3 ms·
> That's frowned on in real estate. ...which is ironic to me, since both agents are incentivized towards the exact same outcome: the property changing hands.
by jimmytucson 11y ago
> That's frowned on in real estate.
...which is ironic to me, since both agents are incentivized towards the exact same outcome: the property changing hands.
- brianwawok 11y agoSure, but a reputable buyer's agent should (in theory) make sure the buyer pays the lowest possible price. A reputable seller's agent should (in theory) make sure the seller gets the maximum possible price. Of course the buyer's agent commission actually works against this, and the sellers commission is not very swayed by $10k purchase price one way or the other, see http://freakonomics.com/2008/02/26/real-estate-agents-revisited/ http://freakonomics.com/2008/02/26/real-estate-agents-revisi... But - saying both agents have the same goal is not exactly fair.
- gohrt 11y ago> buyer's agent should (in theory) make sure the buyer pays the lowest possible price. this is not true, even in theory. A buyer's agent (properly clled a "Selling agent" in some jurisdictions, reflecting the role) has a duty to serve the client. Getting the "lowest possible price" is not a requirement. Getting the client a property they want to buy, and properly informing the client of important information, is the agent's responsibility. Getting a good price is a point of competition maybe, but not a responsibility.