I'll share with you what I shared with Mary Witaker in her question about it 48 hours ago: https://activerain.com/questions/show/70970/do-you-think-limited-agency-is-good-or-bad-for-clients-

Dual agency in the hands of an ethical agent, is beneficial to all parties as savings and opportunities within are shared. It's also common and legal in CA. I do 1-3 per year averaged on 21 years in business so far.

It's a disaster for all when someone is unethical or dishonest. The process itself is legit. The people behind the process make all the difference in results.

Many states make it illegal and many agents are against it, but they have never enjoyed the benefits of it executed honestly and ethically where all involved win.

The only negative experiences I've had with dual agency are the attitudes of other agents towards it (a lot of it is ignorance  or judgment from the cheap seats).

I've had 100% success with mine over 21 years of doing them. The #1 concern to address is: Does the seller feel comfortable with you doing it? Typically the financially benefit is a "yes".

If not, I do not penalize myself for bringing my buyers (ultimately the best buyer) to my own listings, I refer the buyer to a teammate or associate and take a referral fee and perform an arm's length dual agency. See it's not just dual when it's the same agent, it's dual when it's two agents from the same brokerage (who may or may not even know each other). Either way I do them dual, but the latter is arm's length. I've written blogs about them too.

Love it!  Best agency ever!

It takes a skilled person with savvy (know-how) to successfully make this happen. You have to address and eliminate all claims of bias & unfairness according to the parties involved and not your own beliefs. They both must sign-off and agree with you on their own accord but not as easy as it sounds. Furthermore, if there is a dispute before, during or even after closing (statute of limitations is 4 years), you will be dealing with their attorney not them who will tear you a part if they can. Disclosure, signed agreements and dual compromise is only part of it. If they don't like you, is another. Remember: you can be sued for any or no reason. Guilty or innocent  is another matter entirely and costly to defend...

you sure as hell are skirting the true meaning and the results that could happen should a severe problem surface.... everyone is on their own.... when blood is flowing, the statement about "being fair" is BS.... everyone MUST have their own representative.... someone who is on their side and ONLY their side.... 

representation is NOT about the money....dual agency is about the money....and only the money.... the agent makes the full score.... the buyer and seller get the short straw....both of them.

Misleading the public?  Of course...absolutely!  

They call it "limited representation" yet there is no representation at all. 

The "Limited representation definition" only means that the consumer is not liable for any misrepresentations of the broker. What part of that is any representation? None.

In order for a buyer or seller to have an advocate, there must be broker fiduciary duties...a transaction broker offers none.

Eve

My thoughts on dual agency that if you are intending to collect bothside of the commish then represent both parties. Dual agency is legal here. Lots of agents and designated brokers prefer to only represent the seller and the buyer is "unrepresented" and yet still collect the buyer side commish which I think is interesting and in a similar ball park to a "Transaction Broker". How do you handle the fact that you have a signed listing with the seller?  I'm OK with dual agency - but I prefer to swap such situations with another agent in the office. I refer  the buyer for a 25% and I represent the seller that I have a signed listing with. And when the other agent has a dual agency situation, they send the buyer to me. It doesn't always work out exactly even but that's how I handle dual agency situations......most of the time.

To be or not to be, Shakespeare said it best! It is the consumer's decision after explaining it fully. 

If someone only needs someone to facilitate the transaction, transaction broker is OK.  For example, if I was buying or selling a house, I know everything I need to know to do that (probably true of most on this forum).  However, I might want someone to deal with the prospects, order appraisals or inspections, etc.  In that situation, you don't need anyone to advise you, you just need someone to do the grunt work.  In that case (which is unusual), transaction broker is fine.

However, if you are like most home buyers or sellers and need someone to advise you and look out for your best interest, as Eve Alexander frequently points out, transaction broker is convenient for agents, but not in the best interest of the buyer or seller.  The thing that is the worst is that the customer feels like they have a fiduciary with you.  Much like when the car salesperson is nice to you, you start to think they have your best interest in mind.  No amount of disclosures can overcome human psychology.  They can prevent lawsuits, which is the purpose of disclosures.

You may learn/experience more by playing/dancing/singing in the rain.  And, yes, that's my answer.  I allow others to voice their opinion as to earnest-worthiness or lack of it.  

If you are a dual agent you cannot fulfill your duties as a fiduciary. 

If you're honest and ethical, acting as a transaction broker should not present a problem for anyone involved. I have done both sides with no issues and it has worked out well for all parties, everyone was happy. The problems begin when an agent forgets that as a transaction broker we work with customers not clients and does not understand the difference between the two.

It always amazes me when a buyer calls me on a listing and I ask if they are working with an agent. They usually say they only want to work with the listing agent so I explain that as a LA, I work for the seller but even then, they ask if I can still help them. The public may be smarter than we give them credit for.

DONE RIGHT as Thomas J. Nelson, Realtor e-Pro, CRS, RCS-D, Vets has described, it is a good deal for all.

Done wrong, it is a crime against that person to whom you owe a fiduciary duty.

And yes, I will agree that we may disagree.

I do not care for it and in 26 years have been a dual agent on maybe 4 transactions. To this day I don't understand how transaction brokerage works. It makes no sense to me.

It's all about the bottom line -- honesty.  I have never had a problem with dual agency ... it's common in our area.  

Good or bad, you need to follow the rules in your state.

I think the PUBLIC has already expressed their preference by the number of real estate sales in the nations second most populous state.

For those who are incapable, they should avoid Dual Agency.

You can do it but 'should you'. I don't like it but in my state it's totally ok with lots of paperwork. Buyers don't seem to mind here. They are more interested in getting the house.

If you explain everything how are you misleading? 

Transactional representation is definitely a way of getting around things and strongly favors the agents as they don't have to explain representation and ask for signatures, nor do they have any loyalties to anyone but themselves. This is not well understood by most real estate customers in Florida, for the agency rules there are more convoluted (I had a license there), so it works. It's trickier when dual agency has to be all explained, understood and acknowledged by all in writing, as it does in Connecticut, but can work and work well for all involved.

Dual agency can be much more efficient and eliminate a lot of agent generated drama that not only destroys deals, but tarnishes the profession.

Generally the only people that have a problem with it is other agents, clients just want us to get the job done, get them a big check, and keep them out of trouble.

North Dakota allows dual agency and most of my transations fell under dual agency. It was what my builders and contractors wanted and I loved collecting on both sides as well Peter Mohylsky, Beach Expert 

I would definitely say they are skirting the issue and miss leading by calling it Transaction Brokers.

Yes - misleading and deceptive.  Perfectly legal in CA. 

I've done it 3 times in 17+ years.  

In NH we have both Dual agency (where the agent represent both parties) and transactional brokerage where the agent can represent one party and compluete duties such as showings and write offers, but no give advice to the 2nd party. Such as i list a home, I am a seller agent, a buyer calls. They have no buyer agent. I gove them agency disclosure which they sign. They want me to show the home, i do. They love it and want me to write an offer. I write what they tell me giving them no advice as to price. but can relay the seller wants to close on May 1 because they are moving cross country. 

Peter,

I am overrun on this question...A

There are only a couple of circumstances where my broker allows true single agent dual agency.  She does it on new construction (where the builder sets the price and there isn't going to be a negotiation of said price) and on foreclosures.  Otherwise if an agent shows their own listing and buyer decides to make an offer the agent either refers out the buyer or seller for the negotiations and it's called "designated agency" where one agent works with buyer and another with the seller.  In GA designated agency is considered a "type" of dual agency.

I would like to see Oregon allow transaction brokers.  It works for FSBO's and unrepresented buyers who need help doing paperwork.  Also for assisting a Flat Fee FSBO. I believe in providing choices to the consumer. Transaction fee relationships would be another choice to meet their perceived needs.

In Nova Scotia, we have Designated Agency for both sellers & buyers. All of which are under contract when working with a real estate agent. In this model, we do use Transaction brokerage as well occasionally but I fully explain these terms, as well as the options, as well as possible negotiating tactics when I am signing the buyers &/or seller contracts to avoid any confusion. So far, we have never had an issue. If a buyer or seller prefers not to be represented, we have them read & sign a customer status declaration which acknowledges that as an agent, we do not owe them any agency but must treat them fairly.