Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Stuck on the East Coast, hoping to head West
4,641 posts, read 11,981,509 times
Reputation: 9889
Advertisements
I only did a quick read-thru of this article, but it appears that MD passed a new law that pretty much requires both buyers and sellers to use agents and it also serves to protect agent commissions.
If you go to an open house without a buyer's agent, the agent there will try to get you to sign a form saying you acknowledge they represent the seller. They're also supposed to post a big sign stating that. Then you are supposed to not tell that agent if you're qualified to buy the house, how much you can afford, etc.
As a seller, I don't show my house to people who aren't qualified. I don't care if my buyers have an agent or not. I'm certainly not going to require them to sign a form before they even see my house. Then again, I don't use open houses. But still.
It also says that agents should require a buyer to sign an agent agreement (to last as short as a day) before they are ever shown a house. As a buyer, I'm certainly not going to sign any agreement with another agent. I don't need a buyer's agent. I have an attorney.
All of this is to protect agent commissions. Agents are required to buy or sell, but this law sure does encourage everyone to use them. Ridiculous.
The law is written under the guise of protecting consumers, but from where I'm saying it is nothing more than a law protecting agents' commissions and a way to drum up more business for the agents.
I only did a quick read-thru of this article, but it appears that MD passed a new law that pretty much requires both buyers and sellers to use agents and it also serves to protect agent commissions.
If you go to an open house without a buyer's agent, the agent there will try to get you to sign a form saying you acknowledge they represent the seller. They're also supposed to post a big sign stating that. Then you are supposed to not tell that agent if you're qualified to buy the house, how much you can afford, etc.
As a seller, I don't show my house to people who aren't qualified. I don't care if my buyers have an agent or not. I'm certainly not going to require them to sign a form before they even see my house. Then again, I don't use open houses. But still.
It also says that agents should require a buyer to sign an agent agreement (to last as short as a day) before they are ever shown a house. As a buyer, I'm certainly not going to sign any agreement with another agent. I don't need a buyer's agent. I have an attorney.
All of this is to protect agent commissions. Agents are required to buy or sell, but this law sure does encourage everyone to use them. Ridiculous.
The law is written under the guise of protecting consumers, but from where I'm saying it is nothing more than a law protecting agents' commissions and a way to drum up more business for the agents.
I wonder if other states have similar laws.
If I were you I would reread more closely, at no point did the article say anything about disclosing how qualified you are to buy the house. As for a signature that was the old method, signing a form stating you understand who the agent works for, and the different types of agents in MD. The new law is saying just post a sign, saying who the agent represents. It is making it easier for agents and not requiring a signature of guests at the open house.
As for you, a buyer, signing an agreement, again the quick read-thru failed you. Directly from the article,"When a buyer asks a real estate agent for assistance in finding a home..." You do not have to sign any agreement, but the agent will not help you find a house, you will need to find it on your own. If you ask for help, "presumed agency," is gone and agents are encouraged to get an agreement.
From where you are sitting, what you posted and what the article states are two very different things. Your personal views have clouded reading comprehension. Being open, honest, and clear about who represents who, and when, is what makes process work better. That is what this new law does.
I only did a quick read-thru of this article, but it appears that MD passed a new law that pretty much requires both buyers and sellers to use agents and it also serves to protect agent commissions.
If you go to an open house without a buyer's agent, the agent there will try to get you to sign a form saying you acknowledge they represent the seller. They're also supposed to post a big sign stating that. Then you are supposed to not tell that agent if you're qualified to buy the house, how much you can afford, etc.
As a seller, I don't show my house to people who aren't qualified. I don't care if my buyers have an agent or not. I'm certainly not going to require them to sign a form before they even see my house. Then again, I don't use open houses. But still.
It also says that agents should require a buyer to sign an agent agreement (to last as short as a day) before they are ever shown a house. As a buyer, I'm certainly not going to sign any agreement with another agent. I don't need a buyer's agent. I have an attorney.
All of this is to protect agent commissions. Agents are required to buy or sell, but this law sure does encourage everyone to use them. Ridiculous.
The law is written under the guise of protecting consumers, but from where I'm saying it is nothing more than a law protecting agents' commissions and a way to drum up more business for the agents.
I wonder if other states have similar laws.
I can't see the article since I don't have a subscription, but it sounds like they are trying to clarify agency for buyers. So, when I show my listing to an unagented buyer one of the first things I say is, "I represent the seller. Anything you tell me about your motivations or finances, I am required to share with the seller by law. So if you tell me that your mom lives down the street and that is why you want to buy this house, I will share that with the seller as to your motivations for wanting to buy this property."
It sounds like putting up the big sign is a way to try and remind buyers that the agent at the open house represents the seller and has fiduciary duties to them. You would be amazed at how much personal information potential home buyers talk about with people that don't represent them.
You don't have to use a buyer agent if you don't want to. They are saying that if you want to use one, a buyer agency agreement should be signed as a matter of good business practice. Just like we get listing agreements signed for sellers. Some states require them, and I think all states will eventually. If you have a fiduciary duty to someone, it makes good business sense to have an agreement to represent. Otherwise, there is no requirement of confidentiality, loyalty, etc.
Either is fine, but they just want buyers to understand if they are represented or not. It has nothing to do with protecting commissions, but has everything to do with not sharing things that would not be in your best interest, as a buyer, in negotiations.
Clearly, the law is only a positive development for consumers, for sure.
Elimination of "presumed agency," and requiring a definitive disclosure, and definitive election to engage an agent, will only clarify for the consumer, not penalize them.
Of course, as I have posted multiple times here, no buyer should sign an agency agreement without an escape clause, similar to: "Either party may terminate this agreement at any time prior to location of suitable property."
And, I like that much better than the one day agreement or the limited number of homes.
I only did a quick read-thru of this article, but it appears that MD passed a new law that pretty much requires both buyers and sellers to use agents and it also serves to protect agent commissions.
Sorry, but the article didn't say that at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverfall
I can't see the article since I don't have a subscription, but it sounds like they are trying to clarify agency for buyers.
I couldn't read the article initially, either. I did a Google search of the title and was able to access it that way (without being blocked by ads or needing a subscription).
You are correct, however, in that the article was merely about clarifying agency roles for buyers. (Nothing nefarious.)
I only did a quick read-thru of this article, but it appears that MD passed a new law that pretty much requires both buyers and sellers to use agents and it also serves to protect agent commissions. How do you figure. Nowhere does it state or even imply anything remotely similar to this.
If you go to an open house without a buyer's agent, the agent there will try to get you to sign a form saying you acknowledge they represent the seller. They're also supposed to post a big sign stating that. This is a clarification of agency laws designed to protect the consumer. Too many buyers were sharing information with the agent not realizing the agent only represented the seller. SC and several other states have similar disclosure laws and forms. Then you are supposed to not tell that agent if you're qualified to buy the house, how much you can afford, etc. Not what it says at all.
As a seller, I don't show my house to people who aren't qualified. I don't care if my buyers have an agent or not. I'm certainly not going to require them to sign a form before they even see my house. Then again, I don't use open houses. But still. How is this relevant to disclosure laws? Also, as a FSBO agency disclosures don't apply to you anyway.
It also says that agents should require a buyer to sign an agent agreement (to last as short as a day) before they are ever shown a house. As a buyer, I'm certainly not going to sign any agreement with another agent. I don't need a buyer's agent. I have an attorney. The buyer signs an agency disclosure and if they elect to hire an agent they would sign an agency agreement stating the terms of the hire. It was quite clear that you aren't required to have an agent at all or you could sign one for a short time period or even address specific.
All of this is to protect agent commissions. Agents are required to buy or sell, but this law sure does encourage everyone to use them. Ridiculous. The law is written under the guise of protecting consumers, but from where I'm saying it is nothing more than a law protecting agents' commissions and a way to drum up more business for the agents. Quite the opposite. It's designed to protect the public from shady agents. What is ridiculous are the conclusions you've drawn.
I wonder if other states have similar laws. SC does.
I was able to read the article. Either you didn't actually read the article, your reading comprehension is poor, and/or you have so little real estate knowledge you shouldn't be trying to interpret things for yourself.
I only did a quick read-thru of this article, but it appears that MD passed a new law that pretty much requires both buyers and sellers to use agents and it also serves to protect agent commissions.
If you go to an open house without a buyer's agent, the agent there will try to get you to sign a form saying you acknowledge they represent the seller. They're also supposed to post a big sign stating that. Then you are supposed to not tell that agent if you're qualified to buy the house, how much you can afford, etc.
As a seller, I don't show my house to people who aren't qualified. I don't care if my buyers have an agent or not. I'm certainly not going to require them to sign a form before they even see my house. Then again, I don't use open houses. But still.
It also says that agents should require a buyer to sign an agent agreement (to last as short as a day) before they are ever shown a house. As a buyer, I'm certainly not going to sign any agreement with another agent. I don't need a buyer's agent. I have an attorney.
All of this is to protect agent commissions. Agents are required to buy or sell, but this law sure does encourage everyone to use them. Ridiculous.
The law is written under the guise of protecting consumers, but from where I'm saying it is nothing more than a law protecting agents' commissions and a way to drum up more business for the agents.
I wonder if other states have similar laws.
Wow. If that's true, that would kill a real estate market in a hurry. I'm not signing an agreement with an agent just to view a house. If the seller won't allow it, I guess they won't be selling their house to me.
This may lead to a FSBO market, so that sellers have the right to show their home to anyone they want to. Which is their right, since they own the property.
As a buyer, I like open houses. Less chatter by agents, less hassle, don't feel the pressure to linger to give it a good look (I feel at least a bit of pressure when using an agent as a buyer, since an agent took the time and paid for gas to show me the house). I can go more quickly from house to house and check them out. I would go back for a more serious one-on-one appt viewing, if it looked like a strong possibility.
It's never a good idea to let too much of your business known to any agent, IMO.
Wow. If that's true, that would kill a real estate market in a hurry.
I read it on the internet SO IT MUST BE TRUE!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
