Yes, I acknowledge and understand everything you have said. However, my point is that I am happy to provide the name etc of my buyer *immediately* as long as you provide me a fee. Which would seem to fit your model and keep everyone happy.

Ps Can I suggest that to avoid feeling sick from sharing your sales commish, you might like to focus on listing & work with others who might be able to assist you in finding the buyers. i.e. Especially as listing and selling are two distinct processes and the market is only going to get tougher which means we are going to need a lot more lurv to make it happen for us all!

Best wishes,
Sal :)

To come from your high moral ground position made me feel sick. ie. ‘So, if I have a buyer, and given a listing agent (with the sales Authority) has a legal responsibility to market a property as widely as possible (in order to gain the highest and best buyer)’

Good listing agents have to deal with this sort of rubbish from their competing agents day in day out. Competitors will call sellers direct & tell them that they have a buyer, etc, etc, etc. This can create so much doubt in the seller’s mind, especially if the owner’s price expectations are a bit high.

To shut one of our competing agents up I even offered them 100% conjunction on a property. The proviso was that they had to provide me with the buyers surname that day & those buyers had to be introduced to the property within the next 5 – 7 days. Typically, the agents’ buyer seemed to mysteriously disappear.

In this current market there may be a place for a 10 – 15% buyer referral fee, but to give away 50% of the commission doesn’t make good business sense.

I liken it to the bus company that introduces a bus load of Japanese tourists to a souvenir business. The souvenir business owner pays the bus company a commission but they certainly wouldn’t give him 50% of the sales volume – that would be all of their profit & more.

In this day & age I can’t imagine that you could have a buyer that wouldn’t already know about a property listing if it is displayed on the major portals.

Just a thought Sal Espro. If you are so good at getting the highest price for a seller, in this market you should have good saleable listings coming out of your ears & wouldn’t need to be seeking conjunctions.

Maybe then you could change your name to Lis Tingpro. :)

Thanx for the response.

I was referring to a slight variation of what you have agreed in your last post, viz:
“…conjunctions arrangements are mostly agreed to in writing before the inspection even takes place”. i.e. I wouldn’t be providing you with a buyer unless I had a written agreement that you would provide me with a success-based fee on the sale. However, while I might be recognised as a conjunctional agent, I would actually be presenting a buyer after the original listing process had been completed.

So, if I have a buyer, and given a listing agent (with the sales Authority) has a legal responsibility to market a property as widely as possible (in order to gain the highest and best buyer) – c/- advice from the Property dept of a large national law form, then it would seem highly likely that I could gain agreement for a success-based fee from most listing agents.

This happens all the time and that was my simple point in reference to ‘virtual’ agencies. And despite this all sounding MLS’y all this can and does occur without MLS as it’s invidvidual property related as distinct from any property listed anywhere on an MLS system.

Lets just leave the moral argument out of it just for the moment. Please explain a little more on this legal requirement for an agent to pay another agent for introducing a buyer to another agent?

Are you suggesting that this is set in each states legislation or is this a federal matter?

and if this was really the case why do buyers agents not force this tactic on the thousands of “legally bound” agents?

How is an agent “legally bound” to pay an “unrelated agent” for introducing a buyer?

Surely this “unrelated agent” you refer to could not have presented a specific property to a buyer for sale that they do not have for sale but another agent is selling as wouldnt they then be offering a property for sale without due authority?

That would have them break the law not the listing agent being legally bound as you describe would it not?

Now if they did not represent the property to a prospective purchaser what have they actually done to deserve this “morally” and “legally bound” share of the commission. All they could have told them is something along the lines of “I know a property that might suit you that another agent has so I can try and organise with that agent to get you through”.

From my understanding in the US an agent can present a property for sale to buyer without holding an appropriate authority to sell which is how the MLS system is structured, but not in Australia where to represent an owner you need an authority in writing as per each states legislation.

Certainly to present a property in any way in Queensland to a prospective purchaser means you must have the authority in writing. Our administration staff and receptionist cannot even provide information to the public unless they have a salespersons registration.

An agent who “chats” to a buyer about their property requirements first has no moral or legal right to the listing commission on whatever that buyer purchases. God help us all if that ever came in.

In fact in Queensland the authority to sell specifically details if the agent is to entertain conjunctions on the property and at what percentages.

In Queensland conjunctions arrangements are mostly agreed to in writing before the inspection even takes place. What legally binds us is that agreement which is signed by representatives of both offices, not by anything else. Sure you can do it verbally and not in writing but memories of agreed splits fade too often for my liking when there are thousands of dollars at stake.

Thanx for responding as for some reason Glen didn’t.
My point is that of course agents would like to control their listing and sales process from go to whoa. However, if a buyer can be obtained from *anywhere*, including..gasp! wheeze..from another unrelated agent, then they are not only morally bound but also legally bound to act to see whether this might be the best option for their vendor. And then the nature of the agency industry insists that the agent/operative/enterprise, who brings the buyer to the deal needs to be/should be rewarded e.g. The 1% I mentioned in my posts to Glen – and traditionally this has been handled in various ways e.g. fixed $ value or % of the sale price.
Whether the facilitating party in this scenario is ‘virtual’ or not should not matter. And then we can consider listing agents…..

(Ps Sorry you guys didn’t hgain the gist of my posts without engaging your black hats and jack-boots).

Asc Dave mentioned earlier contact any agent in question from their respective website about a property. I will remove any more comments of this nature, unless of course you are trying to make a point.

I do hope it’s the former because I’d like to hear what you have to say.

dave

I am assisting a buyer and they are a prospective purchaser for a property you have listed. If I introduce them to you and they buy it, will you agree to give me 1% of the sale price ?

Rgds,
Sal