunch of things during communications with each other. Having outside parties "listening in" and making everything extremely formal can end up working against you, especially if the professional on your side of the transaction has a good prior relationship with the one on the other side. For example in George's case of an equal offer it could just as easily be because his agent and the other were sorority sisters. But the conversation which led to that could disappear when the conversation gets shifted to a dry email with everyone cc'ed. And I think your request would put an agent on notice to document everything, shift from person phone calls to impersonal emails, etc.

Exactly. When you hire an agent to represent your interests, let the agent do their job. Else don't hire an agent. An agent on, say, a $4 million property, has 120,000 reasons to get you the deal that you directed them to get.

Let's take the recent example of the penthouse at Walker Tower which was asking $35 million but is in contract for $18.25 million. It probably would have been illegal for the exclusive agent to go broadcasting that the price was that negotiable. But it wouldn't surprise me if they had let it slip to a select few who they trusted that a deal needed to be done and that they should push their buyers to present ANY offers. This isn't the type of thing someone would want documented in an email stream. But it seems someone got the message.

Like I said it's not for everybody, but our clients appreciate the transparency. And it's worked very well for me over the last 12 years. We currently do between 40 to 50 deals a year...

And again in case some of you didn't read all of my emails, and just to summarize, we spare the clients the headache of listening to all the non-material back and forth. When we're in the midst of a negotiation is when I copy clients or in some cases forward the email communications between me and the listing agent.

Again it's simply an option we offer our clients and it's worked well for us and the clients that we represent. It's really not that complicated.... If as a buyer you don't desire this level of transparency, you've got 26,000 agents to choose from ;)

But to reiterate our clients really appreciate it. And when I actually submitted my tax returns to real trends / Wall Street journal top brokers survey, I was 188th in the country by volume.... So I guess we're doing something right.

Whichever way you decide to proceed or who you decide to work with all the best to you! We are simply offering you another way to transact.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

And it doesn't restrict my ability to work, it simply gives the buyer/seller a window into the process.

Trust takes a long time to earn and can be destroyed in a moment. I am a newer entrant into the real estate community- though even when I was in my first year in the business clients would tell me that they thought I had been in the business for more than a decade. As I mentioned earlier, if a client wanted to be included on communications- I have no issue with this, but I do believe if the client is asking- then they don't trust you and/or your competence in many cases. That said, I have had clients that have been curious about the process- and since I created/managed corporate training departments in my prior career- As an educator, I had no issue bcc'ing them on some key communications. In other cases, I have taken it upon myself (without the client requesting) to bcc the client on some broker communications- typically because there were some thorny issues to be addressed, and I wanted the client to be aware in case we needed to loop in the clients attorney- rare, but it happens. Ultimately, if a client doesn't believe in my abilities- it's either something that I have to work harder to prove- or in other cases, it's never going to be enough- and it's not the right client for me to work with.

My business has become referral only- depite only being an agent for a few years because I have proven to my clients that I do stand out- and it does eliminate trust issues. It also helps that I have been a part of the streeteasy forums for more than a decade (I changed my screenname so I didn't bump up against any potential fair housing issues tied to when I wasn't in the business).