Question for brokers and others: To whom does the "selling broker" owe allegiance?

West 81st. in my state, the real estate agent is required to explain to the buyer at initial contact who they are working for; they have the client sign a form describing agency. Is that required in New York?

Blossom16: I think I found the answer to your question, and possibly to my own: First of all, yes, if a New York broker has an agency relationship with the seller or the listing broker, she is required to disclose it to the buyer. The Department of State has a disclosure form for this purpose, though I'm not sure the form is mandatory.

Second, it seems that the New York Attorney General issued a ruling by letter that changed the default agency of the selling broker in NYC. As long as she works for a different firm than the listing broker, the default is that she represents the BUYER. Can anyone verify this?

"In my view, a lot of broker behavior that shocks civilians - like steering buyers to high-commission properties, or colluding with a listing broker to achieve a higher sale price - is a natural consequence of the selling broker's legal status. Is this conduct distasteful? Certainly. Is it unethical? Sometimes, especially if the broker leads the buyer to believe that they are on the same side when they really aren't."

Of course, brokers steer clients towards or away from specific properties based on how much they could earn. That is all part of their game. There are too many rules and brokers hide their allegiances. Forget it. My search for an apartment is much more pleasant without involving the services of a buyer's broker. I vote to cut them out of the deal. Before all of you scream at me, take a moment to think about how the real estate industry has rigged the system so that many buyers do not feel their interests are being represented. I do not feel my interests are being represented by these so-called "buyer's brokers" and, therefore, I refuse to utilize their services.

i posted this on another thread too. the "seller/buyer broker" can be a confusing concept but maybe this clears it up a bit in plain terms.

New Jersey Real Estate Commission Consumer Information Statement on New Jersey Real Estate Relationships

SELLER'S AGENT

A seller's agent WORKS ONLY FOR THE SELLER and has legal obligations, called fiduciary duties, to the seller. These include reasonable care, undivided loyalty, confidentiality and full disclosure. Seller's agents often work with buyers, but do not represent the buyers. However, in working with buyers a sellers agent must act honestly. In dealing with both parties, a sellers agent may not make any misrepresentations to either party on matters material to the transaction, such as the buyers financial ability to pay, and must disclose defects of a material nature affecting the physical condition of the property which a reasonable inspection by the licensee would disclose.

Seller's agents include all persons licensed with the brokerage firm which has been authorized through a listing agreement to work as the seller's agent. In addition, the other brokerage firms may accept an offer to work with the listing broker's firm as the seller's agents. In such cases, those firms and all persons licensed with such firms, are called "sub-agents". Sellers who do not desire to have their property marketed through sub-agents should so inform the seller's agent.

BUYER'S AGENT

A buyer's agent WORKS ONLY FOR THE BUYER. A buyer's agent has fiduciary duties to the buyer which include reasonable care, undivided loyalty, confidentiality and full disclosure. However, in dealing with sellers a buyers agent must act honestly. In dealing with both parties, a buyer's agent may not make any misrepresentations on matters material to the transaction, such as the buyer's financial ability to pay, and must disclose defects of a material nature affecting the physical condition of the property which a reasonable inspection by the licensee would disclose.

A buyer wishing to be represented by a buyer's agent is advised to enter into a separate written buyer agency contract with the brokerage firm which is to work as their agent.

i don't know the answer to this, but i agree with sniper that for purposes of discussion, it might be less confusing to call it "buyer's agent" and "seller's agent" than "selling broker" and "listing broker".

Well, sniper, I am sure that is what the real estate commission wants us to believe about the responsibilities of the various parties but I think reality is different. StreetEasy is all about trying to get to the reality, otherwise, this place would just be a mouthpiece for the National Associataion of Realtors.

407 - i know you dislike brokers and question their motives but you still believe that when an agent signs a contract as a buyer's agent they continue working for the seller's best interest? i would think not. i think it may be fair to say that they are putting their own interests first (most sales people do) but i would think that buyer comes before the seller at that point. i could be wrong.

Here is a link to the DOS site and an explanation of the various agency relationships.
http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lcns/lawbooks/re-law.html see "443"

I have never steered a customer away from a property for any reason other than a defect in the property. I want to uncover every stone I want to close the deal and I don't want my valued customer calling me up saying "Hey Keith I just found this listing on the NYT's website that really suits us. How come we haven't seen this?" Uhh because it's a 5% commission not 6%...

I want to get deals closed that is indeed how I earn money. The commission being offered NEVER enters my mind. Really. Some brokers do this but it can backfire, Here is a recent example of a rental transaction I did,with a SE person I will add;

A very prominent broker took two highly qualified clients to a building to see apartments. I had a listing in the building, someone trying to break a lease, hence needed a replacement tenant. I had the unit listed for all brokers with various websites including SE. The broker didn't show them my listing as the building was paying a fee and offering some other incentives. My listing was a "collect your own fee" as I was being paid by the current tenant. Uutside brokers can show and offer their client a very competitive fee since they will not have to share the commission with me.

So long story short these two clients found my listing on the web and called me, they realized they had been to the building and had not liked any of the listings. I assured them they had no seen this listing and assured them it was quite an unusual apartment and significantly different than what they had been shown. So you know how this ends...they loved the apartment everything they wanted, $2000 dollars less than comparable listing they had seen. They were very annoyed that they had not been shown this unit and in the future I will most likely be getting their referral business.

I have occasionally been in a situation as a listing broker where you get two offers one that is direct and one from a buyer with broker. Sure at that point you think about your potential commission. But as required by law and a properly working conscience both offers are presented to the owner and without prejudice examined. My Uncle Leo likes to say "You can't go broke making a profit".

To answer your question, yes, the buyer's broker is still working in the seller's best interests, in my opinion. The piece of paper is worthless. A person works for the person who pays them. It is quite simple. We disagree, which is fine. My position is not due to my dislike of brokers but due to how I see them act in business relationships. I don't dislike brokers but I do try to understand their motivations.

So, the trouble is, if the buyer's broker is putting his or her interests first, as you admit, and those interests align with the seller's interests, than they are not working for the buyer.

I agree that in New Jersey (where I was first licensed) the roles are much, much clearer. NYCbrokerdax and I couldn't even agree under what circumstances the selling broker was a subagent of the listing broker, and under what circumstances they weren't.

I believe the answer is that in New York the broker and the client can set out the agency relationship, so whether it's "buyer's broker" or "subagent" is a matter of mutual agreement. I have an agency conversation with every buyer at the first substantial contact, just as I have a Fair Housing conversation. The problem is that, unlike in New Jersey, we don't have to make clients sign a piece of paper that this conversation was had, and so they tend to forget we had it. (Clients can be slippery too!)

However however, as Keith's post points out, it's really not so much about the roles as it is about the ethics of the person you're working with. There's a saying that "some people are in real estate for a year, and some people are in it for a career." If you truly want to succeed at this long-term, you have to get your clients to a point where they trust you so much they refer you to their circle of friends and acquaintances %u2014 and the easiest way to do that is to be trustworthy.

As a selling broker, I tell my clients when they're seeing a high-commission building (for example, the Atelier) and when I think they should rent rather than buy (for example, when W. Village walkups were going for $1.2 mm, I said no).

The problem with that is that it's still a lousy business model. I have one client I've been working with for over two years -- we've seen more than 100 apartments -- and if she breaks her new condo contract, I make nada. These kinds of economics tend to push the "better" people -- burkhardt and digs are clear exceptions -- to be listing brokers. If I'm going to work long and hard and ethically, I want to be on the side where I'm going to get paid.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

If I understand that link correctly, then West81st is correct in his initial assertion that the seller's agent (what i used to consider the buyer's agent) is not obligated to represent the buyer's best interests. good to know.

407PAS-I agree with your approach to go it alone in Manhattan. There are so many comps, open houses, and listings in a relatively small geographical area that one can do the research himself. My issue is that I'm also looking for a modest home in the hamptons, as part of the compromise i made with my wife when she wanted to move to the suburbs. When I looked at homes there recently, all I heard from the agent (whom i thought was representing me) was about the strength of the hamptons market. While i kept talking about wanting a good deal, she kept talking about offering the asking price. When i countered with Bloomberg figures showing a 15% yoy drop in hamptons pricing, or the corcoran stat showing the average transaction occurred at 14% below ask in the 4th quarter, she dismissed it by saying that there are too many outliers in the hamptons market which skew the median numbers. I left feeling very puzzled. so this discussion has been very enlightening. that said, i still think it would be much harder to "go it alone" outside the city.

Find a new Hamptons broker.

Azil,
I guess you have answered your own question. The broker is obviously not working for you if she or he is telling you to bid ask on these properties. Hilarious but a good indication of how things really work.

well that's the easy answer. but from what i'm understanding, my new broker may not have my interests at heart either, if they are ultimately working for the sellers. I guess the only solution is to keep my cards close to my vest, and trust only myself.

Azil.
Bingo. You got it.

When I am working for the buyer that is who I represent. As I have said before 99% of the time that buyer has been referred to me by a friend etc.. And according to the DOS that is the case unless I am working for the same firm as the listing agent. In that case it seems I would have to have my customer (buyer) sign an agency agreement with me. I have have to run but that was my understanding from a quick read through.

azil: Another unique aspect of the NYC market that affects several aspects of this discussion is that the city doesn't have a formal MLS. With the qualification that I'm not a lawyer, I'll share my understanding of the issue.

From a legal standpoint, a typical MLS acts as a sort of "temp help wanted" bulletin board. A listing agent solicits help in selling a property, and offers a stated commission split in return. It's a pretty clear sub-agency arrangement that's completely consistent with the way the respective brokers get paid (i.e., by the seller). Rules about how this arrangement can be overridden vary from state to state - Connecticut, for example, has a well-defined role and explicit protections for buyers' brokers - but the basic framework is pretty simple, as long as the selling broker doesn't mislead the buyer about allegiances. Whether the rules are great or lousy, at least there are rules.

I think one reason the AG had to weigh in about New York City was that, while the informal database tools here LOOK like an MLS, they don't have the same legal standing. That left the selling broker in limbo - personally tied to the buyer, but compensated by the seller. And based on Ali's post, it looks like there's still a lot of limbo left.

Well 407pas and sniper a great thread in addition to the other thread.After reading everything I sent my current broker the following questions.............................................................. I am only asking these questions for clarification and not to be confrontational.It just seems that NY RealEstate is different than the suburbs,or they may be the same but it has been 25 yearss since I bought a residence.So here it is....
1.How do you negotiate,using 6a as an example
Do you tell the listing broker that I have bids in all 3 units
That I am waiting for a comp,that is one to sell
Do you play one unit against the other
Just examples
2.Are you acting as a seller's broker or a buyer's broker,these are terms that I did not know the relevance and the effect it has on negotiatios .I was very taken a back by 6a broker making up a bid then saying it was not going to be a real bid,obviously this is a para phrase but it is wrong
3.When you placed my bid do you go over with the listing broker how I came up with the bid,looking at 2006 comps,the state of the market,what similar areas are going psf,that there are 3 on the market and that my bid has some basis ,and not to just blow smoke
This would be very helpful to go forward

So she sent me a VM saying these were all very good questions.And if I do see a unit the is represented by her firm(Elliman) yes she has to be the seller's broker but has my interest first.I then said what advantage do I have in letting you negotiate??She has not answered this question.So it seems if you want to have someone negotiate better use a different broker than the listing broker.But these threads have made me be the negotiator.Thanks again,glad I found out now,all I hear from them is trust my judgement>>>>>

Azil --

You have the wrong broker. Michael Daly of True North in the Hamptons reps ONLY buyers after having been a REMAX agent for both buyers and sellers. He is an old friend, and I just quoted him in an article in Worth (The one with Obama on the cover; I'm a reporter, too) about weakness in the Hamptons market.

he blogs at www.beachhamptons.com

Tell him Ali Rogers sent you and if he does not take good care of you, send me the hat of your choice and I will eat it.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Michele,
Why not just negotiate on price by yourself, alone? Are buyers truly incapable of submitting numbers? Why do you need so many parties to advance an offer? You are not under any obligation until a contract is fully executed, that is, signed by the buyer, buyer's attorney, and the seller and seller's attorney.

The real truth of the matter is that in New York City, you need a lawyer from the moment a price is agreed upon, in order to draw up the terms of the contract. In the suburbs, the agents go about drawing up the contract, and you pay a lawyer a nominal fee to review the contract before closing. This is the way it used to be, perhaps it has changed.

In New York City, you need your own lawyer, from the beginning.

Buyers, stand up for yourselves.

407pas ,yes after reading the threads on all of this ,I plan on negotiating and will start his weekend,thankyou

Good luck Michele! Do your research well. I wish you all the best.

"Why not just negotiate on price by yourself, alone? Are buyers truly incapable of submitting numbers? "

Seriously! Whats the deal with all the hand holding requirements? I actually REFUSE to deal with a buyers broker, especially in this market. Too many cooks in the kitchen is never a good thing, and will only end up costing YOU more money.

I understand that some people are too scared to handle business transactions themselves, and perhaps I am being too abrupt with them as it (negotiating) just comes naturally to me. However, the key to negotiating (anything, not just real estate) is to stick to your guns and know what you want. Prior to making an offer, discuss with your husband/wife how you feel about the place. Assuming both of you like it, determine what you can AFFFORD. Then decide what you think is the FAIR price that you are willing to pay. You then have two options available.

1) Offer roughly 20% below what you want to pay, then work your way up to your (pre determined) price
2) Present your 'best and final' offer once, and tell them you will walk if they dont agree

Option 1 is best suited for people who can handle the haggle, and will often times get you the place below what you wanted to pay. Option 2 is better suited for meaker individuals, however you need to be prepared to walk if the listing broker/owner want to play games.

West81st: You seem to be confusing 2 concepts. Who they're *supposed* to be working for, and who they *really* work for. Regardless of legal technicalities, its very clear that what you call a "selling broker" is the same as what most people call the "buyer's broker", and that person is *supposed* to be working for the buyer.

Its also quite clear that realistically, most brokers (both "listing" and "seller"/"buyer's") are working for themselves. And, despite any legal technicalities you can find, clearly some "seller"/"buyer's" agents really are working for their buyers (though this may not even be the majority).

I'm the last person to defend brokers. I think most are pretty bad. But legal technicalities of the relationship really have no bearing on the realistic relationship, in both areas with well written laws, and NYC where the laws seem to suck in that regard.

"I plan on negotiating and will start his weekend,thankyou"

Good move, congrats! I know it can be a little intimidating at first, but take it slow (you have PLENTY of time) and be firm with what you want.

I posted this on another thread, and I think it's worth mentioning here -- buyers who want to negotiate for themselves should, heaven knows I don't want you as clients.

However, the market moves, and you need to always be collecting new data on it. One STRONG argument for agency is that no one buyer -- even one who immerses herself in data up to her eyeballs and then goes out and bids on three properties -- has the breadth of recent market information of an agent who might be working three properties, and can then walk into an office of ten other people and ask them how each of their three auctions is going.

ali r.
[downtown broker}

ali - you mentioned that you were licensed in NJ so i assume you have experience with homes as well as apartments, and i also believe you or another broker mentioned the importance of pointing out negatives of every property. this may be too general of a question but it will give me a start:

what are some basic things that a buyer can look for or point to for use in negotiating on a house when you don't see too many negatives? beyond the obvious - needs new master bath, etc. thanks.

Sniper,
Ah, the suburbs, I have bought a house or two out there. I would hire a good house inspector, not one recommended by any real estate agent. You want someone who can give you an honest opinion about the house and its faults. From my experience, suburban homes have many, many more problems than city apartments.

You need someone to check the roof, the basement, the mechanicals, the windows, the floors, and the overall structure. How are the radon levels in the basement? Any leaks in the roof? How about the basement? Settling problems? Termites? The list never ends.

Suburban contracts tend to look like "War and Peace" by the time they're done, with repair items being agreed to and negotiated between buyer and seller, and initialed as the contract goes back and forth.

Good luck with it.

all true, but my request to ali was for "basic things" that would help me generate and substantiate my offer. the things you are talking about come at a later stage.

sniper-

good q -- I'll blog about this if you don't mind.

typically on a house the buyer makes an offer, and then uses the inspection to get some kind of credit or rollback. So when we sold the beach house (Nassau County) the buyers asked that we correct the slope of the driveway because there was a water spot near the house; prune a tree that had broken the garage soffit line, thus weakening the roof; and have an electrician come in and remove a tangle of wires in the basement on the grounds that they were a fire hazard.

Other than those things (most experienced buyers would have caught the wires, but not the roof impingement or the driveway), it is typical for a suburban buyer to ask about leaks, pests, mold, and site-apecific things -- like in an older community, that was built when homes were heated with oil, you would ask if there was a buried old tank. That's all stuff that's generally in the category of "seller doesn't have to disclose, but has to give a truthful answer."

I would also get a separate termite inspection, since they're really easy to deal with if you catch 'em early, and a beast if you catch 'em late.

good luck!
ali r.
{downtown broker}

A random one off the top of my head,

Watch out for aluminum wiring, it has been implicated in house fires. I am not sure if that problem is still floating around up here but that is something to check for.

Definitely look for water damage in the basement and attic, or evidence of previous leaks. Don't buy the house down in the valley, buy one a little higher up. ;-)

The buried oil tank is a good one, as is the buried septic tank. I would assume that the house is on city water and sewer but maybe it was not in the beginning. Don't buy one with a well, I have a funny story about one.

it would be great if you blog about it. can't wait to read.

Can a buyer have a real estate agent and still do their own negotiations? I have never been privy to any of the "negotiations" on our bids first hand, just told the outcome(all negative so far).

NYRENewbie, I suppose you could have an agent and do your own negotiations, but why would you want to? Your agent should be able to tell you the tone and approach of the conversations if you're looking for texture to feel like you are "there."

ali r.
{downtown broker}

Ah, just hilarious. What theater. Either the sellers accept the number or they don't. Either they counteroffer or they don't. Ali, you make it sound like there is so much sorcery going on back there. Maybe there is, it just cracks me up. We're not talking about nuclear power here, we're talking about arriving at a price.

For a taste of unmediated reality, buyers should do their own negotiating. Try it, you'll like it. It also goes along with researching the house you're going to live in. When you go out on your own you won't be steered towards or away from certain properties. Maybe some day, a buyer will talk to the actual seller of a piece of property. What an amazing day that will be.

Nobody can be in the heart and mind of another person, and ultimately regardless of the laws and when disclosure is supposed to occur, people still may do things that are not ethical just for the sake of making money, and that is more of a personal choice than a legal choice
Generally speaking, the average buyer, doesn't have pinned down the deconstruction of agency law/representation, and when disclosure is supposed to occur. The person who selects the agent to act on his or her behalf, is the "client," anyone else that comes across and becomes a party to that deal, is the "customer," unless the selling agent, with disclosure/consent from both parties acts as a "dual agent." If seller and buyer's agents both work for the same firm, then yes, it is a subagency and disclosure should also occur. A buyer agent cannot be the subagent of the seller broker lawfully. Licensees acting as buyer agents must make their agency status clear to the listing broker before showing the property.
"Section 443 requires that licensees present a written agency disclosure form that details consumer choices about representation at the first substantive contact with a prospective seller or buyer. This contact is defined as when some detail and information about the property is shared with interested parties. The law became effective as of January 1193 and is part of article 12A of the New York Real Property Law. Section 443 applies to the sales and rentals of residential one - to four unit properties. The law does not cover vacant land or condominium and cooperative apartments in buildings containing more than four units." **** how about that last part :)

Agent, Blanca

Well, Blanca, that makes it all about as clear as mud. There you go buyers, another reason to do your own negotiating so you don't have to try to wrap your head around all that legal language.

*1993

407PAS, I love your contributions and POV, but on this I think reasonable minds will differ. I see negotiations as more textured and nuanced. Tone matter, comments conveyed with offers and counteroffers matter. Intermediaries are quite effective in some negotiating strategies to keep things arms-length and your own thinking and attitude more inscrutible to the oppposing party. It's all part of the gamesmanship that is negotiations, but the style isn't for everyone. But it is for some people.

I obviously feel extremely competent in negotiating for myself. Still, I elected to use a broker when selling and buying in the last 2 years. And in each case I got the deal I set out to at the price I intended. For me, it was less stressful and I was able to make better use of the information I had and skills by employing the intermediary. On this, one size doesn't fit all in my view.

407PAS, i know, a lot of language, but either way, I think that there is as place for a buyer's agent. I just think that for some people, buying a property is a huge investment, and I think it is helpful to have more information rather than less, two heads instead of one up all night looking for listings :)

kylewest i agree, with your statement "For me, it was less stressful and I was able to make better use of the information I had and skills by employing the intermediary. On this, one size doesn't fit all in my view."

Reasonable minds can differ. It is up to each individual buyer and seller to decide how they want to play the game. I don't use a buyer's broker so as to push myself to do more research on the property I am interested in buying. If I miss something, I will have nobody to blame but myself. I am quite adept at searching on the internet. My wife has an amazing memory for addresses and apartments so she is a great asset to me.

As for the information from the buyer's broker, I am afraid it is often slightly fuzzed to grease the wheels of the deal. I am reminded of the conversation I overheard at an open house, where a neighbor who had just bought an adjacent unit was complaining that her broker had told her that the unit I was standing in was going to be rented. She took his word on that, but was tricked, as the unit was now for sale, and at a lower price than she had paid. Caveat emptor.

"I don't use a buyer's broker so as to push myself to do more research on the property I am interested in buying. If I miss something, I will have nobody to blame but myself. I am quite adept at searching on the internet."

Very well said, I completely agree. There is plenty of information out there today (on the internet), which even a few years ago required the services of a broker. 10 years ago if someone wanted an apartment they would determine what they wanted (2 bed, south exposure, doorman, $1m, etc.) and then contact a broker to find it for them. These days, anybody can come to a site like Streeteasy and search the listings THEMSELVES. If they like something, they directly contact the listing broker and take it from there.

We also have many more FSBO options these days, all facilitated by the internet. A buy side broker is useless in a down economy unless you are from out of town (ie dont know what you are doing), OR you are looking for something so new to the market that its not listed anywhere yet. These days however, NOBODY is buying so called "quiet" listings so its moot point.

407PAS, your reasons don't jibe with how I do business, so that is perhaps why we differ. Using a broker didn't change the amount of work I did one iota. I viewed it as having an employee for a business I owned and ran. Nothing was done without me researching it to death and being armed with at least as much info as the broker. I didn't use the broker for comps. Anyone can do that on streeteasy. I found valuable her "backstory" info, info on boards and management companies, tales of the other broker and knowledge of relationships between various parties--things I never could have learned through any amount of research.

It is HOW you make use of an agent that matters. If you expect to just turn over the reigns and let them lead you around and do all the research and work, you have abdicated responsibility, ceased to run the show and you will most surely get burned.

...we need lawyers, guns & money...

The listing (exclusive) broker has a fiduciary responsiblility to the seller. If the listing broker brings in a sub-agent (a co-broker from another firm or their firm) that sub-agent has a fiduciary yadada to the seller.

If both brokers are from the same firm that is dual agency (ditto if the exclusive agent is representing both sides). Seller/buyer must be notified. Yes? Pundits please weigh in.

So, what is the fiduciary responsibility of the sub-agent (buyer side agent) to the seller? Bringing a qualified (fully vetted) buyer to the table. And representing the property accurately.

So the next question is what does the sub-agent (buyer side) want? To make the best possible deal for the potential buyer.

TGIF. Dump quietly.

Yeah, Friday, whew! My favorite Warren Zevon line is from "Poor, Poor Pitiful Me". The last line about the Waring blender could be used to explain the effect that the real estate industry has had on many people.

"Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood
But I ain't naming names
She really worked me over good
She was just like Jesse James
She really worked me over good
She was a credit to her gender
She put me through some changes, Lord
Sort of like a Waring blender"

My take: Even if a broker owes you a fiduciary duty, you cannot trust a broker 100% because their raison d'etre is to earn a commission. IMO, the broker's fid duty can conflict with their raison d'etre, which is earning a commission. IMO, the majority of brokers couldn't define the term "fiduciary duty", let alone perform it. While there are some really great brokers out there, I wouldn't hang my hat on the fid duty they owe. Caveat emptor 1000%.

lawyers guns n money: never leave home w/o 'em

I find the long, popular posts to this OP intriguing and disturbing.
my response: THEMSELVES

"For a taste of unmediated reality, buyers should do their own negotiating. Try it, you'll like it. It also goes along with researching the house you're going to live in."

407pas,
Agree, I've lost deals due to the broker screwing up communications. I got to the point where I told the broker that they'll get their commission, but, let me speak direct to the buyer just to save time & have accurate communication.

IMO, prob with some fsbo is that the O has an unrealistic price, but that can also happen if they're rep'd by a broker. One just needs good luck & good timing.

I pledge allegiance to whoever happens to be sleeping with me or paying me money.... sometimes it gets confusing when my wife says no and then buys me a watch.... :)

My predictions for next week is:
1) more downside in DJIA;
2) Geithner becomes a keebler elf for his kids b-day party;
3) NYC RE listings top 50K,
4) North Korea is pissed and tests a missile over Hillary Clinton's head;
5) BOA gets nationalized;
6) More Ponzi schemes uncovered;
7) "Guns and Roses" re-unite... YEAH! as well as Journey.

Long week cooking for the wife/kids... gotta run and do dishes... wish me luck and have a great weekend all you SEers!

w67thstreet lol

I was just doing an interview and the source said that 'data doesn't replace brokerage' and I think that's true. PAS, as someone who wants to negotiate for yourself, you are making many of the right moves by doing finely-grained research into prices and what things are selling for -- but if you think that there's no texture and nuance in your negotiations, you're probably doing them wrong.

Whether an offer is first presented on the phone, face-to-face, or by email; whether the financial documentation is from a lender or a mortgage broker or attached to the REBNY form; whether a second-round volley comes in fast or slow -- all these things matter. I sit in my office and I watch a lot of agents do this over and over, and I can tell you that the devil is in some of the details. That doesn't mean you can't learn the sorcery -- but yeah, it certainly exists.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

This is really all about human nature. Write all the laws you want. Ultimatly, everyone works for the buyer in this market. The sooner the buyer makes this realization the better negotiator they become. If you are intellegent and capable, keep the players to a minimum. The seller pays the agent with a % of the sale. All the money originates with the buyer. While the buyers are in demand this is the metric. Allow self-intrest to rule the day. It's always your best bet.

So if I have had a "buyer's broker" showing me places, am I bound to them at all when making an offer to a selling agent? Maybe it's better to do it solo and I never signed anything.

Thanks

gh1660: A couple of points...

1) First, to keep the terminology clear: if you use a "buyer's broker", she BECOMES the selling broker when you make an offer. The selling broker is the one who brings the buyer to the deal. "Selling broker" refers to this specific role, and does not say anything about allegiance. The selling broker may owe allegiance to the buyer, the seller, or the listing broker (who is ALWAYS an agent of the seller).

2) If a broker accompanied you to an apartment, and you make an offer on that apartment, the listing broker is likely to regard the other broker as "owning" you with regard to that property. It's a matter of professional courtesy and enlightened self-interest more than law, but I think you will find it pretty hard to evade the convention.

My cynical comment was not intended to imply I think brokers are not necessary. While I believe all good brokers represent themselves, in part, I agree with Ali, that having an experienced negotiator who is an agent to the transaction, rather than principal, facilitates a deal getting done. When I decide to sell my place, I will definitely hire a good broker.

PMG makes an interesting point. It is likely that at a psychological level, the brokers 1st allegiance is to herself. Next to the parties being discussed above.
If you accept this notion, a smart broker will try to get a deal done and will explore what will make it work.
So far, the % of the ones I have dealt with who fall in this category is not impressive.