Marketwatch columnist Lew Sichelman says that an agent who plays both sides of the housing fence compromises your position. This is from his Realty Q&A column on Marketwatch:
Realty Q&A - Don't let agent force dual agency on you
May 18, 2006
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Question: I'm about to make an offer on a three-unit property, but before I do anything the sales agent wants me to sign a dual-agency disclosure. I informed her that I'm not comfortable with that and I'd like exclusive loyalty. She then said that if we go through with the deal or offer, I'd have to sign it anyway. Is that true? Why would I have to sign that anyway if I'm not comfy with it? I would rather do a designated agency. Clayton
Answer: There's no reason -- or law -- requiring you to sign anything you don't want to. And you are absolutely correct, you have the right to exclusive loyalty, or in the case of real estate, single agency.
Sellers aren't the only ones who need exclusive representation. So do buyers. Otherwise, the agent who is working with you could divulge critical information to the seller or seller's agent. It may happen inadvertently, but intentional or not, if certain information gets back to the seller -- the fact that you are willing to offer a higher price if need be, for example -- it could have a damaging effect on your side of the equation.
Sales people who want to be dual agents try to walk the line between buyer and seller, and they often successfully do so without a mishap. However, without a signed statement saying they disclosed the fact that they are working on behalf of both parties -- or sometimes, in the case of a transaction facilitator, neither one -- they are walking that tightrope without a safety net. The disclosure protects them because by signing it you are agreeing to work with someone who speaks for both buyer and seller and therefore, in my opinion, speaks for no one.
The problem here is that the agent in question has already shown you the property and expects a commission if you go through with the sale. If you refuse to sign and buy the property anyway through another broker, your original agent will probably fight you tooth and nail to get her money. But to my way of thinking, she should have had you sign a dual-agency disclosure form before she showed you a single property.
So at this point, you probably have two choices -- go through with deal or seek legal help to find out what, if any, recourse the agent has if you drop her and find someone else.
If you decide to go ahead, make sure you tell the agent nothing that will hurt you in your negotiations. If you find another agent, don't be bullied or intimated by the first one. And when picking a new agent, make sure you opt for someone who is an exclusive buyer broker (agent) as opposed to someone who works for one or the other but not both.
Most exclusive buyer brokers are trained in how to represent buyers alone, whereas those who bat from both sides of the plate, depending on who's pitching, are usually not. They think they can do both, but the jobs require different mind-sets. And without proper training, a seller's agent has a hard time changing hats.
For what it's worth, the National Association of Realtors' code of ethics requires members -- not all agents belong to the 1.2 million-member NAR -- to disclose in writing whom they represent, the buyer, seller or both. In addition, most states have laws requiring such disclosure, and most risk-management experts recommend obtaining a signed statement even when state law doesn't call for one.
But in the most recent NAR research, one in five buyers and sellers said they never signed a disclosure statement and another 20% said they don't remember whether they signed one or not. Among first-time buyers -- those who would tend to find the question of agency most confusing, if only because they have never gone through the buying process before -- more than one in four said they hadn't signed a disclosure statement.
Realty Q&A [Marketwatch]