Buyers’ brokers in demand
November 04, 2009 11:00AM By Candace Taylor
Elizabeth Lee Sample and Brenda Powers
From the November issue: 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. more
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 or advertisements. 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
buyers broker used to be the underdog ha ha
Comment #1 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Anonymous
Comon TRD. Why would a specific discreet entity that can make a living and avoid the whorism of your blog not want to escape it. You RE "reporters" are soooo plaid out already.
Comment #2 Posted By: Anonymous 11/04/09
Anonymous
if a buyers broker is paid by the buyer, they are legit. if they "represent" a buyer and expect to be paid by the seller ? tell me how that works ?
Comment #3 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
It's common practice, when a commission is built into to a sellers price offered, for that commission to have two parties involved: one is for the selling agent, the other half is for the agent that brings the buyer. Buyer agency simply means that the side normally reserved for the "selling side" is paid out to the buyers agent. While the buyers agent is up front about their fiduciary/loyalty to the buyer, part of that agents responsibility is "fairness" to the seller (a ridiculous offer going beyond a good buy skirts that fairness, IFsuggested by the buyers agent). Buyer agency isn't set up to screw EITHER party- it's set up to provide both parties with an advocate, so that NO ONE gets screwed. The idea is that the fee is offered within the price of the home to lower closing costs for buyers, so is in the price of the house, so that it can be financed- it's traditionally paid by the seller for that reason. BUYER AGENCY IS NOT PREDICATED ON A BUYER PAYING A BUYERS AGENT OUT OF POCKET FOR THE SERVICES.
Comment #4 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
My apologies: should have read: "one is for the listing agent." And one more clarification (sorry if it's boring, but it's important to some): the buyer, when they purchase a propety with the commission built in, is in fact paying part of the fee. That's why it's not right to force a payment directly from the buyer, while at the same time expecting them to pay the "selling agent" fee built into the price of the place that they're likely financing. A buyers agent, in the presence of a seller unwilling to pay a buyers agent, but willing to pay an agent separate of the listing agent, needs that add'l "fee" that is in the price of the house eliminated in any offer presented, made clear to the sellers as to "why" that has occurred. It's not interference with the listing agents agreement, because they've agreed to cobroke.
Comment #5 Posted By: Anonymous 11/05/09
Anonymous
i see, so the buyers agent owes their fiduciary duty to the buyer, but is paid by the seller ?? isnt that a pretty blatant conflict of interest ? doesnt an agent owe their duty to the party that pays them ?
Comment #6 Posted By: Anonymous 11/06/09