🚀 go-pugleaf

Geoff Gass <glg@tanzenmb.com> wrote:
>Mark Anderson <mea@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>glg@tanzenmb.com says...

>>>seriously, you've never heard of redfin before?  jesus fuck, anderson,
>>>you're an idiot.

>>I'm an idiot because I don't recognize a corporate brand?

>redfin is the best site for looking at RE listings

>>I haven't had a TV in many many years so I'm not up on what commercials 
>>have been implanted into most everyone's subconscious.  The  recent 
>>listings in my neighborhood were the first I've ever seen of Redfin and 
>>that was only recently.  Their radio radio troll for the mathematically  
>>challenged house buyer peaked my interest.

>wtf?  I don't exactly agree with their "refund" moniker, but they're not
>running a scam.  They're just a very low service realtor.  For a seller, that
>means only paying commission to the buyer's agent.  For a buyer, that means
>they rebate (or "refund" in their ads) part of the buyer's agent share to
>the buyer.

I've got to point out that the agent isn't the buyer's agent unless the
buyer and agent have a contract. The agent the buyer is working with
has a fiduciary duty to the seller as a sub-agent of the seller's agent
if that contract does not exist. That means, if the buyer discloses a
material fact (such as how much pressure he's under to move) to the
agent, that fact is supposed to be reported to the seller. It's a
bad deal for the buyer not to have representation in the negotiation.

If buyer and agent have a contract, the buyer's agent still gets paid out
of the proceeds of the sale.

The dual agency concept is bullshit. You can't work for both parties
in a negotiation.