February 2009 Archives

There has been a lot of discussion of late on real estate blogs regarding buyer agency and the plusses and minuses of working in a buyer agency-only firm (Exclusive Buyer Agency) versus practicing buyer agency in a brokerage that also includes seller agency.

The main theme around these threads is how to get the consumer to trust, and thus demand, their own representation. The proponents of Exclusive Buyer Agency argue that the problem of trust would be eliminated if the public could understand the advantages of having an entire office that just practices buyer agency. Practitioners of buyer agency in traditional brokerages (those that have both buyer and seller agents in the same firm) argue that with the advent of designated agency, practicing buyer agency in a traditional firm no longer presents a conflict of interest.

The problem with this discussion is that both sides miss the larger issue. The true disconnect for the buyer in understanding, and thus demanding, representation dates back to the mid 90's when our boards and associations started asking us to shift from a sales role (move the product) to a fiduciary role (represent the client). While they asked us to change our role with the client, they failed to examine our traditional compensation model which by it's very nature sets up an inherent conflict of interest: how in the world can you act as a fiduciary and give truly objective counsel when you are being paid contingent on the client's actions that you're advising them on?

I would like to know your thoughts about working as a consultant in a traditional brokerage. Does this course help brokerages to adapt to these new businesses practices? As for myself, I am completely sold on consulting, but would like to know more about how other real estate firms are adopting the new models.

HL - Texas