Should A Buyer Use A Broker?

Yes. You are more valuable to listing brokers when you don't have a buyer's broker in tow. They make 6% on the sale instead of 3%. I bought my UES apt from a listing broker who will not work with buyer's brokers, she puts that right on her CL advertising--"I do not co-broke!" she literally writes exactly this.

Remember though that appointments can be tricky to schedule if someone is still living in the apt. And your buyer's broker knows that buyers can use a lot of their time and then not buy through them, so they are lower priority than getting listings, assuming your buyer's broker does both.

As a buyer in general I do not use buyer's brokers; I admit I used one once, when I first starting buying in Rochester NY. (I have a little r.e. investment co. with a few properties.) The other problem is, some for sale by owner people will not work with any broker.

Two questions: Have you signed a contract with your buyer's broker? If not then you're free. If you have you're stuck til the contract runs out.

Other question, what is your motivation for using a buyer's broker in the first place? If you feel you need the guidance or you'll screw up in a big way, if you can't relax without a buyer's broker, if you're worried about negotiating your dream apt with a crafty seller's broker (frankly, the truly crafty ones are rare), if you're trying to move fast, then I guess you gotta have a buyer's broker.

I wonder what is "your" broker doing for you if you're calling listing agents directly? Or were you just researching the phenomenon? Or trying to help?

Said buyer's broker should show you a short list of excellent apartments based on his/her understanding of your needs, and you view them and give feedback. I think after one or two go-rounds in theory you should have made an offer; if not, then either you're not ready to buy (emotionally or financially, you can't afford what you want) or your broker isn't listening carefully enough.

I will not buy, or even look at, a property where the listing broker refuses to co-broke.

Fluter - it is illegal for a sell-side broker to refuse to deal with a buyer's broker. They can make life a little more difficult for those with representation, but flat out refusing to show the place is against the law. Refusal to co-broke, I think, means they wish to represent the seller exclusively, not that they won't deal with a buyer's broker.

OTNYC, there are a couple of buildings where I've seen it. One far east on 79th, where the broker makes you sign something saying you'll only deal with him. There's one on Lexington, lower, where there was a broker who did the same thing. I've also had a Bellmarc broker tell me (years ago) that if my broker didn't come to the open house with me, my broker lost his rights. I liked that last apartment quite a bit, but f him.

The answer is: Those brokers advertise apartments that are not their exclusives. they are looking for buyers and will split with the seller's exclusive broker.

Thanks, OTNYC, I'm sure your interpretation is exactly right. And I never did ask her directly about what she meant by "no co-broke," I just assumed she meant no buyer's brokers welcome. I wonder if other customers thought the same thing I did?

Given it's illegal, then aboutready's report is rather shocking, and if there are people who will actually risk putting complete exclusivity down on a piece of paper for signing then you can bet your sweet lips there are many more people who just "forget" to call back buyer's brokers.

I don't think jbirge is imagining things.

My understanding of agency law in NY is that no agent is required by law to share a commission with anyone. That is generally the meaning of "no co-broke". If the seller agreed to this in the listing agreement for some reason, that is the contractual fact of life for buyer brokers....no split in this case.

However, an agent is required by the law of agency to relay all offers to his or her principal. If a buyer has a broker and that buyer broker will not be compensated by the listing agent, the buyer broker will of course need to seek compensation from the Buyer.

The practical issue is that any broker refusing to co-broke (share commission) better have a VERY desirable listing because not too many brokers are going to give that listing the time of day.

Can any brokers weigh in?? mjs, not saying you're wrong, but I could swear I have heard otherwise.

The only other angle on this that I'm aware of is that NYC brokers who are members of REBNY and wish to list a property on the REBNY interbroker "MLS" agree contractually to certain matters...and I beleive willingness to co-broke is prominent on that list of agreements. In that case, co-broking is contractually required.

Brokers? Have we got this right yet?

I've been out several times with a broker and also by making an appointment with the listed broker.

You can certaily see more apts by using a single (buyers) broker but on the minus side you can feel somewhat obligated to use them, also you can easily burn them out.

I think that I perfer being on my own and making an appointment to see the one apt that you're interested in with the listed broker. In addition you can find out more information about the seller and the paticular situation. This does limit number of apts you can see at a time.

mjsalisb states the NYS agency law pretty clearly. What may be confusing to people is the REBNY guidelines, which DO require agents to co-broke with other REBNY members. But there are lots of brokers who are not REBNY members and I'm guessing Fluter's listing agent was one of them. Although, yes, some agents will post listings that are not their exclusives, and therefore can't split the buy-side commission with another broker. Ugh. But I work with a lot of buyers for whom I make appointments, and rarely receive the kind of friction from listing agents you describe. Is your buy-side broker a REBNY member? I wonder if that would make a difference.

At any rate, my guess is that jbirge's experience is fairly common for a truly motivated buyer with the time to do his/her own looking. If you have enough time to be contacting the listing agents yourself, you may be in a good position to represent yourself as a buyer, at least as far as finding suitable listings is concerned. But whether or not you want a buy-side agent has more to do with the rest of the process. Are you buying in a co-op and want help with that process? Are your finances kinda shaky and you need someone to make the case for why your offer should be accepted anyway? Do you want someone to handle the price negotiations for you? Etc. If you want/need that kind of service, and you're confident that he/she can provide it, I think it may be worth hanging on to your broker. If not, you may be fine on your own.

Either way, brokers AND buyers need to get away from this notion of the buy-side agent as overpaid appointment maker. That said, if you are using a broker, the initial contact with the listing agent should be through your broker if you're using one. Provide a list of properties and let your broker set it up. It helps avoid confusion. But if she can't even get that part done to your satisfaction, I'd be concerned about her ability to close the deal.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)