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

[scroobal]

You obviously have no clue about conflict of interest. People are forced by circumstance to accept the terms because there are no regulations. How can an agent act for both parties and cover both their interests in fair manner. Parents struggle to do the same for their own children and their one's blood.

Why don't you get the same lawyer to act for the plaintiff and defendent and get both of them to agree in writing. Only someone ignorant or someone forced by circumstances will accept such a silly condition. What do you think the authorities and the lawyer society will say in a litigation case. That both agreed so its fine.

You have a very interesting habit of reconciling processes and events that are have become common practice to be sound. Many are not.

Common sense will tell you that paying commission to buy a house to an agent engaged by the seller is wrong or should not have been allowed to carry on this long.

Terms and claims like both parties agreed, the buyer agreed, they could have walked away, their eyes are wide open, why they did not object, why they sign etc are meant for imbeciles to argue.

This has been the PAP trademark. When late Mrs Lee stepped down, conveyancing charges were dramatically reduced and brought in line with 1st world practices where it costs only a few hundred dollars.

You are very quick off the mark when it comes to how established practices operate but you need to work out if they are sound, fair or meet basic principles many of which are common sense.

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.

 

[hotbot]

taxi drivers and property agents are scums, then what are you?

property agents are the scum of the earth

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

 

[cass888]

taxi drivers and property agents are scums, then what are you?

He's not a loser. He doesn't have a fetish for H_o K_um H_ean, he didn't quit his Japanese job and blame it on HKH (coz he probably didn't suck at his job) and his wife didn't leave him (so he didn't need to blame it on HKH).

 

[Ramseth]

You obviously have no clue about conflict of interest. People are forced by circumstance to accept the terms because there are no regulations. How can an agent act for both parties and cover both their interests in fair manner. Parents struggle to do the same for their own children and their one's blood.

Why don't you get the same lawyer to act for the plaintiff and defendent and get both of them to agree in writing. Only someone ignorant or someone forced by circumstances will accept such a silly condition. What do you think the authorities and the lawyer society will say in a litigation case. That both agreed so its fine.

I'm not saying that both seller and buyer must have the same agent. The buyer can always appoint another agent or do without an agent. It's their choice. Once again, how to be "forced by circumstance?" It's supply and demand. The side that wants it more badly has to yield somewhat. That's not only common commercial practice but commonsense too. But if expected to yield to much, can always walk away from the deal.

As for lawyers, court cases are usually adversarial in nature, a win-lose proposition. Therefore, both sides must have different lawyers. Buying a property isn't adversarial, it's trying to find a fair price both sides can agree on, a win-win proposition. There're cases where a lawyer acts for both sides too, e.g. conveyancing and divorce where there's no contest. But when contested, of course both sides would have different lawyers.

 

[moolightaffairs]

I'm not saying that both seller and buyer must have the same agent. The buyer can always appoint another agent or do without an agent. It's their choice. Once again, how to be "forced by circumstance?" It's supply and demand. The side that wants it more badly has to yield somewhat. That's not only common commercial practice but commonsense too. But if expected to yield to much, can always walk away from the deal.

As for lawyers, court cases are usually adversarial in nature, a win-lose proposition. Therefore, both sides must have different lawyers. Buying a property isn't adversarial, it's trying to find a fair price both sides can agree on, a win-win proposition. There're cases where a lawyer acts for both sides too, e.g. conveyancing and divorce where there's no contest. But when contested, of course both sides would have different lawyers.

ramseth, i am very disappointed with you. you keep telling people how exposed are you, but you are actually very ignorant.

i was an agent during the golden age of singapore in the 90s for a while. i want to share with you guys something.

in local context, even a buyer get an agent and pay him commission to represent him eventually he wont get the best deal. why? because commission is based on the closing price, logically both agents will want to close at a higher price. so both will get a higher commission.

in singapore, buyers always at the losing end. so why pay commission to any agent when you are a buyer? even buyer got agent to represent him, the buyer agent will convince the buyer to buy at a higher price in order to get a higher commission.

as a buyer i want to buy at a realistic price, not some inflated price and huge cov. agents really got to wake up their ideas when handling buyers case justly. i believe property price nowadays are not driven up by demand only but by agents also, they will always push for higher and higher price.

buyers dont even need an agent or pay any commission. especially nowadays people are more exposed to info on real estate and with information on the internet.

few months ago, authority ever mentioned regarding issue on conflict of interest for agents representing buyers and sellers at the same time in the newspaper. this is also very relevant on the conduct of agents. hope the authority will follow up on this issue.

this is an insider insight from an ex agent.

 

[Ramseth]

Once again, it's about choice and how badly the buyer wants it. I have agent acted for me in buying before. I quoted the price acceptable to me. He went to negotiate with the selling agent. Anything more than that, find me another equivalent unit within my price or find yourself another client, that's all. I don't depress price. I offer a fair price.

If a buyer falls in love with the unit and die-die must buy, agent or no agent, he'll overpay. If a seller is desparate to sell, die-die must sell urgently, agent or no agent, he'll underprice.

 

[A Shankar]

The current legalized real estate agents will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Ramseth]

Many misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying that same agent acting for both sides is neither illegal nor uncommon. However, I'm not advocating it. I myself never did that. Buying or selling, I always have my own agent.

Moonlightaffairs said even the buying agent has personal incentive to push up the price against buyer's interest. That's not true when he's engaged with a target price. He doesn't have any listing or exclusive. Let's say I saw a flat I like, it's asking $25k COV. I instruct the agent get me $10k COV, can? He goes and works it out with the selling agent. If can, he earns his commission. If cannot, I look elsewhere.

Of course, in such a case, if another buyer comes along and accepts $25k COV, then I'm out of the game and have to look elsewhere anyway. That's life. You want an easier life and easier time, you'll always have to pay more.

 

[moolightaffairs]

Once again, it's about choice and how badly the buyer wants it. I have agent acted for me in buying before. I quoted the price acceptable to me. He went to negotiate with the selling agent. Anything more than that, find me another equivalent unit within my price or find yourself another client, that's all. I don't depress price. I offer a fair price.

If a buyer falls in love with the unit and die-die must buy, agent or no agent, he'll overpay. If a seller is desparate to sell, die-die must sell urgently, agent or no agent, he'll underprice.

ramseth, u now sound like an elite class. "i got a best deal due to im an elite and for those who are less able and got manipulate by agents, pls get off my elite face." is this what you mean? local real estate agents need to be regulated, there is not doubt about it.

 

[moolightaffairs]

Many misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying that same agent acting for both sides is neither illegal nor uncommon. However, I'm not advocating it. I myself never did that. Buying or selling, I always have my own agent.

Moonlightaffairs said even the buying agent has personal incentive to push up the price against buyer's interest. That's not true when he's engaged with a target price. He doesn't have any listing or exclusive. Let's say I saw a flat I like, it's asking $25k COV. I instruct the agent get me $10k COV, can? He goes and works it out with the selling agent. If can, he earns his commission. If cannot, I look elsewhere.

Of course, in such a case, if another buyer comes along and accepts $25k COV, then I'm out of the game and have to look elsewhere anyway. That's life. You want an easier life and easier time, you'll always have to pay more.

ramseth, u now sound like an elite class. "i got a best deal due to im an elite and for those who are less able and got manipulate by agents, pls get off my elite face." is this what you mean?

local real estate agents need to be regulated, there is not doubt about it. 我在替天行道！ we must protect the mass and i believe those who are able to share their view here are those doing quite well and we should spare a thought for those who are not doing well like us.

 

[kingrant]

I dont think this is always true. Agents can and have settled at the lower price just to close the deal and get their commissions. Not smart fighting for that extra 0.5% to 1% of $20,000 = $100-$200. The loser is usually the seller when agents act in this way.

in singapore, buyers always at the losing end. so why pay commission to any agent when you are a buyer? even buyer got agent to represent him, the buyer agent will convince the buyer to buy at a higher price in order to get a higher commission.

 

[scroobal]

Nobody said it was illegal. People commented that it is unethical, wrong, conflict of interest etc.

You started by justifying the practice ie. seller agent do paperwork for the buyer etc and now you find yourself cornered.

The other clown want to do everything himself and that is a different matter.



You went off to

Many misunderstood what I'm saying. I'm saying that same agent acting for both sides is neither illegal nor uncommon. .

 

[Ramseth]

ramseth, u now sound like an elite class. "i got a best deal due to im an elite and for those who are less able and got manipulate by agents, pls get off my elite face." is this what you mean?

local real estate agents need to be regulated, there is not doubt about it. 我在替天行道！ we must protect the mass and i believe those who are able to share their view here are those doing quite well and we should spare a thought for those who are not doing well like us.

I'm not an elite. I'm just a commoner who fortunately happens to know a bit more about the ways of the world. And I do understand what you're saying. Yes, those who don't know as much shouldn't be disadvantaged and should be protected as to their legal and moral rights and options.

 

[Ramseth]

You started by justifying the practice ie. seller agent do paperwork for the buyer etc and now you find yourself cornered.

If you mean an honest agent who quotes an honest price and do his honest work for both sides don't deserve both commissions, I rest my case.

I've mentioned earlier. It cannot be assumed to be breach of ethics just because an agent acts for both sides, but the potential for conflict of interest is there for an agent turning unethical and yielding to temptation. And I do advocate it's best for both sides to get their own agents, or without if they can manage.

 

[moolightaffairs]

I dont think this is always true. Agents can and have settled at the lower price just to close the deal and get their commissions. Not smart fighting for that extra 0.5% to 1% of $20,000 = $100-$200. The loser is usually the seller when agents act in this way.

sad to say, agents seldom act in this way. you mentioned not smart fighting over extra 100 to 200 dollars of commission??? that means you are do not know how agents work. its like your résumé. most agents will want to serve sellers than buyers. when you are able to close higher, you can use it as a track record to show those owner you abilities to close higher. in order for the owners to let you sell their properties. its like the medal of honour to them!!! "i close a deal worth 1.3 miilion!!!"

 

[silverfox@]

sad to say, agents seldom act in this way. you mentioned not smart fighting over extra 100 to 200 dollars of commission??? that means you are do not know how agents work. its like your résumé. most agents will want to serve sellers than buyers. when you are able to close higher, you can use it as a track record to show those owner you abilities to close higher. in order for the owners to let you sell their properties. its like the medal of honour to them!!! "i close a deal worth 1.3 miilion!!!"

Seller want agent to sell as high as possible.
Buyer want agent to sell as low as possible.

Most of the time agent will listen to Seller. Why?

There are so many agents in the market, get into the Seller's good books, if they have other houses to sell, they look for that agent who can get them buyers who can pay.

Buyer don't have already, agents still can find other buyers who are willing to pay.

 

[moolightaffairs]

If you mean an honest agent who quotes an honest price and do his honest work for both sides don't deserve both commissions, I rest my case.

I've mentioned earlier. It cannot be assumed to be breach of ethics just because an agent acts for both sides, but the potential for conflict of interest is there for an agent turning unethical and yielding to temptation. And I do advocate it's best for both sides to get their own agents, or without if they can manage.

this statement is very wrong. you dont expose a loophole for agents to exploit and assume or hope that they dont exploit it. its like you leaving your wallet with a stack of 100 dollar notes exposed in your living room with the door open in the night when you are sleep and you hope the money or the wallet is still there when you wake up. but in fact, you may even lost you newly bought LED TV and theater sound system and even you favorite audi if you leave your car key in the living room at the same time.

 

[moolightaffairs]

Seller want agent to sell as high as possible.
Buyer want agent to sell as low as possible.

Most of the time agent will listen to Seller. Why?

There are so many agents in the market, get into the Seller's good books, if they have other houses to sell, they look for that agent who can get them buyers who can pay.

Buyer don't have already, agents still can find other buyers who are willing to pay.

yes, this is part of the big picture. im just providing from the agent point of view.

 

[Ramseth]

this statement is very wrong. you dont expose a loophole for agents to exploit and assume or hope that they dont exploit it. its like you leaving your wallet with a stack of 100 dollar notes exposed in your living room with the door open in the night when you are sleep and you hope the money or the wallet is still there when you wake up. but in fact, you may even lost you newly bought LED TV and theater sound system and even you favorite audi if you leave your car key in the living room at the same time.

Once again, caveat emptor. You can only expose what you feel confident or comfortable exposing. If you don't trust the agent, just decline his service. Why everything must look for government legislation and regulation? What loophole? It's an open option. For convenience and expediency, some buyer and seller actually wanted the same agent the do it since they agreed on the price already. You want to ban that?

 

[moolightaffairs]

Once again, caveat emptor. You can only expose what you feel confident or comfortable exposing. If you don't trust the agent, just decline his service. Why everything must look for government legislation and regulation? What loophole? It's an open option. For convenience and expediency, some buyer and seller actually wanted the same agent the do it since they agreed on the price already. You want to ban that?

thats gov responsibilities to protect the consumer rights and this is a tendency for conflict of interest. why not regulate it to protect the mass and the less able??? at the same time it will boost agents image as they are in bad light for many years after i quit as an agent. are you a property agent now?