Comments on: The Public Is Watching Us Beat Ourselves Up http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/ Virginia real estate news, views, and issues. Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:38:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Jim Duncan http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1609 Jim Duncan Mon, 26 May 2008 16:07:15 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1609 Schaefer - Thanks for the clarification, and the roadmap. :) Schaefer -

Thanks for the clarification, and the roadmap. :)

]]> By: Schaefer Oglesby http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1608 Schaefer Oglesby Mon, 26 May 2008 15:37:44 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1608 Jim, after I read your comment I realized that my reply regarding the VREB not taking positions on subjects wasn't clear. We absolutely take positions on issues where we have the Legislative Authority to write regulations to implement the law. That is the case with the advertising regs. The elimination of dual agency is an action that can only be done with a law change by the General Assembly. If that were done and we felt that the law needed more explanation for implementation, we could then write regs to cover that. Hope this clears up my first reply. Jim, after I read your comment I realized that my reply regarding the VREB not taking positions on subjects wasn’t clear. We absolutely take positions on issues where we have the Legislative Authority to write regulations to implement the law. That is the case with the advertising regs.
The elimination of dual agency is an action that can only be done with a law change by the General Assembly. If that were done and we felt that the law needed more explanation for implementation, we could then write regs to cover that. Hope this clears up my first reply.

]]> By: Jim Duncan http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1607 Jim Duncan Mon, 26 May 2008 12:49:38 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1607 Schaefer - Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the VREB, I was prodding more than anything else. Regarding PPAG - I'd love to see this as an item on the agenda. But - what if they <em>did </em> take a position on Single-Agent-Dual-Agency? I believe that this is a case where the public is generally more likely to be harmed than not. Much like the VREB's advertising disclosure regulations that are ostensibly in place (this is my assumption) to protect the public - doesn't turning a blind eye to the potential damage caused by Dual Agency do more harm than good? Just a thought. Schaefer -

Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the VREB, I was prodding more than anything else. Regarding PPAG - I’d love to see this as an item on the agenda.

But - what if they did take a position on Single-Agent-Dual-Agency? I believe that this is a case where the public is generally more likely to be harmed than not.

Much like the VREB’s advertising disclosure regulations that are ostensibly in place (this is my assumption) to protect the public - doesn’t turning a blind eye to the potential damage caused by Dual Agency do more harm than good?

Just a thought.

]]> By: Frank Huotte http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1598 Frank Huotte Sat, 24 May 2008 21:26:13 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1598 I'm very new to this profession (2 years) and that's exactly what we don't have and never will as long as dual agency is acceptable, a PROFESSION! I don't know how anybody except the money hungry greedy snakes can justify this practice. Let's face it somebody is not getting full representation. To those greedy people I referred to above by simply saying to the average person, who probably doesn't understand the process, explain agency to them and if they agree it's okay, is complete garbage. The average person doesn't understand much of how things work, just as I didn't until I went through classes to get my license. I believe the National Association of Realtors should do what ever needs to be done to fix this problem. If that means hurting some politician in the wallet than so be it. If we really want to be considered professionals, like fire fighters, police, military service members, etc then we should act like professionals and that doesn't mean hoodwinking some unsuspecting member of society. Come on wake up before it's to late, do what's right for our chosen field. Have a great day! I’m very new to this profession (2 years) and that’s exactly what we don’t have and never will as long as dual agency is acceptable, a PROFESSION! I don’t know how anybody except the money hungry greedy snakes can justify this practice. Let’s face it somebody is not getting full representation. To those greedy people I referred to above by simply saying to the average person, who probably doesn’t understand the process, explain agency to them and if they agree it’s okay, is complete garbage. The average person doesn’t understand much of how things work, just as I didn’t until I went through classes to get my license. I believe the National Association of Realtors should do what ever needs to be done to fix this problem. If that means hurting some politician in the wallet than so be it. If we really want to be considered professionals, like fire fighters, police, military service members, etc then we should act like professionals and that doesn’t mean hoodwinking some unsuspecting member of society. Come on wake up before it’s to late, do what’s right for our chosen field. Have a great day!

]]> By: Schaefer Oglesby http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1597 Schaefer Oglesby Sat, 24 May 2008 13:14:05 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1597 Jim, your comment about the VREB having no overt opposition to it is a matter of policy of VREB. We are a government agency and, as a Board, we take no action on issues unless it directly affects our ability to enforce the laws and regs. I'm sure that all of us have individual opinions on various subjects, and you know how I feel about dual agency, but we, as a Board, don't take positions. Jim, your comment about the VREB having no overt opposition to it is a matter of policy of VREB. We are a government agency and, as a Board, we take no action on issues unless it directly affects our ability to enforce the laws and regs. I’m sure that all of us have individual opinions on various subjects, and you know how I feel about dual agency, but we, as a Board, don’t take positions.

]]> By: Jeremy Hart http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1593 Jeremy Hart Fri, 23 May 2008 22:03:44 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1593 Schaefer - you're entirely right. I've done single agent DA once in a very rare unique case for our area, and while everything was as smooth as butter I was never more nervous in a transaction. Had something gone wrong, it could have been very ugly. Never again, I want both sides to have fair and full representation. Scott - "Consumers are better served today (in my opinion) than when buyers had no representation." Absolutely! The elimination of single agent dual agency would go a step further toward serving those clients - and our industry - even more, in my opinion. Julie and Jim - I agree that the majority of the public probably doesn't care. I just feel as if the industry should care a little more. Schaefer - you’re entirely right. I’ve done single agent DA once in a very rare unique case for our area, and while everything was as smooth as butter I was never more nervous in a transaction. Had something gone wrong, it could have been very ugly. Never again, I want both sides to have fair and full representation.

Scott - “Consumers are better served today (in my opinion) than when buyers had no representation.” Absolutely! The elimination of single agent dual agency would go a step further toward serving those clients - and our industry - even more, in my opinion.

Julie and Jim - I agree that the majority of the public probably doesn’t care. I just feel as if the industry should care a little more.

]]> By: Julie Emery http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1590 Julie Emery Fri, 23 May 2008 19:28:33 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1590 Excellent idea, Jim. Anyone on PPAG listening in on this conversation? Excellent idea, Jim.

Anyone on PPAG listening in on this conversation?

]]> By: Jim Duncan http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1589 Jim Duncan Fri, 23 May 2008 19:20:27 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1589 Darn it I hit "submit" too soon. I do find fascinating that an (seemingly) overwhelming majority of Realtors to whom I have spoken seem to agree that Dual Agency is damaging - to the consumer and the Realtors - but there has been no overt opposition to it from either the VREB or VAR. Maybe this is something the PPAG could take up? (hint, hint) Darn it I hit “submit” too soon.

I do find fascinating that an (seemingly) overwhelming majority of Realtors to whom I have spoken seem to agree that Dual Agency is damaging - to the consumer and the Realtors - but there has been no overt opposition to it from either the VREB or VAR.

Maybe this is something the PPAG could take up? (hint, hint)

]]> By: Jim Duncan http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1588 Jim Duncan Fri, 23 May 2008 19:18:21 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1588 Jeremy - Interesting post. I remain firm in my opposition to single-agent dual agency (even in light of Candy's convincing argument), but I'll disagree with you on one point - The public doesn't care. Many still think that the listing agent gets x% (where x is both sides, not recognizing that typically commissions are shared/commingled). I do agree with you on this point - the profession is harmed by the continuance of this vestige of sub agency. Jeremy -

Interesting post. I remain firm in my opposition to single-agent dual agency (even in light of Candy’s convincing argument), but I’ll disagree with you on one point -

The public doesn’t care. Many still think that the listing agent gets x% (where x is both sides, not recognizing that typically commissions are shared/commingled).

I do agree with you on this point - the profession is harmed by the continuance of this vestige of sub agency.

]]> By: Scott P. Rogers http://varbuzz.com/the-public-is-watchingn/#comment-1583 Scott P. Rogers Fri, 23 May 2008 02:43:34 +0000 http://varbuzz.com/?p=310#comment-1583 <blockquote>The real estate industry has taken a body shot through the practice of Dual Agency, in my opinion, and it’s no one’s fault but our own. If we’d be willing to eliminate the practice, or at least make the decision that on the agent and broker level the practice would not be practiced, it’d be a major step toward showing the public we’re serious about THEM, and not our own bottom line.</blockquote> My (very limited) understanding of the history of agency is that dual agency is a (relatively) recent phenomenon. That is to say that it didn't exist prior to buyer representation. I believe that prior to buyer representation, everyone represented the seller --- which was probably just as wacky and inappropriate as dual agency. (And perhaps buyers thought they were being represented, and thus there was perceived dual agency.) While I agree that dual agency is rarely the best solution for a buyer or seller, I'm not overly critical of our industry based on the existence of dual agency. In my view, the current practice of dual agency is just one step of the ongoing evolution of agency. Consumers are better served today (in my opinion) than when buyers had no representation. If we continue to evolve towards every party having their own representation (thus, no dual agency), we will have made yet another improvement.

The real estate industry has taken a body shot through the practice of Dual Agency, in my opinion, and it’s no one’s fault but our own. If we’d be willing to eliminate the practice, or at least make the decision that on the agent and broker level the practice would not be practiced, it’d be a major step toward showing the public we’re serious about THEM, and not our own bottom line.

My (very limited) understanding of the history of agency is that dual agency is a (relatively) recent phenomenon. That is to say that it didn’t exist prior to buyer representation. I believe that prior to buyer representation, everyone represented the seller — which was probably just as wacky and inappropriate as dual agency. (And perhaps buyers thought they were being represented, and thus there was perceived dual agency.)

While I agree that dual agency is rarely the best solution for a buyer or seller, I’m not overly critical of our industry based on the existence of dual agency. In my view, the current practice of dual agency is just one step of the ongoing evolution of agency. Consumers are better served today (in my opinion) than when buyers had no representation. If we continue to evolve towards every party having their own representation (thus, no dual agency), we will have made yet another improvement.

]]>