First of all Greg, my wife’s cat now officially hates you. Today it was hazelnut. Reintroducing yourself to Russell was perfection. 🙂
But on to persuading the unpersuadable. Galileo faced down the most powerful institution outside of government that insisted the earth was the center of the universe. The church was terrified of the perception that what Galileo said seemed to contradict the Bible, which of course it did not. The church just recently apologized for its actions – and only centuries after schools first began teaching fourth graders that Galileo was 100% correct.
Principle – Perception may be ‘reality’ to a thirsty man in the desert, but the water still isn’t there.
Principle – False logic will always eventually be proven as such. Thirsty man discovers this by way of a mouth full of sand.
Principle – When the universe in which you operate disagrees with you – it’s possible you might be mistaken.
Gravity, when applied, works every time. However, much like dual agency, the consequences of applied gravity are not always desired. If I jump from a two foot ledge I’ll probably survive. If I fall or am pushed from the balcony of a 10th floor office window I probably won’t. Gravity is ruthlessly consistent. The consequences of its use are universally predictable. The apple, no matter how many times it falls from the tree, will never fall up.
The ‘angelic’ school of dual agency has its foundation in a false premise. The man who either accidently fell, or was pushed from that window either accidentally caused his own death, or was murdered. Gravity, like dual agency, has no will of its own. There are infinite examples available illustrating this. I’ll use just one.
You may use a gun for target practice. Or to acquire food through hunting. Or to avoid your wife getting half of your net worth. The gun didn’t do any of those things. The person shooting the gun did them. That’s a principle, and the gun doesn’t have an opinion. Even when my wife kills me accidentally while cleaning her gun, am I not just as dead as the murder victim?
Greg and other opponents of dual agency base their position on the inherent potential for wrong doing. That’s a slippery slope from which they’ll never escape. Since our industry is based on honest representation, i.e., integrity, by definition it follows that sans honesty, real estate fails as an industry. But it’s still here and thriving. It has evolved into many different forms while I’ve been licensed. The creation of franchises, profit sharing, buyer’s representation agreements, the MLS, and the internet for heaven’s sake have all had their say in changing real estate as an industry. And the industry still thrives.
Dishonesty, when it becomes the rule, will cripple or destroy any industry. That hasn’t happend to ours yet, and though dishonesty is certainly deployed in the use of dual agency, it still thrives. How is that possible? Are there more angels than devils? Has Good finally won its battle against Evil? The ‘angelic’ school of dual agency falls flat on its face when facing another principle.
Principle – The mere existence of potential dishonesty does not make dual agency evil.
If that weren’t true than agency by its very definition would be evil. The fact that both parties may or may not be separately represented does not by definition mean they’re being ill-served. Greg brings up the low ball offers he employs for many of his buyers. I’ve been faced dozens of times with buyers insisting on making that kind of offer on one of my listings. I can remember more than a few buyers who demanded it with the obvious assumption I’d refuse. I simply told them they were free to have me make whatever legal offer they desired, and I would comply. Since I operate under the premise that most of my clients have IQ’s higher than room temperature, their response wasn’t a concern to me. You see, I believe dual agency has no power to overcome intelligence.
Greg’s position on dual agency is based upon the following beliefs:
1. The client has the potential to be injured by an agent who isn’t an angel.
2. If he is the listing agent he can’t compose a low ball offer.
3. If dual agency can ever be abused via bad agent intent, then it is universally a bad idea.
4. The perception of the public favors an agent who refuses to participate in dual agency.
Let me knock these down one at a time, which shouldn’t prove inordinately difficult.
1. The client has the potential to be injured by an agent who isn’t an angel.
If this is accepted universally then we must repeal the law of gravity. It also is employed daily by those not possessing either wings or a halo. This belief requires all agency to be eliminated due to the potential for abuse.
2. If he is the listing agent he can’t compose a low ball offer.
What, your forms software won’t work? There is no eithical prohibition to making low ball offers if the buyer insists on it. That offer doesn’t make you unethical Greg, it makes you an agent. If the buyer accepts it against his own judgment, it makes him a moron. You’re not responible for the morons of the world, and neither are Russell and I.
3. If dual agency can ever be abused via bad agent intent, then it is universally a bad idea.
By that definition all agency is a bad idea as it can all be abused by bad intent. Using that approach, marriage is a bad idea. Government is a bad idea. Baby sitting is a bad idea.
4. The perception of the public favors an agent who refuses to participate in dual agency.
I’ve apparently missed that tsunami of negative public opinion. I assume Russell’s sales for this year will result in maybe 30-60% dual agency. Yet how many past clients refuse to do business with him? At last count he has a list exceeding 4,000. He must make the angel Gabriel look like a piker. 🙂 For God’s sake an attorney decided dual agency would aid in the potential sale of his home, and listed with him.
The final false premise Greg, is that Russell and I must ‘persuade’ you that dual agency is universally good rather than evil. Shame on me for accepting that in the first place. My sainted grandmother, God rest her soul didn’t possess perfect righteousness, but there wasn’t a person who knew her for more than a day who wouldn’t be happy to have had her as their agent, dual agency or not.
You haven’t proved to either Russell, Ardell, or me, that dual agency is inherently injurious to our clients. What you’ve said is it has the potential to be. Sans genetic law, I had the potential at 55 to have a full head of hair, but I don’t. An argument against dual agency based on the potential for agent abuse, or the public’s perception, or that it sometimes results in unethical behavior, is doomed to failure.
As for the public’s outcry on this subject, I’m deafened by the silence.
Please put forward an argument which logically stands alone. And Russell and I, as you have noticed by now, won’t defend our positions based upon the potential for evil. Angelic behavior is not a requirement to make a living in real estate. Bad behavior is punished. The drunk driver is punished, but you and I aren’t prohibited from drinking because of the drunk driver’s sin.
Ayn Rand said it best: If the results you wish continually fail to materialize – check your premises.
Doug Quance says:
LOL
You’re getting more out of Greg’s post than I did, Jeff!
I’ll let him speak for himself, but I think the thrust of his argument wasn’t so much that bad people can do bad things – it was that as a Dual Agent, you can not be a full contact advocate for your client.
Personally, I don’t like to have an unrepresented party in the transaction. I feel like I’m walking on eggshells.
Of course I am careful to treat the buyer fairly… but I am not an advocate for the buyer – and that, alone, makes me uncomfortable.
November 19, 2006 — 10:29 pm
Todd Tarson says:
I love loyalty, and I probably am loyal to a fault on occasion. Just this past weekend of watching college and pro football, my teams that I have loved since I was a little kid… killed me (see Michigan on Saturday and the Philly Eagles on Sunday… seasons are over for both).
Okay the point here is who am I loyal to in dual agency?? Can I possibly be loyal to both clients equally?? I say yes, but only because I know how to do my job. But as Doug alludes to above, there is a certain amount of being uncomfortable in the dual agency scenario. We all know that emotions from our clients run amok throughout the transaction process and I find it hard to be everything to all parties involved. No one can blanketly trust another person in my view and that is what we ask our clients to do when we are in dual agency… trust me.
But sellers and buyers automatically don’t trust each other… and why should they??
I’ve been told that when I’m in dual agency my loyalty is to the transaction and not to either client. That means I’m loyal to a product made from trees with some carbon toner placed on it in a uniform manner. Documents don’t smile, they don’t shake hands, and they don’t thank you for a job well done… but my clients do.
It’s simply a choice for me in MY business. I won’t tell another agent not to do dual agency… I don’t make the same promise to clients though.
November 20, 2006 — 8:43 am
Jeff Brown says:
Todd – I feel your pain. Michigan really player their hearts out.
The Chargers showed the world what offence is all about. Is LT the best ever, or what? And we didn’t even have our two best guys on defence. The rematch should be fun.
>But sellers and buyers automatically don’t trust each other… and why should they??
When the buyers share a common fear, which is the potential loss of the tax deferred status, they tend to bond. It’s like two ranchers in a cowboy flick who are feuding. Once the Indians attack, they become like family in an instant.
The reward for working together is so large, cooperation becomes a no-brainer. I’ve not had one dual agency exchange where the two parties weren’t satisfied with the results.
Loyalty – If my clients are ready to exchange it means they’ve experienced a tremendous increase in their net worth. They will protect that increase, and know I will too. The more successful they become the less dual agency matters to them.
Several clients have told me they not only feel more comfortable with me at the helm for both sides, but they REALLY like not having to compete with other buyers in the offer process. Since they’re under an artificial time stress courtesy of the IRS, this is not a small consideration. And the sellers, also exchanging have repeatedly told me taking a tad less from one of my clients in order to have peace of mind, is well worth it.
You’d be amazed, Todd, how many times my clients have made it a point to ASK me if I had any ‘upleg’ properties listed! They actually prefer that approach if it’s available.
November 20, 2006 — 10:02 am
Todd Tarson says:
Jeff, 1031’s are an entirely different animal. I agree with you immensley on the kind of cooperation you may run into in those scenario’s.
Again, you won’t see me on a stump arguing against the likes of you or Mr. Shaw on your own ability to successfully handle both sides of a transaction. There is a way but that doesn’t always make it right.
I’m coming to my conclusions based on ethics hearings I’ve sat on. I’ve seen the damage and it is not pretty. I doubt that I’d have trouble trusting you as my professional in a property transaction… but as for the vast amount of others out there… well…
The many bad apples are spoiling the bunch, have spoiled the bunch, or will spoil the bunch… it is only a matter of time.
I’d rather see some sort of gate to pass for the masses in our profession before they are allowed to offer this kind of service. But for me, nothing beats going to battle for one ‘side’ and affecting the outcome that the ‘side’ I’m working for hopes for. Whatever money I may ‘lose’ in not representing the other side is honestly made up in knowing that I worked fully for my client and not some set of documents.
Football is just too painful today (for me and my quarterback), but yes LT is the man among boys in a league full of supermen… and it is utterly amazing to watch.
November 20, 2006 — 3:34 pm
Jeff Brown says:
>But for me, nothing beats going to battle for one ‘side’ and affecting the outcome that the ‘side’ I’m working for hopes for. Whatever money I may ‘lose’ in not representing the other side is honestly made up in knowing that I worked fully for my client and not some set of documents.
Todd – I firmly believe you don’t give up a dime. How many referrals do you receive as a result of your tenacious representation? I believe success breeds success.
Where dual agency might come in with your operation is if you decided to become a prolific lister. At that point Russell’s business model of having buyer-specialists under him makes sense, and dollars.
Seriously, a guy with your expertise, knowledge, and work ethic would absolutely steam clean your competition if you modeled Russell. You’d be THE 900 pound Gorilla in Kingman.
Don’t forget to eat way too much on Thursday, and watch football ’till your wife loses consciousness. 🙂
November 20, 2006 — 3:52 pm