Why to choose - or not choose - a dual agent in real estate

Interesting how things seem to fall into place all at once.

Over the last several days, including just three hours ago, I’ve talked with three sellers, and one buyer, about single agent dual agency and I won’t participate in it. I’ve said before that if an attorney can’t represent both sides, why can I? Then, I see this post on BlogByTheBay.com about the perils of dual agency.

Consider (bolding mine):

There are plenty of agents who are happy to represent both sides in a transaction since they earn twice the commission, but there are a number of us who refuse to “double end”, and for very good reasons. Real estate transactions are complicated, and can involve quite a bit of negotiation. No matter how ethical and competent you are it’s impossible to negotiate effectively with yourself. An agent’s job is to act as an advocate not a mediator, and there’s no way one person can simultaneously be an advocate for two sides with opposing interests.

Opposing interests. It’s no secret that a buyer wants to buy for as little as possible in the market environment, while a seller wants to sell for as MUCH as possible in the market. How can I represent opposing interests and help each side accomplish their goal?

I can’t, and I won’t. If that’s not what a buyer or seller wants, that’s okay … I can sleep at night knowing I did what was right for the transaction. I know that I have colleagues – many of them – who feel differently, and that’s fine as well. But to all of us, buyers, sellers, and agents – I hope we’ll choose to think carefully about whose interests are really being represented before entering into a dual agency relationship.

This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.