Only 6,600 Out Of 30,000 Agents Applied For Licence

[Ramseth]

Only 6,600 applications in as CEA comes into effect

By Monica Kotwani | Posted: 22 October 2010 2106 hrs

<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=260 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD width=20 align=right> </TD><TD width=240 align=right></TD></TR><TR><TD height=60 vAlign=top> </TD><TD class=update height=80 vAlign=top></TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD class=update> </TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



SINGAPORE: The new statutory
board set up to regulate real estate agents, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA), came into effect on Friday.

It replaces the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS) as the issuer of licenses.

Real estate agencies have until midnight on Friday to submit a list of their agents.

According to estimates, there are about 30,000 agents in Singapore. However, as of 5pm on Friday, only some 6,600 applications were received.

Some agents have told the Council that they were not informed of the deadline.

The Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) though, says that enough notice was given.

If the applications don't go through in time, even practising agents with the necessary qualifications will have to take the new CEA examination.

Apart from issuing licenses, the CEA has also been set up to regulate the industry better.

-CNA/ac

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

So if a potential HDB flat buyer responds to an advertisement put up by the seller's agent, does the buyer still need to pay the agent of the seller ?

 

[Ramseth]

What I understand is there're many agents now practising without passing CEHA. That was allowed in the past as company inhouse courses were considered sufficient an entry level; CEHA considered an upgrade. With this new regulation, existing agents who didn't passed CEHA can be licensed provided with proof of experience, no displinary records etc. Thereafter, all new agents seeking licensing must pass CEHA. Commission is still a matter between agents, sellers and buyers.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Commission is still a matter between agents, sellers and buyers.

So the seller's agent cannot force buyer to appoint him as agent, right ?

I think you know many agents for sellers have been practicing this. Otherwise, they will not bring the buyer to view the flat or negotiate with the seller.

 

[Ramseth]

So the seller's agent cannot force buyer to appoint him as agent, right ?

I think you know many agents for sellers have been practicing this. Otherwise, they will not bring the buyer to view the flat or negotiate with the seller.

This is common practice. Nothing illegal. If you approach with interest to buy without your own agent, the seller's agent also acts for you, and you need to pay an agreed commission too.

You can don't agree it, but so can the agent. Anyway, not paying commission means you do all the paperworks yourself on your side if the deal is closed. The agent only takes care of the seller's side. The agent won't like that since amateurs are likely to cause delays.

Unless very desparate, why do business with someone who's not willing to pay the commission? Find someone else who's willing to pay the commission or someone else who has an agent too, then co-broke. The gross commission has to be shared but the work is much easier.

Furthermore, when a selling agent gets desparate, it's usually a tell-tale sign that the commission saved is not worth the piece of junkyard.

 

[bhoven]

What I understand is there're many agents now practising without passing CEHA. That was allowed in the past as company inhouse courses were considered sufficient an entry level; CEHA considered an upgrade. With this new regulation, existing agents who didn't passed CEHA can be licensed provided with proof of experience, no displinary records etc. Thereafter, all new agents seeking licensing must pass CEHA. Commission is still a matter between agents, sellers and buyers.

was informed by an agent that passing the exam is only a pre-requisite, to be licensed, they must also have a minimum of three closed transactions in the past year...for once somebody up there has got something right!

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

This is common practice. Nothing illegal. If you approach with interest to buy without your own agent, the seller's agent also acts for you, and you need to pay an agreed commission too.

You can don't agree it, but so can the agent. Anyway, not paying commission means you do all the paperworks yourself on your side if the deal is closed. The agent only takes care of the seller's side. The agent won't like that since amateurs are likely to cause delays.

Unless very desparate, why do business with someone who's not willing to pay the commission? Find someone else who's willing to pay the commission or someone else who has an agent too, then co-broke. The gross commission has to be shared but the work is much easier.

Furthermore, when a selling agent gets desparate, it's usually a tell-tale sign that the commission saved is not worth the piece of junkyard.

The next time when I respond to a seller's agent, I will say I have my own agent. You will pretend to be my agent. You promise to give half of your 1 percent buyer's commission to the seller's agent, which equals to 0.5%. On the other hand, you're entitled to share the seller's agent's commission, which is half of the 2%, which is 1%.

So the total of 3% commission is equally shared, you get 1.5%. You will return me the 1% buyer's commission, and you still gain 0.5% for pretending to be my agent, and I'm not out of pocket.

It's not about being legal or illegal. It's ethical or unethical.

 

[Ramseth]

The next time when I respond to a seller's agent, I will say I have my own agent. You will pretend to be my agent. You promise to give half of your 1 percent buyer's commission to the seller's agent, which equals to 0.5%. On the other hand, you're entitled to share the seller's agent's commission, which is half of the 2%, which is 1%.

So the total of 3% commission is equally shared, you get 1.5%. You will return me the 1% buyer's commission, and you still gain 0.5% for pretending to be my agent, and I'm not out of pocket.

It's not about being legal or illegal. It's ethical or unethical.

Sorry can't pretend, an agency number is needed. Must be a real agent.

Anyway, I have this feel that's not about ethical or unethical too. There's nothing unethical about an agent collecting commission from both sides if the agent does the work for both sides. It's about you feeling that you as buyer shouldn't pay commission. My advice for you is, best that you find an agent whom you trust and feel deserving a fair commission.

 

[hotbot]

you only need a CES to practise as an agent,CEHA is for those who wants to develop his/her own agency later.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Sorry can't pretend, an agency number is needed. Must be a real agent.

Anyway, I have this feel that's not about ethical or unethical too. There's nothing unethical about an agent collecting commission from both sides if the agent does the work for both sides. It's about you feeling that you as buyer shouldn't pay commission. My advice for you is, best that you find an agent whom you trust and feel deserving a fair commission.

The point is I don't want an agent. The fact that I respond to a seller's advertisement put up by his agent does not mean I have appointed him as agent or that I must appoint him if I'm without an agent. But the agents don't think that way; they will convince you that it's the 'industry practice'; they will not even negotiate with you if you don't appoint them, even if you offer a good price. Meanwhile, the seller is kept in the dark.

If I'm the seller and my agent does that to a potential buyer, then he is not looking after my interest.

 

[cass888]

This is common practice. Nothing illegal. If you approach with interest to buy without your own agent, the seller's agent also acts for you, and you need to pay an agreed commission too.

Rubbish. That is acting against the interest of the seller. I hope these agents will lose their licence.

 

[cass888]

you only need a CES to practise as an agent,CEHA is for those who wants to develop his/her own agency later.

Let me guess h_o k_u_m h_e_a_n made you fail your CES and CEHA.

 

[Cestbon]

Don't like agent. Can sell/buy yourself. All paperwork have be done by yourself also. So does the ad cost/flyer cost.

 

[theV2]

Rubbish. That is acting against the interest of the seller. I hope these agents will lose their licence.

Those type of agents are crooks, but there are many out there like them

 

[Loofydralb]

Sorry can't pretend, an agency number is needed. Must be a real agent.

Anyway, I have this feel that's not about ethical or unethical too. There's nothing unethical about an agent collecting commission from both sides if the agent does the work for both sides. It's about you feeling that you as buyer shouldn't pay commission. My advice for you is, best that you find an agent whom you trust and feel deserving a fair commission.

You have a problem with ethics apparently.

If he takes your commission, he acts in your interests. How can he do that when he also acts for both parties?

 

[Ramseth]

You have a problem with ethics apparently.

If he takes your commission, he acts in your interests. How can he do that when he also acts for both parties?

Any intermediary (e.g. stockbroker, insurance agent) can act for both parties to match buy-sell, insurer-insured. That's not a question of ethics. That's a question of potential conflict of interests. If a single agent managed to close a fair deal for both parties, there's no breach of ethics.

 

[Queen Seok Duk]

Rubbish. That is acting against the interest of the seller. I hope these agents will lose their licence.

******************************************************
Originally Posted by Ramseth
This is common practice. Nothing illegal. If you approach with interest to buy without your own agent, the seller's agent also acts for you, and you need to pay an agreed commission too.
******************************************************

Did you notice the word underlined ? Of course everything is legal and ethical if there is an agreement.

But the question is not the agreement itself, but the manner in which the agreement is made (or forced through). In essence, the seller's agent forces you to use an agent, and more importantly, appoint him as your agent. It's as if the 'industry practice' does not allow a buyer to act on his own.

Ramseth dwells in post agreement ethics; but we're concerned with pre-agreement ethics.

This kind of answer bears Ramseth's trademark.

 

[Ramseth]

But the question is not the agreement itself, but the manner in which the agreement is made (or forced through). In essence, the seller's agent forces you to use an agent, and more importantly, appoint him as your agent. It's as if the 'industry practice' does not allow a buyer to act on his own.

Ramseth dwells in post agreement ethics; but we're concerned with pre-agreement ethics.

Kindly explain "forced through" agreement. Pre-agreement, how to force through? Both sides can disagree if they find the terms disagreeable and walkaway, isn't it?

 

[Loofydralb]

Ramseth

You obviously have your moral bearings screwed up.

I don't think you will be able to engineer a system that can take into account real world practicalities.

How to become politicians then?

 

[besotted]

property agents are the scum of the earth

very few are decent, so be very careful when negotiating property deals