More About Dual Agency Conflicts of Interest (What You Get if You Hire a Buyer Agent)

A "Buyer Agent" is an agent that is supposed to be representing the buyer - but can get into Dual Agency conflict of interest situations because they and their company list property for sale. Most of the public is clueless about this fact - and the implications when their "Buyer Agent" turns into a dual agent. (And most don't receive full-disclosure up-front)

An Exclusive Buyer Agent does not list property for sale - nor does their company - ensuring that they are always looking out for their buyer's best interests.

One person e-mailed me today:

I just found this "dual agency" guide on the Internet. Questions You May Want to Ask a So-called "Buyer Agent" Before You Hire Them I'm sorry I didn't know about this guide three years ago. Being a completely uninformed consumer (like the great majority of the public) back then, I became an easy mark for two incompetent, unethical agents who failed to explain or disclose crucial material facts about Company X's (name deleted) representation policy. Now I'm a lot wiser.

The most disturbing aspect is the fact that Company X's is using the absence of a separate written contract with my so-called buyer's agent Ms. X (which she never offered to me, by the way) to argue that she NEVER had a fiduciary duty toward me--although she showed me 8-10 houses over a three-month period, called me several times a week to announce new listings, encouraged me to attend open houses at them, drove me in her car to three of them, and gave me advice on what to bid on my house of choice.

In other words, the Company X management seems to believe that Ms X's statutory violations--failure to provide the mandatory written disclosure form when showing me Company X's properties, to function as a dual agent, or to assign me an intra-company agent if she refused this role---can be grounds for claiming that she was not my buyer's agent at all, even though she openly functioned as such and testified to this effect in two depositions!

Even one of the members of her real estate team wrote in a document that she thought Ms. X was serving as a buyer's agent in the negotiating process, and even the seller of the house of choice believed she was representing me!

The concept of dual agency obviously serves the interest of real estate companies by encouraging the practice of double dipping. It is inherently deceitful and unfair. .

Real Estate Brokerages and Their Agents "Steer" People to Their Affliated Entities - and They Are Now Getting Sued For it...

Was the Realtor you used to purchase you home truly acting as a true fiduciary in protecting your home buying and financial interests?

Click on this link to read about one lawsuit about this.

A lender cannot give a kickback to real estate licensees for referring customer and clients - just as licensee's cannot pay an unlicensed person for a referral.

But apparently - there is a loophole in the (lender (in my personal observation noted below) or title company "affiliates" (in the case of the article)) and Real Estate company relationship - whereby - corporate structures or LLC joint ventures can get around that - by funneling money through the corporate ownership structure.

The article goes on to say... "When real-estate brokers or sales associates knowingly steer clients to higher-cost services that benefit the broker financially, they might violate the fiduciary responsibilities owed to those consumers."

The article states: "Real-estate brokerages increasingly rely on income from their affiliates and often seek to maximize their "capture rates" — the percentage of all home-sale transactions that use the affiliates’ services. They also argue that even if the affiliates’ fees or mortgage rates are not the lowest available, the quality and dependability of the affiliates’ services more than compensate for any price differences."

I've usually heard agents tell their buyers - "Hey - use Joe in our office - it will be more convenient for you." Well - that convenience could cost you thousands! Rather than help you "shop" for the best loan when you buy - most agents steer you to a "preferred lender" - perhaps one in their office.

Relocation Advisors Group helps you "shop" lenders. We analyze their Good Faith Estimates for you - so that you can have a lender that has low rates and fees. We have no hidden ties to any of them.

I was at a traditional Realtor meeting a few months ago - and ran into a "Large Lender" person at lunch who stated that Company X (I won't name them for their sake - but they are large) locally – had done a joint venture with them – creating an LLC – where there will be revenue sharing between Company X and "Large Lender" through the LLC -- with the revenue to Company X going up - if their agents pushed their clients to "Large Lender."

I was shocked. Apparently – that must be legal --- as Company X and "Large Lender" wouldn’t do something that is illegal - would they?

Such an arrangement though - to me - does not seem to be in the consumer's best interest. It puts the Company X's financial interests above that of their client 's financial interests. (Perhaps "Large Lender" would be the best loan in some cases - and in others - perhaps not.)

The article that is linked to above - goes on to say... "In the case of a broker-client relationship, fiduciary duty means that a real estate broker is bound to put a client’s best interests ahead of the broker’s and must not profit from the fiduciary relationship unless the client consents."

The relationship I learned about between mega-broker Company X and "Large Lender" does not appear to do that. I would assume that they have some form of disclosure to each client about the Company X and lender LLC profit sharing relationship - but I wonder about the font size..


Rick Hauser, ABR, GRI, Broker-Owner, Relocation Advisors Group Inc.