|
Prospecting / Customer Handouts
Court Cases / Ethics Q&A
Buyer's Guides / New Tools
Architecture / Home Trends
Sales Meetings / Profiles
| ||||||
| This article was published on: 08/01/2001 EDITORS’ NOTEBOOK Agency choices abound REALTORS® today are engaging in a variety of agency relationships, in accordance with what their state law allows. The recently released 2001 NAR Member Profile shows that more than 80 percent of REALTORS® represent buyers in at least some transactions: 51 percent use disclosed dual agency for in-house transactions, 25 percent practice single agency (representing either a buyer or a seller, but not both, in a transaction), and 5 percent practice exclusive buyer agency. When I started writing about this business 12 years ago, almost all practitioners represented the seller, either as a seller’s agent or subagent. Buyer representation was being practiced by only a few pioneers, their vision spurred by a Federal Trade Commission study showing that most buyers, 70 percent, thought they were being represented. What’s striking about all this is the way agency practices have evolved as a choice for practitioners. In many states, you can practice exclusive buyer agency, exclusive seller agency, or something in between. In a few states, brokers can form transactional (nonagency) relationships. That freedom is evidence of the enormous influence the national and state REALTORS® organizations have had in shaping state agency laws. In 1993, an NAR presidential advisory group published a report recommending that states adopt nine elements as the framework of their agency law. The PAG recognized the new agency relationships that were being adopted and encouraged states to spell out well-defined duties for each type. In the eight years since the report was approved by the NAR Board of Directors, 41 states have adopted some or all of the nine elements as part of their agency law. Another six states already had some of the elements in their law. The most controversial aspect of the report, in some circles, was that the PAG didn’t come out in favor of single agency. Instead, it encouraged states to give clear guidance on disclosed dual agency. The consensus was that, as long as unambiguous and timely disclosure was made, consumer demand would decide which relationships between brokers and their customers took root. The 1993 PAG recommendations helped pave the way for real estate licensees to form the agency relationships they thought worked best. What the numbers don’t tell us is whether the consumer demand side of the equation has yet been a factor. Will disclosed dual agency continue to hold sway in the years to come, or will single agency predominate? We welcome your views. Please write to us at narpubs@realtors.org. Editor Stacey Moncrieff
| ||||||
