[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1248325440][quote author="Adam Ginsberg" date=1248244106]<blockquote>5. ?Sometimes I forget whose side I?m on.?
The past 15 years have seen the proliferation of the buyer broker, agents who are supposed to work strictly in the buyer?s interest, helping him get a fair price on a home as well as avoid pitfalls along the way. Unfortunately, things don?t always unfold so nicely. While buyers may think they?re getting a broker who isn?t commission-hungry, many buyer agents are just that: They usually get about 3 percent, the same amount any broker typically earns when he gets involved with another agent?s listing. ?Buyer brokers are sometimes too focused on closing the sale and getting that commission,? says Max Gordon, an Overland Park, Kan.?based real estate broker and attorney, so it?s often in their best interest to see you pay as high a price as possible.
Even worse, some brokers who call themselves buyer advocates are actually working for companies that also represent sellers. ?Brokerages offer bonuses to buyer agents if they sell an in-house listing,? says Israel. A good way to get a broker who has no such conflicts of interest: The National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents. Its website (www.naeba.com) can help you find a buyer agent near you who pledges to help you get the best deal possible and has no ties to sellers? agents; many even work on a fee structure rather than on commission.</blockquote>
I'm a bit confused with the aspect of a pocket/in-house listing when discussing a seller's agent holding an open house before the home is put on the MLS. We looked at a nice (albeit) small house over the weekend while driving around. No agent's sign on the lawn yet, just some Open House signs directing people to the property. The place is a flip, but nicely done.
When I asked about why it wasn't on the MLS, she stated it's an in-house listing, and won't be going on the MLS until Tuesday (today)....and didn't <strong>really</strong> answer the question....kinda like a politician.
IMO, Open House = lots of potential buyers (and lots of networking, of course). Typically, don't most buyers already have an agent when looking to buy a place (we do)? If the majority of buyers have agents, keeping a listing in-house doesn't really accomplish much when the seller's agent holds a general OH.
My take on the in-house listing, especially the way it's explained above, is the firm is more concerned with keeping ALL the commissions in-house, and doesn't give a rat's ass about the seller. It can't be that simple, is it?</blockquote>
In-house listings are a great way to attract buyers who do not have agents. Also, since the agent gives the impression they have valuable information, some people actually change agents to gain access to this secret information in the future.
In-house listings provide a way to give "special" clients the first look at a particular property. This can actually be a good reason to go with an agent with many listings. You won't get a better price from an agent's in-house listings, but you can get the first look at it. Often a fair-market value bid in a pre-listing situation gets the property, and it never goes on the MLS.
Agents are motivated to "double-end" the transaction, but it doesn't necessarily mean they cannot serve both parties. If two parties review the facts presented by the Agent and come to terms, the Agent's job becomes one of presenting accurate information rather than trying to manipulate one party or the other. If the information presented is accurate an unbiased, the Agent can serve both masters.</blockquote>
By definition an agent cannot serve two masters! C'mon IR you're going soft. First no more schadenfrede, and now defending pocket listings. Keep in mind that real estate agents ar not fiduciaries, so they are not obligate (read legally bound) to act in the best interest of their clients.