Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Justin_K 2647 days ago
She was hostile because a real estate agent's approach is to black ball any for sale by owner listing, or any for sale by Redfin / Zillow, etc. Agents around my area always blackball these listings and will NOT tell buyers about these listings unless buyers specifically ask. This is nonsense and not in favor of buyers and is an attempt to bring failure to reform. Fortunately, more and more buyers are realizing they can do the research themselves online.
2 comments

Why wouldn’t they unless you agreed to pay the buyer’s agent commission? It’s how they make their living.

Edit: oops meant buyers agent - corrected.

Realtors have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of their principal, even when it is against the interest of the agent.

"This duty obligates a real estate broker to act at all times solely in the best interests of his principal to the exclusion of all other interests, including the broker’s own self-interest." https://www.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/handouts-and-bro...

Yeah and people are completely honest when they swear to tell the truth in court too...

Good luck proving that the real estate agent just didn’t know about the house they didn’t show you.

Please note: That is for a "real estate broker". Most buyers and sellers are dealing with a "real estate agent". Agent is a lower level license, for which that duty does not apply.
That differences in fiduciary duty does not appear to be the case. For example

"Agents who represent clients under single agency owe a fiduciary responsibility to the client" https://www.thebalance.com/agency-relationships-in-real-esta...

In California, at least, a real estate agent has both common law and statutory fiduciary and fiduciary-like duties.
In practice, no. The broker != agent distinction is key here. And the insulation between actuons of the agent and responsibility of the broker. Additionally the standard paperwork (AFAICT) routinely has the principal waive the brokers duty of representation as well.
At least from the perspective of the legal profession, the scope of "fiduciary duties" of realtors seems relatively constrained. Buyer's and their agent's interests appear to be misaligned. I can't think of other examples of fiduciaries where, the more the principle pays, the more the agent is compensated, like on the buy side of a standard realtor agreement. Fixed fee or hourly comp. would eliminate the misalignment, but my sense is it's disfavored in the industry.
This is so meaningless I don't even know how to respond. Banks have the same responsibility and look how they've treated customers.
In principle.

But do you have an example of that fiduciary responsibility being enforced to any real degree?

You've corrected the buyer vs. seller agent thing, but I still can't make sense of this. The seller was always going to pay the buying agents commission (they hoped to negotiate a lower rate) - so why is that agent hostile to the sale and/or blackballing the listing? The only reason seems to be to protect the system they benefit from, at the expense of the buyers and sellers.

In such a situation the embedded interests (agents) may well be antagonistic to change, but it doesn't mean that change isn't globally a good idea....

There was no sellers agent, why would that commission be paid? They did pay the buyers agent commission (albeit at a lower rate).
I had a situation like that come up a few years ago, and it shocked me. I live in a condo building, I was looking to add a bedroom or two. The wife and I know what we want, and we came quite prepared with a list of units we wanted to see. One in particular, I thought would be very fitting. The agents kind of steered us away from it and showed us a few other units. None of those were quite the right fit, so I pushed the issue, and I was very direct and asked about the other. They both looked at each other and said "oh no, you won't like that one." I kind of tilted my head, but said alright fine and we went on our way- one of the agents was actually a neighbor in my building, so I didn't make an issue of it.

Something about the whole thing bothered me though, and a few months later, after a lack of success finding a new home, I went back and took a look at the listing. I found it, and noticed that I had found it through a zillow link. The lightbulb went off in my head- they didn't want to show it to me.

One thing to keep in mind in real estate transactions though- is that AGENTS REPRESENT THE SELLER. They do NOT have your interests in mind. The seller pays them, and at the end of the day their only motivation is to close the deal. Within limits established by law and regulations, they don't have to mention anything they know that may not help close the deal. Did this place get flooded by the last big storm? Do they happen to know that the plumbing isn't built right and you are going to have constant maintenance problems, or there is a mold problem in the attic? Maybe in a larger multifamily they know the insulation is crap and your heating/AC bills are going to be very high? They don't have to mention this unless you ask directly.

And quite frankly- don't trust a thing they say. If I am really interested in a place, like make an offer interested, I note down everything they say mentally that I can't really verify in a walkthrough. Then I follow up with "Hey Blondey McSalesy, We really loved unit 100 on 5 Some Street. The master bath was nice, and its really unique that the wall is tiled with marble from the North Pole! We really loved it when you told us the roof was made of unobtanium shingles and will last 2000 years. The furnace being a 2021 model made by Spacex, with such super high efficiency, that it will even spit out dollar bills from the vents in the winter, is a huge material factor for us. Based on the information you gave us and what we saw, we would like to make an offer. Let us know if we misunderstood anything!"

> AGENTS REPRESENT THE SELLER. They do NOT have your interests in mind.

Absolutely not true. Buyer's Agents represent the BUYER and have a legal obligation to act in the best interest of the Buyer.

> They don't have to mention this unless you ask directly.

Again, you are mistaken. The Seller and the Seller's Agent are required by law to disclose any known material latent defects in writing...or risk litigation after closing.

The reason I got my real estate license was to bypass the outrageous fees and my lack of trust of Realtors. But in doing so, I've come to realize that Realtors do bring a certain level of ethics to an industry which is extremely prone all types of shenanigans. I imagine without Realtors there would be a lot more litigation since the public is largely unaware of laws regarding disclosures, discrimination, kickbacks, etc.