zirhk3355 1 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Just one word: BRAVO! --------------------------- Oct 12, 2009 Agents can't wear two hats By Jessica Cheam THE Government is contemplating a move to ban property agents from representing both sellers and buyers of HDB flats -one that has cheered the public and left some agents unhappy. In a key proposal released on Monday to raise standards in the industry, the Ministry of National Development (MND) recommended that this practice is disallowed so that agents are 'not in a conflict of interest'. Currently, many disputes arise because an agent represents both buyer and seller in the same transaction. This prevalent practice in the HDB resale market often results with the sellers' agents collecting a commission from the buyer or refusing to sell to a certain buyer if there is no commission. This practice presents a clear conflict of interest - sellers naturally want the highest price for their property and buyers would want to pay the lowest, said MND in a statement. 'The same agent cannot possibly discharge his professional duties to both equally and represent both their interests fully.' MND noted that flat buyers, however, may need an agent's help in the sale's administrative work, and is proposing that the seller's agent get paid a fixed administrative fee to help buyers process the paperwork. Alternatively, buyers can engage their own agents, or handle the transactions themselves. Agency bosses on Monday admitted that this move might be unpopular with property agents as it will hit their commission cheques but agree that 'this is a move in the right direction'. ---------------------- Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustMortgage 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 If that's the case, would buyers want to find agents to represent them in the future? Find an agent to represent you pay 1%. Go yourself. pay maybe only a nominal fee hundred. Alot to ponder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cboonh 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Good news for home owners and sellers alike. Should Co-Broking be regulated too? I would think there are conflict of interests too. If seller agent and buyer agent "team-up" to share the deal, it might not necessary result in the best deal for buyer, or seller? What do you guys think? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustMortgage 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Good news for home owners and sellers alike. Should Co-Broking be regulated too? I would think there are conflict of interests too. If seller agent and buyer agent "team-up" to share the deal, it might not necessary result in the best deal for buyer, or seller? What do you guys think? How do you regulate co-broking? While we're on this topic, should we regulate exclusivity? I'm all for exclusively representing a seller. BUT when the agent doesn't want to co-broke then is it in the interest of the client? 1) Seller don't want to pay agent 2% only want to pay 1%, hence agent does not want to co-broke because he/she wants higher commission by obtaining the commission from the buyer. 2) Seller pay 2% but agent don't want to co-broke with buyer agent because they want to earn extra 1%. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waileong 0 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 (edited) I think it's a myth that buyer's agent will fight for the absolute highest price for the buyer with the current comm structure. If the average price of a unit in $X, the agent will earn $x commission. Suppose you want $X+10k or even 20K. At most he might earn $100 or $200 more, but he might have to market for another few weeks. Do you think a few weeks of his time is worth $100? They just want to close deals quickly and move on. Edited October 12, 2009 by waileong Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoongf 11 Report post Posted October 12, 2009 Is important to register your comments with the govt. Go to this site to give feedback. http://www.mnd.gov.sg/RealEstateReview/index.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waileong 0 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Exclusivity is a commercial decision-- a promise of higher effort and potentially higher selling price or faster sale in return for an exclusive period. I don't see any conflict of interest. Co-broking is a strange animal. It's not a conflict of interest per se, because by the time the co-broke deal is worked out, the offer has usually been made. But it's kind of like financial advisers who are paid by the bank on sales commissions and not on fees-- do you really trust them to give independent advice? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustMortgage 0 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Exclusivity is a commercial decision-- a promise of higher effort and potentially higher selling price or faster sale in return for an exclusive period. I don't see any conflict of interest. Co-broking is a strange animal. It's not a conflict of interest per se, because by the time the co-broke deal is worked out, the offer has usually been made. But it's kind of like financial advisers who are paid by the bank on sales commissions and not on fees-- do you really trust them to give independent advice? It's not a matter of conflict of interest but rather a question of owing the "duty of care" to the client, in this case, the seller. Exclusivity protects the agent in the sense that they are assured that if they are to help market the property, that they would have some income if it is sold within the said period of time. BUT when agents who have an exclusivity with the sellers and refuse to co-broke with other agents because they want to earn more commission ie) to obtain 1% direct from the buyer Aren't they rejecting the possibility of other agents who might have clients representing them who could be potential buyers? Thus by rejecting co-broke agents, agents who have or do not have exclusivity with sellers are not performing their duty of care. Agents who refuse to cobroke might have or might not have exclusives with the seller but it is a common trend to refuse co-broking. Edited October 13, 2009 by JustMortgage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vowsh 1 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 It's not a matter of conflict of interest but rather a question of owing the "duty of care" to the client, in this case, the seller. Exclusivity protects the agent in the sense that they are assured that if they are to help market the property, that they would have some income if it is sold within the said period of time. BUT when agents who have an exclusivity with the sellers and refuse to co-broke with other agents because they want to earn more commission ie) to obtain 1% direct from the buyer Aren't they rejecting the possibility of other agents who might have clients representing them who could be potential buyers? Thus by rejecting co-broke agents, agents who have or do not have exclusivity with sellers are not performing their duty of care. Agents who refuse to cobroke might have or might not have exclusives with the seller but it is a common trend to refuse co-broking. End of the day, the garment will be benefit from the policies they set in future. They know this is a big business and they want to step in to gain from it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waileong 0 Report post Posted October 13, 2009 Exclusivity and co-broking are mutually exclusive. There's no extra duty of care just because of exclusivity. Duty of care doesn't reduce with co-broking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zirhk3355 1 Report post Posted October 14, 2009 It's not a matter of conflict of interest but rather a question of owing the "duty of care" to the client, in this case, the seller. Exclusivity protects the agent in the sense that they are assured that if they are to help market the property, that they would have some income if it is sold within the said period of time. BUT when agents who have an exclusivity with the sellers and refuse to co-broke with other agents because they want to earn more commission ie) to obtain 1% direct from the buyer Aren't they rejecting the possibility of other agents who might have clients representing them who could be potential buyers? Thus by rejecting co-broke agents, agents who have or do not have exclusivity with sellers are not performing their duty of care. Agents who refuse to cobroke might have or might not have exclusives with the seller but it is a common trend to refuse co-broking. Something on this in ST forum today (lazy to cut and paste); all you need to do is to test call your agent. Act like a buyer's agent, ask your agent if s/he is willing to co-broke to sell your property. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JustMortgage 0 Report post Posted October 14, 2009 Something on this in ST forum today (lazy to cut and paste); all you need to do is to test call your agent. Act like a buyer's agent, ask your agent if s/he is willing to co-broke to sell your property. That's a good way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
