Estate Agents Bill Passed

[Sam Lee Poh Huat 0]

At times i prefer agents to say no co-broke than say can co-broke, then start all the monkey biz. Cos when the open house starts you'll notice that some how the other agents who came with their buyers, typically comes back without an offer. So strange. Even had a buyer's parents who was so keen on my place and was chatting with me to check on details of my reno done. Then when i ask my agent if this particular buyer made an offer.....it was No! Found it strange.

Conflict of interest is an issue that all home sellers/buyers have to deal with carefully. If you notice any monkey biz going on, don't be afraid to confront the agent. I missed out on a good deal b'cos seller's agent block us. Only found out when i happen to speak to the seller when i bumped into the family. We made an offer that match what the seller was asking, but seller says they didn't receive any offer from us (as told by agent) But they did manage to get the same price, but it is their agent's direct buyer.

Thats why i said it could be a double edge sword when the art of negotiation overtakes by greeds. But even as a direct buyer (like myself), I was always held ransom by some seller agents who wants their commission from me and yet offer only a few grand discount off COV.

[Sam Lee Poh Huat 0]

Even if the bill that 1 agent can only represent 1 side (either buyer or seller) is passed, agents can bypass it. Seller agent can get their partner to represent the buyer at the HDB appointment, and still reap commission from both buyer and seller.

On a 2nd thought, there's no way for seller agent to send in their partner as long as direct buyer has not sign their commission form AFTER exercising OTP.

[gimz63251073 0]

The only way is to fine the agent if they have been found to "hide offers from buyers". As agents, they have a duty to get the best deal for the owners, not themselves.

Fine, demerit point system, then suspend licence. Now they have a central database, its easier to enforce.

[manutd1972 1]

basically to protect everyone (sellers, buyers, agents), the CEA shld have instituted 2 rulings. not guidelines, which dun need to be followed strictly, but rulings which MUST BE followed.

1) each agent can only represent one party.

2) should the 2 agents involved in the deal come frm the same company, this fact MUST BE made known to both sellers and buyers before signing of OTP, and only when and if both sellers and buyers are comfortable with this fact, should the deal be done, OTP signed and money changed hands.

3) all agents shall be due an agent's fee of 1% of the transacted price of the property, payable only by the party they represent. however, the client is entitled to, but not obligated, offer their agent more than the 1% accorded should the client so wish to.

so no under the table money, no cutting of corners, no double income and hence unethical practices, no conflict of interests, and no under-cutting. make it a fixed percentage, solve so many problems. den agents will have to differentiate themselves thru their service levels. this will help to improve the service levels of the industry, weed out half-past-six agents and those who're not willing to put in effort to serve their customers properly. so that those agents left still practising in the industry, can really be called professionals in their line of work. hence, we consumers wld also not begrudge them their agent's fees. in fact, some of us may even be willing to pay our agents more than 1% if u're really impressed by their service levels.

these 3 rulings are something that i had hoped the CEA would have implemented. but alas, such g*** agencies still prefer to cover their a**, instead of getting their hands dirty involved in the nitty gritty of stuff and do their part to try and pre-empt potential mini-minefields, if u can call them mini-minefields.

[Plastic3 0]

basically to protect everyone (sellers, buyers, agents), the CEA shld have instituted 2 rulings. not guidelines, which dun need to be followed strictly, but rulings which MUST BE followed.

1) each agent can only represent one party.

2) should the 2 agents involved in the deal come frm the same company, this fact MUST BE made known to both sellers and buyers before signing of OTP, and only when and if both sellers and buyers are comfortable with this fact, should the deal be done, OTP signed and money changed hands.

3) all agents shall be due an agent's fee of 1% of the transacted price of the property, payable only by the party they represent. however, the client is entitled to, but not obligated, offer their agent more than the 1% accorded should the client so wish to.

I like your suggestions, just to add...

1] this will likely be implemented

2] this will happen quite a lot as around 80% of Agents come from the big 4 Agencies, I always bump into Agents from the Agency i'm with and I have never met most of them before

3] CEA will not limit the service fee as they want fair competition, can be pros & cons for both Consumers & Agents

[zoukbird 0]

I like your suggestions, just to add...

1] this will likely be implemented

2] this will happen quite a lot as around 80% of Agents come from the big 4 Agencies, I always bump into Agents from the Agency i'm with and I have never met most of them before

3] CEA will not limit the service fee as they want fair competition, can be pros & cons for both Consumers & Agents

Wow, well said, but i figure service fee is never gonna be equal too

[manutd1972 1]

3] .....can be pros & cons for both Consumers & Agents.....

tt's why i say set a standard. so thr's no possibility of pros and cons. eliminate once and for all, the opportunity for ambiguity and the situation where sometimes this is a pro, and at other times, its a con.

as far as competition is concerned, i dun see a problem. CEA is looking at it only frm the $$$ angle (why am i not surprised?). agents can compete based on service levels. agencies can compete based on during- and after-sales support.

to a lot of pple, they may think tt there isn't much scope of differentiation as far as an agent's service is concerned. but if one thinks wider, there is a lot more tt an agent can offer besides arranging viewings and doing the necessary paperwork after a deal is signed. we need to think out of the box.

the govt is always telling us to be creative and think out of the box. well, this is a perfect opportunity to let 30,000 people do so. but wat do they do? they choose not to do anything. let market forces dictate. ya rite! den when agents under-cut each other and offer those $500 commission, or worse still $0 commission, den cos they're not getting anything frm the deal, the natural attitude is to be bo-chap and give slip-shod work, consumers suffer again and the number of complaints rise again. back to square one. idiots! dim-wits! spineless a**es!

want to take action? den take firm action! nip the problem in the bud. dun put in half-hearted solutions and den after some time when it becomes obvious that it hasn't solved the problem completely, start changing the rules again.

besides, 1% service fee here is peanuts compared to what estate agents in other developed nations get for their deals. granted, property prices in some of these countries may not be as high as ours, but they also dun have that many public housing units like we do. its mostly landed properties for them and even if it costs $250,000(can u seriously find a landed property at tt low a price in say, Australia, Europe or US?), assuming an agent's fee of 3%(i use 3 as an average), it works out to $7,500 for the agent. we would have paid only $2,500 here! and we're expecting our agent to do this and do that, and basically everything else to protect our interests? for a puny $2,500 in a $250,000 deal? we must be nuts! at tt low fee, they still dun see it fit to fix a standard percentage? wat more can anyone say?

i give up....