Eva, I'm not sure I understand your question..  first, you can do both sides of the deal without practising Dual Agency.  You can represent your seller, and treat the buyer as a customer.  My personal feeling is that I cannot perform true "agency" in a duality situation.  I either represent you or I do not.  

As for the buyers trying to get a deal... I believe they assume you may make a commission concession to your seller so their deal actually looks better. If deal A is with another agent and you have advertised to pay a specific %, and deal B is just yourself, maybe you and the seller will discuss "changing the commission" so his deal looks better.  It can happen.  And I am not seeing too many "competing offers", so in reality the offer is just for $50k below from the buyer, and without the prospect of an additional offer any time soon, you just may be able to "work the numbers" to allow all parties to move forward.

It happens all the time.

Shelly

Yes, I think some buyers believe they can get a better deal if they do everything themselves. I had one buyer say, "Since I don't have a Realtor, the seller will not have to pay my agent, I'd like that savings applied to the sales price of the house." Of course the home is under a listing contract for a certain percentage regardless of how many agents are involved and this is what I told this potential buyer. She made an offer anyway, a VERY low offer, much lower than even the full commission. The seller countered that offer but we never reached a point of agreement.  We sold it to a different buyer that had her own Realtor.

Eva,

In my state of Florida there is no such thing as "Dual Agency", they got tricky and renamed it "Transaction Broker". And now the public assumes we work for both buyers and sellers it is my understanding that as of July 1, 2008 we will no longer need to provide a transaction broker notice to our clients. I have been hoping they would do something.

Yes I agree most buyers feel that working with just the seller they will get a better deal. I also feel that buyers don't mind calling 20 different realtors to see 20 different houses because they stand a better chance of actually having 1 of the 20 realtors answer their call.

It's frustrating to me to have to call agents for hours on end just to set an appointment to show their listing. So just think how bad it is for the buyer! They must think.... "Typical agent"

Hi: In my village in Northern Ontario Canada and as far as i am aware in all of at least this province it works in a very simple manner. If you have competing offers, wheather one is yours or not, we are required to disclose this to both realtors so they have the oportunity to better thier offer and the seller must be presented with both offers for the seller to determine which offer is best suited for them. If your offer is $50,000.00 less and the commission is your main concern, you may have a problem...at least in my village. Please accept my offer to send about six feet of snow to the south. we had enough

Hi Eva,

Your duty and responsibility is to present the best possible offer to your client, in this case the seller, under the best possible terms. If lowering your commission makes the lower price more beneficial to the seller then that may be the right course of action, maybe not ethical but acceptable. However, if you are presenting the lower offer just to pad your commssion, then you are creating a dereliction of duty towards your client (seller). In many states you could lose your license.

Dual agency is very tricky and could create legal problems, if not handled properly.

Just my 2 cents

With few exceptions, buyers seem to have a basic understanding that the Seller's agent makes 3% and Buyers agent makes 3%.  They consider those two things as separate. So naturally, they conclude if there is no Buyer's agent they can make a lower offer on the home because the Seller does not have to pay the 3% to a Buyer's agent.

They do not understand, or can not grasp, that the "Listing Agreement" between the Listing Office and the Seller, designates the commission (6%) to be paid.  Then, through the MLS, or other system, the Listing Office offers to share in that commission (usually half) to a Buyer's Agent.  If the Buyer's agent is not present, the entire commission (6%) is still due from the Seller to the Listing Office.

In our state, they call representing both sides "Limited Agency".  Recognizing  what Shelly said above, your duties to each party change to a limited capacity because you can’t fully represent both. In order for this to happen, all parties must agree to it, in writing, if the Buyer or the Seller object, to me being "limited", the Buyer can remain unrepresented, or get their own agent.  Of course, I make more if “Limited Agency” is agreed to, or the Buyer is unrepresented.  If the Buyer brings in his own agent then the commission is split.  

As a Broker, I encourage my agents, also as Shelly says, to stay on one side or the other of the deal. The Buyer can remain unpresented with the proper disclosure forms in our state.  If all of this is explained properly to a potential Buyer, I can’t imagine anyone not wanting to be fully represented by a Buyer’s agent. There are some, however, that like going it alone, even knowing that it will cost them NOTHING for an agent to work with them.  

In our state, it is pretty dumb for a Buyer to try to do this on their own, because the Buyer will likely save nothing, do much more work, and be on his own to watch for common buying pitfalls. The bottom line for us as agents, at least in this state, if we explain all this, so the Buyer understands it, he should become your Client through a Buyer’s Agency agreement. Get good at educating them.

Hi Eva,

Here, in Central Ohio, we have something called Variable Rate Commission or VRC.  In the MLS we must check yes or no as to whether we offer this.  Many agents do offer a lower commission rate to the Seller if they bring a buyer on a Dual agency.  So this in turn may make it easier for the Buyer to negotiate by going to the listing agent direct.  

As an ABR, this is not always the best deal for the Buyer if they do not understand the benefits of utilizing an agent as their Buyer's agent.  Their search can be WAY easier and they can find the new listing faster if they have a good buyers agent working for them.  To gain the loyalty of the Buyer when they are running around calling on everything, you may want to sit them down for a heart to heart on the benefit they have in being loyal to you as their Buyer's agent. So many people do not understand all that is involved in buying a home and having an experienced professional to educate them can save them LOTS of energy and money.   The resources and coaching that you provide them IS worth far more than saving a few bucks in the negotiations on a dual agency with an agent they do not know or trust.  

And if it so happens that your listing, or new listing, is the one they like and you have offered this variable rate to your seller, with proper, fair care and due dilligence in negotiations, everyone wins!!  Just make sure that your Seller and Buyer are both comfortable to agree and disclose the dual agency.  Working with integrity with all parties regardless of whether you are showing and selling yours or someone elses listing is a huge benefit for you as an agent.  After all, believe it or not, you are in the "people business".  

Happy selling all!!

Eva,

I know I have seen this thread before, but it's always good to see.  It says agents are worried about this, or at least thinking about it.  I have done the dual role a couple of times, but probably lost more than I have taken, because I feel like I need to let the buyers know that I actually won't be representing them.  When they actually know this, they tend to go find another agent, who winds up showing them more homes, and pretty soon I'm not in the picture any more.  But I have to do things the right way, so oh well...

Regarding your question about the offer, it is your job to represent your client to the best of your ability.  If you have multiple offers, present both with a seller net sheet, and let them decide.  If you're cheaper for them after the fact, even though the offer from you is for less, oh well, you just saved them money.  Just make sure you present correctly.  And in my neck of the woods, we don't have to disclose the specifics of any other offers to the other agents.

This brings up another good point, though.  In reality, our job is to represent the client, buyer or seller, in the best way possible, meaning we have a fiduciary responsibilty to them.  Does this mean that when they find a home, and it in all reality would be cheaper for them if we weren't involved, that we should back out and let them deal directly?  After all, they'd get a better deal sometimes.  Not that I have any intention of doing this, but just a thought....

Wow. Good post. And wow about Ohio. I do feel most folks think if they go to the listing agent direct they get a better deal. But not always true. They need to remember the listing agent works for the seller. Their job is to get top dollar for their client. Does not matter what state you are in. It is very hard to work both sides. The small % you may save on a fee is not worth the savings you may have gained, by having a buyers agent negotiate the best price. Luckily I work with a team, and I can get one of them to work with the buyer and negotiate the best price, without the seller feeling I am trying to talk them into taking a less price.

Bottom line.

I do agree with several of the comments posted. Dual agency is very tricky and I personally don't like to do it. Here in Michigan you represent the Seller....end of story if you are the listing agent. Unfortunately Buyers have the perception that they do have representation in a "dual agency" situation but in fact they really don't have much at all. We have here in MI something called Designated Agency which alot of offices are switching to. This essentially allows two agents in the same office to represent a buyer and seller with no conflict. It creates a virtual wall to block information from being passed...or so they think. It's better but still leaves open the possibility of legal troubles. I just don't like it and I am surpised it is still around.