Buyers’ brokers in demand
November 01, 2009 12:00AM By Candace Taylor
Elizabeth Sample and Brenda Powers of Brown Harris Stevens at the Time Warner Center
In Manhattan, buyers' brokers are a secretive bunch. When there's a high-profile sale, the listing agent's name is splashed across the headlines: Brown Harris Stevens' Richard Wallgren, for example, closed the sale of a $37 million penthouse at 15 Central Park West in September; Paula Del Nunzio made news for her record-setting $53 million sale of the Harkness mansion in 2006.
Less well-known are the brokers who represented the buyers. The identities of buyers' brokers are a jealously guarded secret, never listed in public records and often never revealed. That's the way many brokers -- who pride themselves on their discretion -- like it, especially in a market where lavish spending is viewed with disfavor.
Ironically, brokers who represent buyers are taking on a greater significance than ever, even as they're being asked to keep increasingly quiet about their role. Well-qualified buyers are now scarce, and bringing them to the table is crucial to the transaction. Recognizing this, high-end brokers are spending more of their time representing buyers.
"I definitely have more buyers," said Wendy Maitland of Brown Harris Stevens. "If you have real buyers who are qualified, you are in a good position in terms of leverage in this market."
This month, The Real Deal did some sleuthing to find out who the city's top buyers' brokers are, and who has represented the purchasers in some of the biggest sales of the year.
The secret specialty
One reason for the secrecy is that in Manhattan, unlike other areas of the country, there is technically no such thing as a "buyers' broker." Because the seller usually pays the commission, both the listing agent and the broker representing the buyer are sellers' brokers.
Still, some agents work primarily with buyers, while others work mostly with sellers. Until recently, it was viewed as preferable to accumulate exclusive sales listings, but that has changed now that it's a buyers' market.
"I don't have a ton of exclusives right now, and I'm glad, because honestly people are showing and showing and getting lowball bids," said Elizabeth Lee Sample, a senior vice president at Brown Harris Stevens. "It's a tough time to be representing a seller."
Instead, she's been focusing much of her attention on buyers, working not only with individuals, but groups looking to buy entire buildings or blocks of apartments.
"We represent a lot of billionaires," Sample said. "You [have] a lot of superwealthy people coming in and getting steals."
The change in focus has paid off. Sample and her business partner Brenda Powers reportedly represented Russian energy mogul Andrei Vavilov in his recent purchase of a $37.5 million, 8,300-square-foot penthouse at the Time Warner Center. Vavilov had previously backed out of a deal to buy a $53.5 million penthouse at the Plaza Hotel.
Like many of the brokers interviewed, Sample, who lives at the Time Warner Center, declined to talk about her transaction. High-end Manhattan brokers have long prided themselves on protecting the identities of their clients, giving movie stars, royalty or divorcées some measure of privacy when they search for a home.
Now that more buyers are trying to be increasingly discreet (see "Shh!! The art of selling quietly"), that's more important than ever.
"It's part of our duty as a broker," said Maitland. "We have official responsibilities to our clients, and one of them is discretion."
Maitland knows that firsthand. Not only has she recently been doing direct deals at luxury condo One Madison Park, where she and colleague Wilbur Gonzalez are the listing brokers, but she is known to have worked with Madonna for years, and reportedly represented the singer in her July purchase of a $32 million townhouse at 152 East 81st Street.
When asked about that, Maitland was, not surprisingly, mum.
Cagey clients
There are other challenges to working with buyers. Perhaps biggest among them is that buyers are not particularly loyal to their brokers.
"There are some loyal buyers, but you never know when a buyer might decide to call someone else," said Carrie Chiang, a senior vice president at the Corcoran Group, who in 2007 represented the buyers of two condos at the Plaza that closed for upward of $50 million.
Currently she is negotiating on behalf of the buyer of a $16 million condo. She's also recently done direct deals at the Chatham at 181 East 65th Street (for $6.5 million), and Trump Palace on 69th Street (for $5.2 million).
Even agents as high-profile as Chiang must earn buyers' loyalty by demonstrating that they have information buyers can't find through listings Web sites or other brokers.
"When you're being hired by the seller, all you have to do is know the building itself and the comps," Chiang said. To represent the buyer, "you have to really know about each property you're showing them, the advantage of buying one versus the other."
Sometimes, that literally means finding listings that no one else knows about.
"A talented broker will find something that's not really available on the market," said Pamela Liebman, Corcoran's CEO. "You want someone who can call potential sellers and entice them to sell."
Chiang is particularly talented at doing that, Liebman said. "I put her on a buyer recently, and she showed them six things that aren't on the market."
Chiang confirmed that she recently convinced at least one homeowner to consider selling for the right buyer.
Another broker who is skilled in that department, Liebman said, is Corcoran's Leighton Candler. Candler recently represented the buyer of 640 Park Avenue No. 11, the former home of Lehman Brothers CEO Dick Fuld and his wife Kathleen, which had been quietly available since the spring.
"That took a lot of maneuvering, because it wasn't on the market," Liebman said of the $25.87 million deal.
Candler told The Real Deal the transaction was "wonderful for both sides," but wouldn't comment further.
Candler has some of the most important exclusives in the city, including a penthouse at 1020 Fifth Avenue listed for $39 million. But "getting to work with buyers is terrific," Candler said, "because I absolutely love looking at property. I am happy to walk into anyone's apartment at any time."
That's one reason Candler's good at sniffing out homeowners who may be persuaded to sell: she has a knack for remembering homes that were on the market years ago, but never sold, or parents who decided to put off moving until their children headed to college.
"If it's an apartment I really loved, I just don't forget it," she said.
Calm and steady
Of course, the most important element of working with buyers in the current environment is soothing their fears.
"In real estate, everybody's anxious," said Harriet Kaufman, executive managing director at Warburg Realty. As The Real Deal reported, Kaufman represented the buyer in one of the biggest deals of the year: the sale of a $30 million penthouse at 145 Hudson Street that closed in February, at the height of the post-Lehman doldrums. "I try to calm them down," she said.
Another top broker, Prudential Douglas Elliman's Dolly Lenz, advises looking at the situation from the buyer's point of view.
"You have to sit there and think, 'If I were the buyer, what would worry me about this?'" said Dolly Lenz, a vice-chairman at Prudential Douglas Elliman. "Then you can be ready with all that information."
Lenz recently represented Leslie Alexander, the owner of the Houston Rockets, in purchasing a penthouse at Robert A.M. Stern-designed Superior Ink for $25 million. Unlike many buyers who have walked away from deposits, Alexander closed on the unit in September at the same price he'd agreed to pay when the listing was negotiated more than a year ago. But as soon as he closed, Lenz put the unit back on the market for $39.5 million.
She wouldn't discuss his reasons for re-listing it, but said the sale "says so much about the health of Downtown."
Elliman's Suzanne Sealy said, as she sees it, empathy is key to working with buyers.
"I would never put anybody into an apartment that I wouldn't personally live in, or that I couldn't get them out of whole within two years," said Sealy, who once secured a dream home for a customer even though it already had an accepted offer.
Initiative helps a lot when it comes to working with buyers. Kate Meckler, a senior vice president at Sotheby's, recently represented the buyers of a 4,000-square-foot Manhattan loft for around $4 million. The sellers had been dragging their feet because they planned to move to Brooklyn but hadn't found a new place. To help speed things along, Meckler recommended a good Brooklyn broker she knew. In no time, the sellers had found a place there and the sale went through.
The other broker "just didn't think of that," Meckler said.
The Real Deal reserves the right to delete any comment it finds to be rude, obscene, racist, sexist, bigoted, irrelevant or repetitive, as well as inappropriate comments about anyone's personal appearance. The Real Deal does not endorse any comments posted on its Web site nor does it verify the veracity of comments or the identity of posters.
Comments
Anonymous
Gee, I hope that Dolly had a signed buyer agency agreement with the buyer, because if not, she totally violated fiduciary to the seller by selling the property at well under market value (as evidence of her immediate decision to relist it at a significantly higher price). If I were the seller, I'd be all over this one!
Comment #1 Posted By: Anonymous 11/02/09
Broker with a brain
Comment #1 mystifies me on several levels. I will split my thoughts into 2 separate comments because this site only allows 200 words per comment. 1.An agency disclosure form is only required if the property being sold is a 1-4 unit dwelling. Superior Ink is more than a 4-unit dwelling, so the requirement is inapplicable. 2.Comment #1 suggests that Dolly should have had the buyer sign the disclosure agreement in order to release herself from her fiduciary duty to the seller. How on earth can the BUYER release Dolly from a duty she supposedly owes to the SELLER? Of course, the buyer has no “ownership” of this duty and, therefore, can not relinquish Dolly from any supposed duty she owes to Related. All of this assumes, for the sake of argument, that the requirement is, indeed, applicable. However, above, I established that it is not applicable in practice.
Comment #2 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/02/09
Broker with a brain
3. Furthermore, how could a buyer’s broker ever do his/her job, part of which is to help the buyer secure the best price possible, if said broker would be violating his/her fiduciary duty to the seller every time s/he submits a bid that is one cent less than the asking price. The entire role of the buyer’s broker would be read out of existence according to Comment #1. I don’t think Dolly violated any ethical rules in brokering this transaction.
Comment #3 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/02/09
Anonymous
Got to love Brenda and Elizabeth.... they are the best!!! ...from an onsite girl!!!!!
Comment #4 Posted By: Anonymous 11/02/09
Anonymous
I have to wonder whether Comment #4 was posted by Brenda herself. The comment is littered with excessive use of the exclamation point in the exact same way that Brenda writes every single one of her emails. I have never seen anyone use the exclamation point as inappropriately as this broker. It drives me nuts!!!!!!!!!
Comment #5 Posted By: Anonymous 11/02/09
Anonymous
Broker with a brain, that's your problem: you're overthinking a simple equation. She was either representing the seller (evidently not, based on the relisted price) or the buyer. It was my understanding that agency laws have changed, and that you are, in fact, REQUIRED now to provide the disclosure. Better check your facts, just in case.
Comment #6 Posted By: Anonymous 11/02/09
Anonymous
Elizabeth and Brenda have helped me on so many transactions, as far as comment #5 goes, exclamation points are not, who really cares. They are fabulous at what they do. My family and I are so grateful to have brokers like them help us.
Comment #7 Posted By: Anonymous 11/02/09
Anonymous
To Comment #6: Pls refer to Real Property Law 12-a 443 (f). You are quite incorrect in what you state.
Comment #8 Posted By: Anonymous 11/03/09
Broker W2 Brains
Broker with a Brain is right, but left out 2 points. Just because a property is relisted at a higher price does NOT mean it will get it, or is remotely worth it. And the buyer signed over a year ago, the market has changed, some units are worth more 15 CPW for instance and many are worth less. I have never met Dolly, don't care about Dolly (Sorry if you read this Dolly) And to the one complaining about exclamation points...I like mine!! And I will keep using them!!!! And I am not at BHS!! And I am not Brenda!! And if punctuation drives you nuts...well then your mental state was not on a very solid foundation to begin with!!!! !!!! !!! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Comment #9 Posted By: Broker W2 Brains 11/04/09
Anonymous
Isnt anyone here familiar witht REBNY rule that over rides the state regulations. Buyers broker represents the buyer, not the seller. Someone please come through on this on. Also, could we talk about majority of deals. Meaning 1m and under . This does not represent THE MARKET. These are few exclusive brokers doing few exclusive deals.
Comment #10 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Anonymous
contact rebny on who the buyers broker represents in NYC. Its amazing the confusion that goes on - and then we are all there to do the right thing. How can we if no one even knows how it works. Brokerage is smoke and mirrors and big BS whoever does not know will get eaten up alive
Comment #11 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Anonymous
What's the REBNY rule (not from nyc)- fascinating, the gray areas that consumers face when selling property- who are they supposed to trust? Or, if they can't trust the realtor, why have one at all?
Comment #12 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Anonymous
Why is Elizabeth Lee Sample talking about representing sellers OR buyers, if there is no obligation to do either, per Broker with a Brain, who seems as confused as everyone else? It's not like this everywhere else, so seems really weird.
Comment #13 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Amazed
I get a hoot at reading comments posted with BROKERS THAT SEEM TO THINK THEY HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. EVIDENTLY THEY ARE CLUELESS. I FEEL SADDENED FOR THE SELLERS AND/OR BUYERS WHO ARE HIRING AND/OR WORKING WITH (WHAT EVER THE AGREED SITUATION). Obviously, they are not being represented accordingly. There are not many brokers who use their brain in this industry; most are clueless, as evidenced by comments, yet quick to judge the others who may have a brain and deal fairly and honestly, and abide the rules !!!!!!!!!!!! This industry needs to adhere to stricker rules and regulations and impose the proper sanctions to those who do not follow the rules and do what they have been licensed to do.
Comment #14 Posted By: Amazed 11/04/09
Anonymous
Forget about "fairly and honestly" (subjective): what do brokers in NYC owe the clients/customers they work with, if there are no rules or laws governing condos and coops in NYC? Never heard of that- condos elsewhere are treated the same as sf- agency disclosure is agency disclosure. So, what ARE the rules? No wonder consumers seem to hate realtors there.
Comment #15 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Anonymous
When a broker brings a buyer to a new development they have a brokerage agreement with the seller. In that brokerage agreement thier role is clearly defined as representing the seller. However, if they are functioning as buyer's broker then they need to indentify themselves as such but they rarely do.
Comment #16 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Broker with a brain
To Comment 16: You state that if a broker brings a customer to see a new construction building and s/he is therefore “functioning as buyer's broker then they need to identify themselves as such…” What on earth are you talking about? To whom precisely is this disclosure furnished? Is it furnished to the buyer, who has already hand-selected this particular agent to assist him/her in the buying process? Or is it furnished to the sponsor who apparently might become confused about who the exclusive marketing agency is on his/her multi-million dollar business venture? To Comment 13: You state “Why is Elizabeth Lee Sample talking about representing sellers OR buyers, if there is no obligation to do either, per Broker with a Brain, who seems as confused as everyone else?” You have totally missed my very lucidly developed point.
Comment #17 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/04/09
Broker with a brain
Continued... I never stated that there is no obligation to represent a specific party. I wrote that there is no obligation to furnish one’s customer with a written disclosure of your role in the transaction unless you are selling a 1-4 unit dwelling. I find it ironic that you are claiming that I am the one who is confused. To Comment 10: REBNY cannot override a New York State statute.
Comment #18 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/04/09
Anonymous
was this article meant to advertise some brokers who paid the real deal? not responsible journalism Abe Lincoln said, "you can fool some of the people some of the time,some of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time."
Comment #19 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Anonymous
Broker with a Brain, you are dancing around the question. If you are willing to offer a buyer the status of your representation on single family, or under 1-4, why the reluctance to do the right thing and make your position clear to ALL buyers? That you have a grip on the loophole doesn't make your lack of transparency right, just makes it sleazy. Reliance your local laws to avoid responsibility is hardly using the ethical part of your brain.
Comment #20 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Broker with a brain
To Comment 20: You too have wantonly misconstrued what I have written on this board. I have no problem making my position clear to all buyers. No one, myself included, would be reluctant to clarify to his/her customers that s/he is representing them and working exclusively to further their interests. How could you even suggest that I am espousing this, when it defies logic why any broker would try to hide this fact? This “disclosure” would simply affirm what the customer already knows. There is no purpose in doing this, but certainly no harm either. My point, however, had nothing whatsoever to do with my willingness to disclose to any and all buyers my role as their agent. Rather, I was saying that there is no New York State law to have the buyer sign a written disclosure of the above. As such, Comment #1 is incorrect in stating that Related, as the sponsor of Superior Ink, would have a legal claim against Dolly Lenz for failing to make her position clear to her buyer according to the dictates of the law.
Comment #21 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/05/09
Anonymous
In real estate, if it's not in writing, it doesn't exist. This would apply to disclosure, as well as everything else. Basic.
Comment #22 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
Broker with a Brain posts are obviously posts in defense of Dolly Lenz and in all due respect may be posted by her or her assistant. In such instance, why not just state your name instead of Broker with a Brain, which as evidenced may not be the case.
Comment #23 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
Oh, and just an FYI for Broker with a Brain, if you are "representing" your buyer, they are not a customer, they are a client at that point.
Comment #24 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
If Dolly Lenz had no obligation to represent the seller, and her services were under a buyer agency representation, then she did nothing wrong, provided the seller was aware of her position...unless the original price was unfair to the seller, in which case the only thing violated was to be fair to the seller. The relisted price indicates a problem, but she's better covered against any complaint from the seller if she cya with a buyer agency agreement, provided to the seller- they were entitled to know (not under current NYC "laws", but certainly from a code of ethics perspective) that the buyers interests were foremost.
Comment #25 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
The seller does pay the commission at closing, AFTER the buyer has made an offer that included, IN THE PRICE OF THE HOME, that commission- they both pay.
Comment #26 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
"IF" - don't count on it...remember, it the rules according to Dolly.
Comment #27 Posted By: Anonymous 11/06/09
Broker with a brain
To Comment 22: Your categorical statement is wholly incorrect. The only reason why things of importance must be in writing in real estate is because the law in New York is that there cannot be an oral CONTRACT OF SALE for real estate. Since disclosure is not a contract for the sale of real estate it does not have to be in writing (unless the sale involves a 1-4 unit dwelling). Second, I wonder if you even follow your own rule. Suppose your customer is looking for a second home and you tell this customer that the co-op building you are about to show him allows pied-a-terre ownership. Do you then reduce to writing this representation which is clearly of crucial importance to your buyer? I suspect that you do not and that every other real estate agent in New York would not either. This is because time and good sense do not permit every single representation, important or not, to be reduced to writing.
Comment #28 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/07/09
Broker with a brain
(Continued) If they did, everyone would be spending their every waking moment drafting written understandings of every utterance they communicate. How absurd to even suggest that it is "basic" that everything important in real estate must be recorded in writing. Moreover, what does your statement "In real estate, if it's not in writing, it doesn't exist" even mean? Do you mean that if any understanding related to real estate is not reduced to writing then it is not a valid legal understanding? If this is what you mean, then you are clearly incorrect as I developed above. Or do you mean that it is simply ill-advised not to reduce all understandings in real estate to writing because the existence of an oral understanding can be disputed by the parties and therefore it is AS IF the understanding didn't even exist? If this is what you mean, then this rule applies to any facet of life. Therefore, I don't see why you would qualify this statement with the preface "In real estate."
Comment #29 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/07/09
Broker with a brain
(Continued) You seem to want to impart your expertise on real estate matters, but you are simply stating a truth that a 10-year old could state. Moreover, I established above that taking these precautions, at every juncture with every representation, is simply not practical. Maybe that is why the law does not require them. Basic.
Comment #30 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/07/09
Broker with a brain
To Comment #23: I am neither Dolly Lenz nor anyone affiliated with her. I am not defending Dolly because I have a specific interest in exonerating her. I am coming to Dolly's defense because Comment #1 was so obnoxiously wrong that I had to put the commenter in his/her place. In fact, from everything I have read about Dolly, she has a well-deserved, piss-poor reputation for equanimity, ethics, humility and fairness. If I were Dolly or her assistant, would I be cataloguing her negative attributes for the entire public to read?
Comment #31 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/07/09
Broker with a brain
To Comment #24: For purposes of New York State law, a broker starts to "represent" a buyer at the first substantive contact between the two parties (meaning that first time the two meet in person, talk on the phone or email about working together). Therefore, there is really no point in time when a broker does not "represent" a buyer. Therefore, according to Comment #24's logic, the buyer would always be the broker's "client" and would never be the broker's "customer." But, even Comment #24 seems to accept the possibility that there is a transformative moment in time when the buyer goes from client to customer. Or in other words that there is a point in time when the buyer is, indeed, a "customer." So, now we have a conundrum according to Comment #24's logic. Rather, the truth of the matter is that Comment #24 is creating a false distinction between "client" and "customer."
Comment #32 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/07/09
Broker with a brain
They are one and the same, and for your information Comment #24, common parlance dictates that a buyer is indeed a "customer," not a client. Next time, don't be so hasty to show off your "knowledge."
Comment #33 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/07/09
Anonymous
Broker with a brain, you are wrong. Admit it, and quit digging yourself in deeper.
Comment #34 Posted By: Anonymous 11/11/09
Broker with a brain
To Comment 34: That was a very convincing rebuttal. Your arguments are so cogent and well-reasoned that I guess I have no choice but to admit that I am wrong. Kudos to you on an argument well-fought.
Comment #35 Posted By: Broker with a brain 11/11/09
Broker Anon
to comment # 24, i believe the "client" is the one paying the broker, and that is usually the seller. to comment # 1 what did Dolly do wrong by flipping the property? The buyer stood by the contract, closed, and then re-listed. How does that effect her fiduciary responsiblities? to comment # 34, thank you for making me laugh.
Comment #36 Posted By: Broker Anon 11/17/09