Tni,

Exellent point and well said.

John

Well thank you JB, I hope I was some help. Good luck with the home. I hope everything works out well.

John

James,

You raise an interesting point, and I think you have provided a useful example. I have worked as an attorney, and the number one complaint from clients when I worked in that field was an inability to control their legal fees. And, in fact, it is rather routine to perform legal services for people (to whom you owe duties) who are not actually paying you. Much of the time, private attorneys are paid by insurance companies and their true client is the insured. Conflicts arise often. Public defenders are paid by government localities, yet their clients are criminal defendants. What holds them accountable to their clients? Their professional duties, the standards of care in their field, and most importantly, their license to practice law.

Also, there are plenty of instances where the opposing party is responsible for paying for your legal fees. Such as in contingency fee cases where the attorney does not get paid unless they win, and then it comes out of a settlement paid by the opposing party, or when a contractual dispute arises and the losing party must pay the other side's reasonable attorney's fees. Many times, a statute will impose attorney fees to be paid by the loser and that makes that type of case more appealing to attorneys. In those situations, when the case resolves, your lawyer will have to justify their fees as "reasonable" to the other party despite what you have agreed to pay him or her. And curiously, I’ve found that clients are happiest when they are not paying your fee at all!

I think the medical field also provides another good example of where a professional owes you duties -- yet their bills are paid by insurance companies whose interest is many times adverse to you (i.e. holding down costs in your individual case). My point is this, there is a tendency to see the grass as being greener on another side. Since I've worked for clients on a per hour basis, transaction basis, and also on commission, I see the flaws in each. I’m not advocating for this model for real estate, I think there are problems, but we also have a profession where even those consumers with no down payment, or closing costs can find someone to represent their interests in a real estate transaction – and they get to pick who that person will be.

To your question, shouldn't the buyer be able to negotiate the fee the agent is paid -- I think that is appropriate if they were to pay you out of pocket which most buyers are unable or unwilling to do. You always get the best service and value when you pay up front and in cash. Contingency fee work for lawyers can break the bank as you outlay costs without knowing if it will pay off, and so can working with buyers. When you hire someone on contingency you pay them nothing up front, and they decide if your case is worthwhile and what percentage they will charge at the back end to compensate them for the risk. Agents are doing much the same thing with buyer agency. If you think their percentage is too high – cough up a retainer fee and hire someone else. I think consumers already have that same choice in real estate.

As for contingencies, you can put in many hours and get no compensation – a situation many buyers are pleased with if their efforts at buying are unsuccessful or their motivation diminishes. Honestly, I could see you objecting to this type of arrangement during a boom market -- but right now -- most of my buyers would be paying me more if they paid me per hour or on a transactional basis. Further, first time home buyers and no down payment buyers would be charged more by experienced agents because they take more of their valuable time. As a result I think they would end up getting mostly inexperienced agents to take them on as clients.

I agree that the duties of a real estate broker should be more apparent to agents and also consumers. Overall though, I do think it is too easy to get a real estate license. But, whether agents are aware of them or not, those duties do exist -- there is plenty of case law on them. Professional standards and duties make sure you do your job, regardless of who is paying you. Maybe you should shift your efforts to more education and training and defined standards in the industry? NAR has attempted to do this by establishing various standards and codes for Realtors, and I don’t think it is proper to characterize this as propaganda when they are essentially informing and reminding consumers (and agents) that agents have fiduciary duties. I think they are trying to elevate the impression of the profession and also raise awareness within the profession of existing duties.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Tni

Oh no, I am well on my way to finding an agent. John, You explaining what you do in this situation gives me a huge idea as to what i cant expect or demand. I completely understand your concern when finding a real buyer.

JB, I should have read the question better. But what I would offer is: Pulling the active, just sold, and pending sales, and giving a fair market price for the home. I would negotiate the contract or price, review and explaining the contract, closing cost or net sheet. Meeting the inspector, reviewing the inspection report with you, asking for concessions, or repairs, Meeting the appraisor with comparables in hand making sure it appraisors. communicating with your mortgage broker and the seller's agent, keeping you in time with your contract. Reviewing the Hud. Checking the Hud numbers. Making sure you are not overcharged for closing cost. Doing a walk through with you. Going to closing with you.

JB, showing the house is the easy part.

You feel the last paragraph scares you. Now you know how a Realtor feels when a person calls up and says I want to buy a house and wants to meet you at the house. Again, I am a professional so I have a system for sucess that works very well. I have people meet me at my office for a consultation. I need to focus my energies on people who want service and are serious, so I can provide them with the best possible service.

I am sure you can understand that if you work in an industry, or own your own business. Would you go to work at job (A) if you knew you might, or might not get paid, or job (B) where you knew you where getting paid? Where would you go? I do not know why people see Realtors as someone who shows houses, or works for free. Yes, I work for commissions, but that does not sway me one way or the other in showing my qualified buyers homes. I nurture relationships, or as we say in my office you are either in real estate for a year or you have a career.

I do not want you to take this the wrong way, but your other option is to have an attorney draw up the contract and you can submit it on your own, or have the attorney submit the contract. But they will charge piece meal. The lisiting agent will keep all the commission and you can pay for an attorney. I do not know how many houses you have purchased, but a professional realtor will save you time and money. Thank you for your time.

From my perspective, what john is saying is the what the buyer is scared of....

"In your scenario, if the agent is willing to work for 2% and the listing pays three, then yes then the 1% of the money should go to the buyer. But are you only worth 2%"

Yes and no. I am paying your fee. I am paying the mortgage Why would I feel that you have done the max that %3 is alloted to you. I have researched all of the area, pulled the mls listings, seen the property many times, have the inpector lined up, have financing. At this pt, you have not even shown the house....

In this case, what really are you going to provide to me?

why would i honestly sign exclusively with a buyer?
Most buyers these days are researching on the internet more than i have...

"I know when my client signs a buyer's agreement, I know I have a serious buyer. 100% of my time and attention is going to be focused on that buyer, because I know their commitment to me is 100%. I can only work with so many people, so I want to make sure they are serious in their intentions. The same goes for someone who says, " Sell my house," and I am sure you have had this with FSBO's. How serious are you in finding a buyer for that home knowing you might, or might not get paid? ""

Personally, that paragraph scares me as a buyer. GL sir

James, to answer your last question first. I have no problem telling a buyer what my commission is.

James, well you have a responsibility to point out flaws that are obvious to you as a Realtor, that is your responsibility to the buyer, agreement or no agreement. The buyers agreement is to allow you to, in a nut shell, to work for the best possible price for the buyer. Here in Florida we are all transaction brokers meaning we only put the two parties together. You can not pull comparables for buyers unless you have a buyer's broker's agreement, or give any information as why the client is selling. Basically if you have a buyer's brokers agreement you are then allowed to get the best possible price for your buyer. You are acting as a single agent for the buyer. I believe as realtors the agency relationship is not always understood correctly, so we end up doing things when we are not suppose to. That is where the system is failed.

In your scenario, if the agent is willing to work for 2% and the listing pays three, then yes then the 1% of the money should go to the buyer. But are you only worth 2%

I know when my client signs a buyer's agreement, I know I have a serious buyer. 100% of my time and attention is going to be focused on that buyer, because I know their commitment to me is 100%. I can only work with so many people, so I want to make sure they are serious in their intentions. The same goes for someone who says, " Sell my house," and I am sure you have had this with FSBO's. How serious are you in finding a buyer for that home knowing you might, or might not get paid?

John

Jb, good to hear and good luck. Would love to know how it goes.

Tni, ...what you said about fiduciary duty and all that jazz is the same rhetoric pushed by NAR. My point with the whole post (and perhaps I shouldn't be writing in the wee hours of the morning) was that buyer's agency is a good idea but it has not been properly implemented beyond the name and slapping some rules on it. Since you come from a legal background ... this is my analogy of how the real estate industry is working. Jb decides to take me to court and hires you as his attorney. Well..I need representation as well so I go get an attorney but for whatever reason..Jb and you get to decide how much my attorney gets paid and my attorney will get paid regardless of how well he/she does for me. Yes...on paper my attorney is supposed to represent me in my best interest...but I cannot hold my attorney accountable for anything if his/her paycheck is coming from you and Jb. For true buyer's agency to work, ... shouldn't the buyer get to negotiate the commission or fee that their agent gets paid?

John. Honestly...I don't know what you're talking about with regards to levels of training or seriousness and how that relates to a flawed implementation of buyer's agency....and I'm not too sure about the accuracy regarding what happens when there is no buyer's broker agreement. I have never had a buyer agency agreement signed. I think it's garbage and unnecessarily ties the buyer's hands...(how is that working in their best interest). So if I show a house without an agreement in place and I start pointing out flaws with the place ...I'm violating my fiduciary duty to the seller? Isn't there an implied fiduciary duty to the buyer ..since I am acting and performing my job as the buyer's agent? I think the buyer's agency agreement is merely (in my view) a tool that NAR introduced to try to ensure buyer's agents get paid their "entitled" 3% commission regardless of their performance. Using your example but turning the numbers around. Let's say you signed a buyer's agency agreement and negotiated with the buyer a 2% commission. The house the buyer ends up wanting has committed to pay the buyer's agent 3%. If you take the exact inverse of your example, then the buyer should end up with the remaining 1% right? This is my point with Jb...
If he feels he's done a portion of the work and hires an agent to finish the job ... he should be allowed to negotiate what fee/commission his agent gets. If there's more money coming in ...it goes to the buyer. OR...simply drop the price of the house by what has been committed to the buyer's agent and have the buyer pay the buyer's agent directly.

Here's another question for you then John... do you believe the buyer should know what kind of commission their agent is getting in a transaction? I've been told that it's none of the buyer's business and ...to me..that is wrong on so many levels.

The last quoted post from me, was referrencing keith sorem's post, sry about the confusion.

Wow this has helped me so much and open my eyes you dont even know.

I am meeting with 2 agents this morning. :)

James, you do have a point, but your answer would be for an agent who is not serious about their career. This would be an agent that lacks serious training in providing a service to their client. You always have a fiduciary responsibility to your client, but if you do not have a buyers brokers agreement with a buyer. Your responsibility is to the seller, even if you are not the listing agent on the property. Now if a buyer really wants your full attention, they will be willing to pay whatever commission shortfall there would be in a listing. So lets say that they hire you to receive 3% , and listing is only paying 1.5%. The buyer would make up the difference in commission, if needed. You would then have a buyers agent working for you, if that buyers agent then still wanted to pitch a home that is offering 10% commission, then I believe that comes down to personal morals, and they are not seeing the big picture, that would be unfortunate. Agents like that dimish our business and professionalism.

Buyers need to understand that working with an agent, without a buyers broker agreement, that agent must treat you fairly and honestly, but their responsibility is to the seller. So if you disclose any information. IE: offer $250K for the house, but I will pay $275K if I have to. Then it is that agents responsibilty to the seller to inform them, that the buyer will pay more.

The problem with the buyer's broker agreement, is not that the system is out dated. It is that agents do not explain it correctly, or do not understand agency responsibility.

James,

I am surprised that you've essentially characterized my answer as "propaganda." That's not exactly my thing. Since I come from a legal background, I will allow that I take fiduciary duty more seriously than some other real estate brokers. I consult with my clients prior to every offer to make sure their offer is in line with the market and would not stick my clients into a bad deal to make a quick buck for myself. Beyond the obvious, those kind of deals are just bad business. However, and here we may part company, I do believe even when people are determined to make a "bad purchase" (which does occur) they can benefit from some good advice.

Having an experienced buyer broker with you when you buy is equivalent to having an expert who has bought and sold hundreds of homes help you with your transaction. That agent has seen what other buyers want and can advise you about resale; they've heard the complaints after the sale; and they can help solve the inevitable snags in a transaction. Further, beyond fiduciary duty and expertise, buyer's agents provide a good deal of "service work." -- educating buyers, finding homes, previewing homes, showing homes, attending appointments, and administrative work.

You will notice that in my answer, I asked Jb whether he was receiving a discount in exchange for not using a buyer's agent. In my view, it may then have been worth it to pay separately for the contractual work. But if not, I believe my advice is both practical and sound. Most buyers do not want to pay an attorney up front and out of pocket to draft a contract (and in many cases the residential home purchase contracts they use are the same as the ones Realtors use).

I believe that it is unlikely that Jb would be getting a discount off the price in exchange for not using an agent, because as you acknowledge the commission has probably already been contractually arranged by a listing broker. So why then pay separately for an agent or attorney for a routine contract -- and then lose out on the expertise and service of an agent? Unless you believe that he would likely be worse off by having an agent. And here we may disagree -- if you choose wisely -- having an agent is better than not having an agent. Also, it may be difficult for an agent to simply be hired to "write a contract" anyway since they are not lawyers and merely fill out forms - some brokers would not permit it.

My clients that have resources have no problem with paying me a fee as a consultant or on an hourly basis. Most others consumers (especially first time buyers) simply don't have the means to do that -- they are in effect financing a whole host of services into that purchase. The 6% commission in your example will be paid to the listing broker anyway -- they have a contract, and they do not often decide to hand half over to a buyer -- but they will to another broker. So, why not get some service, expertise, and advice out of it?

To be fair, I realize part of your statement is a normative statement about the industry. And although I don't think you had the opportunity to spell out your proposal fully, I would welcome hearing it. My statement was meant to give this potential buyer the best practical advice with the market in its current form. Jb may not be interested in changing the entire system of compensation in the real estate industry; Jb may just want to buy a house.

Tni

JB,
if you follow the traditional real estate commission model, then both buyers and sellers agent would get the 3% fee each (6% total commission paid by the seller). What Tni says about the fiduciary duty to work on behalf of the buyer is nothing more (in my opinion) than lip service propagated by the national association of realtors.

Here's how real estate worked not that long ago..to the best of my knowledge as I wasn't practicing at that time (i think i was actually in junior high). Buyer's were on their own. Every agent out there was working on behalf of the seller. The traditional commission to sell a house was 6%. At the time, a buyer that wanted to buy a house went to an agent and that agent would show them what listings they (or their office) had, and if they didn't see anything they wanted, they could go find another agent to show what listings they had. Cumbersome indeed for both the listing agent and the buyer. As a listing agent, ... I would only know of a handful of buyers at any given time. The liklihood of one of the buyers I knew of would be interested in one of my listings was ... safe to say... slim. So the idea sprung up that a listing agent could welcome other agents and all the buyers they knew to see if there was a match. In doing so, I as the listing agent, would split my 6% commission with the agent that produced a buyer....thus creating the 3%/3% split between listing agent and buyer's agent (also called the selling agent).

In the 90's (according to wikipedia...referenced below), buyer's agency was created ...that imposed the fiduciary duty that Tni mentions and allowed an agent to work on the buyer's behalf (because before, our client was always the seller). This was a great idea. Too bad it was a half-ass implementation. I describe it as lip service because as you surmised in your latest comment, ...yes... both agents have a benefit if the house sells for more money (although really it's very small incremental benefit. ie..if I got you to pay $5000 more for a place, ... the gross benefit I'd see as your buyer's agent is $150 bucks.). But that's not why I call it lip service. In my opinion, when buyer's agency was created it was nothing more than superficial. Names and titles were created, a few rules were created, but nothing in the financial model changed. The seller and the listing agent is still the one determining the buyer's agent's commission with absolutely no say by the buyer. This was fine ( I suppose) back when it was understood that buyers are on their own (buyer beware!) and the agents involved are working for the seller. But now, you call it a buyer's agent and you publicize these "rules" that a buyer's agent is supposed to follow, ... but ultimately, ...the buyer's agent still has to turn to the seller and the listing agent for the paycheck.

Even today, ...sellers and listing agents will advertise in the MLS huge bonuses and higher than normal commissions if an agent brings in a buyer or gets a buyer to buy the house by a certain date. Not too long ago, a new construction development near me was offering a 10% buyer's agent commission on houses that were in the low $500s. The purpose of this was to get agents to bring a buyer in and sell them and reap a $50K commission. It's one story if the agent had a buyer that was ACTUALLY looking at houses like that, but it's a whole DIFFERENT story if the agent pitched to the buyer to go look at the house when prior to the huge 10% commission, the buyer's agent did not find that house to be a match. Does it work? Of course. So how does THAT fit into the fiduciary duty of a buyer's agent to work for the buyer's best interest. Sorry...it doesn't...ergo...lip service.

My point is we are at a cross-roads in the industry. The industry as a whole wants to cling to the old model. Why wouldn't they? 3% on the average house around here is about half of what some people make in a year! Unfortunately, the needs of the buyer has/is beginning to change drastically. The needs of the seller is also changing. Is there value left in an agent? Sure...I believe I highlighted some in an earlier post. Is it the same value as a decade ago? ... unfortunately no. So the choice agents have today is ... adapt and redefine your value (which ...yes...may include how much your services cost) ... or... stay true to the old way of doing things, keep regurgitating what your broker and what the NAR has taught us to say and face certain extinction. It won't happen next year. It may not happen for another 5 years, ...but it will happen.

Commissions are not set in stone. Just because the seller is contractually obligated to pay the buyer's agent 3% or whatever it is, there are things you can do to make everyone happy (with a cooperating buyer's agent of course).

Tni. no...youre not missing anything..i just dont have all the answers to start with...:)

"""But, there is more. A Realtor has a fiduciary duty to protect you from legal entanglements. That means that his job is to help you not only buy the property, but make sure that you get the "best deal" by negotiating on your behalf."""

I think that paragraph is the major reason people are scared to hire buyers agents in the 1st place. From a person on the outside, a lot of us seem to think that a "realtor" is paid more if the house sells for more. From googling and googling I was under the impression than both the buyers agent AND the sellers agent were alotted a 3% fee EACH. I now know that is not right......

JB,

I'm at a loss. Why would you want a buyer's agent to write the contract if you don't want their assistance throughout the transaction? I would simply hire an attorney to write the contract. Of course, you would have to pay the attorney out of pocket and up front, and the buyers agent would be paid if and only if the transaction closed.

But, if you are willing to rely on a broker for arguably the most important part of transaction, when you have likely already effectively paid for their sevices through an asking price that takes into account the traditional way of purchasing/selling with brokers who are paid a commission, why wouldn't you let them represent you for the rest of the transaction?

Are you receiving a discount for not using a broker who will collect a commission? Again, as both an attorney and a broker, I'm at a loss for what you are gaining by doing things this way. Am I missing something?

Tni LeBlanc, JD, MA, e-PRO http://www.MintProp.com

Hi, Jb,

In answer to your first and third questions, a purchase contract has clauses that are "contingencies" that have to be met, and the buyer and seller are obligated to close the sale unless there appeared a valid problem with a contingency. For example: If the Appraisal came in at less than the purchase price, your agent would have to negotiate to your satisfaction with the seller, or assist you in rescinding the contract. Or you could just buy it anyway. You would be very happy to have chosen your "free" agent, if that happened. :-)

The fact that you already know the tenants may not be to your advantage. The Listing Agent has the job of getting them out of the house before closing, and your agent will need to make sure the house is left in the condition you expect. This would be another "contingency" if I were your agent. In all my experience, you do need an agent from beginning to end on this one. Maybe someday you'll be able to cut corners on a commission, but it would be very dangerous in this market.

Regards,
Jean Bradford

Just to cap off this great discussion.
JB Would you hire YOU to write an offer on a home with YOUR track record?

Your issue is NOT the commission. Your issue is not the fee.

What do DO get is a great negotiator who works for FREE.

But, there is more. A Realtor has a fiduciary duty to protect you from legal entanglements. That means that his job is to help you not only buy the property, but make sure that you get the "best deal" by negotiating on your behalf.

Just based on this post my recommendation is that you meet with a Realtor. Interview them. Discuss your priorities, and see if you can come up with a unified strategy to buy a home that meets your needs.

A good Realtor is hard to find. Once you find them, hang on to them. James would be a good place to start.

WOW thank you James, ...completely answered my question

I'll answer that quote as well:
"Even though the deal looks great at the beginning, there's no guarantee you won't come to some problem that might want you to cancel the sale before closing"

This will depend on the experience/knowledge level of the buyer. I am pretty sure that I as an agent have seen more houses than you as a buyer. I am also pretty sure that I've been through more home inspections than you have. Therefore, I'm pretty sure that I can identify potential problems with a house that the average buyer may not know about or may not even know to look for. I....do NOT ...replace an inspector...but one bit of value that I can bring to a buyer is saving them from the hassle of making an offer, getting it accepted, paying for an inspector and then finding something out that I could have told him on day 1.

What kinda stuff? LP siding failing or not, potentially bad roofs, indicators of water damage, aspects of the house or location that will hurt (or help) future resale value, etc.

There is an intrinsic value in using a knowledgeable agent, ..sometimes it's simply holding a client back from making an erratic and emotional decision. However, every client's needs are different and should be approached differently.

JB, the commission is not added onto the final negotiated sale price. It's typically a percentage of the final sale price. Saying that the services of a buyer's agent is free to the buyer really is misleading. Yah yah, ...the national association of realtors have been feeding that to the public for years, but it's not the whole truth. If you follow the money trail in the strictest sense, yes...the commission to both listing and buyer's agent comes from the seller's proceeds of the sale. The commission being paid has been pre-negotiated by the listing agent with the seller. The buyer's agent has really no say in how much they'll get in a particular transaction...it's already set when the house goes on the MLS. Consequently, the buyer (you in this case) also has no say in how much your agent gets paid. The problem with this is if you get an agent that doesn't add any value ...or worst case...subtracts value in your purchase experience, ...that agent will still get paid the full commission that was preset in the listing and YOU will still have to cover (through loans and downpayment) the entire purchase price knowing that a significant chunk of that will be going to your agent. That's how things are unless you get in writing a separate agreement with your agent on what their commission or fee will be.

Not totally knowing the background of your situation, let's assume you've done all the heavy lifting up to this point and you're trying to figure out the least expensive way to get an offer done.

You have a couple options:
1) hire a real estate attorney to write up your offer (pros...it's likely cheaper than an agent will be; cons...they will not know a thing about market value and negotiating anything or any nuances that can go on in real estate transaction ....they only know the legal aspect of a contract)
2) write it up yourself (pros ...cheapest option; cons ... likely all the cons of using an attorney plus you'll likely also lack the legal aspect)
3) find an agent that would be willing to negotiate their own fee for what you want done. The agent can weigh the legal risks they assume by representing you in the contract and figure out what they feel is a fair price and you can go from there. ...now how do you find someone like that? ....they're out there ...i don't know if they're out in kennewick, but besides myself, I know of a few.

Jean,

"There's more to buying a house than getting the offer written, which is a legally binding document."

what that basically implies that if I make an offer and it is accepted, i must purchase the property, is that what youre saying?

"If you've already been shown the home, it's only fair to negotiate with that agent on the selling commission, with a "buyer's agent" contract."

i have seen the homes many times without an agent, the renters that live there, I know personally.

"Even though the deal looks great at the beginning, there's no guarantee you won't come to some problem that might want you to cancel the sale before closing"

Please explain how a buyers agent can help the above quote...

Hi, Jb,

In response, the commission is included in the list price. If you've already been shown the home, it's only fair to negotiate with that agent on the selling commission, with a "buyer's agent" contract. There are a few things to consider, such as the time an agent has spent in helping you find the "right" house. Even though the deal looks great at the beginning, there's no guarantee you won't come to some problem that might want you to cancel the sale before closing. A shoe-string purchase is not the safest place for an inexperienced buyer.

Good Luck,
Jean Bradford

thanks for the prompt answers/help. I should have cleared a few things up 1st.

It is a 5 yr old HOUSE
I do not need financing.
i have an inspector lined up
I have an appraiser lined up


Julie, Do all sellers pay buyers agent fees? I was under the impression the fee was added on to the base price. Is there somethign on the mls listing that will say sellers pay buyers-agent-fee?

I really dont understand how it is "free" to me...sorry about the confusion

I have always assumed once you go thru the loops with a buyers agent and they work with seller to figure on a price, both fees are then added to the price. I know im wrong i just dont understand where...

Jean, i understand doing it right...just trying to save a little for what I know will be a lot of unforeseen purchases once I move in, as with any move.

again, thx for the help in understanding this

Hi, Jb,

There's more to buying a house than getting the offer written, which is a legally binding document. The buyer's agent will protect your interests on the price, financing, zoning, home inspection repairs, and look after your interests all through the financing and title insurance process. Even down to the point of making sure the house is vacant at the time you expect to take possession. The agent has a legal liability to the buyer even if he/she has done nothing except write the offer for you, and that liability cannot be waived. The commission is usually paid by the seller, and the buyer agent commission would actually be less than you would pay a stock broker to purchase the same amount of stock. My suggestion is, "don't be penney-wise and pound-foolish" on your home purchase, the biggest expense of your life.

Jean Bradford
Associate Broker
ABR, GRI, CRS, CRB

The great thing about being a buyer is that the seller pays the selling agent commission, so it is free to you. I cannot possibly express how important it is for your to have professional representation. I would be happy to refer you to an agent in Kennewick - I know a few agents in the Tri-cities.

Let me know if you'd like me to do that. Good luck!

If you are requesting a buyers agent write an offer odds in locating an agent to do this is slim.

Any buyer who wants to write an offer w/o a realtor is at risk once the contract is issued there are many other steps involved standard practice per the laws of State. I answer many emails and calls DAILY where buyers either purchased direct from seller, builder, or listing agent lost earnest & option money, cost them $1000's in lieu of having their own realtor.

There are many sellers who know how to take advantage of buyers are unexperienced w/o a realtor who works on their behalf.

http://www.lynn911.com http://www.homes-for-sale-dallas.com