www.shaproperty.com: [RealEdge] TodayOnline Forum : Whose hands to leave the deal in?

Friday, September 15, 2006

[RealEdge] TodayOnline Forum : Whose hands to leave the deal in?

This story was printed from TODAYonline

Whose hands to leave the deal in?

Can an impartial third party weigh in on dual commission issue? It's a sellers' market that benefits only the real estate business Power is in the hands of the sellers ? use it wisely Let the market decide what commissions the agents deserve

Friday ? September 15, 2006

Letter from
Mohd Noor Abdullah
Letter from Toh Hai Joo
Letter from Steve K Ngo
Letter from Yap Swee Hoo

The exchanges of letters between Voices readers ? in particular Mr Jimmy Ho ("How do we deal with this?", Sept 14) and Mr Low Swee Kim from the Institute of Estate Agents ("Dual commission does not mean conflict of interest", Sept 13) ? are interesting.

Would the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) care to comment?

And perhaps the appropriate legal body could comment too on the ethics in a situation where the agent chooses not to entertain a buyer even though the buyer offers the highest price, just because the buyer does not succumb to the seller's demand for commission.

Can the buyer goes directly to the seller and make the offer?

Mr Low stated in an earlier letter ("What 1% sales commission means", Sept 4) that the seller's agent has the right not to entertain the buyer, if the buyer does not agree with the payable commission.

Mr Low's interests for obvious reasons lies with the estate agents. We need to hear from a neutral party ? as suggested by Mr Ho, "an impartial watchdog".

The existing practice of having the buyer pay 1 per cent commission on top of the 2 per cent commission payable by the seller of a HDB flat encourages the real estate agents to concentrate their effort only on looking for a seller.

With such an underlying bias towards the sellers' market, it artificially deflates transacted prices of HDB flats without the market realising this.

This is the natural outcome of a market with more emphasis on supply than demand. The real beneficiaries of such a "market practice" are the real estate agents and companies.

Mr Jimmy Ho has clearly illustrated the need for an impartial third party to regulate the rules and practice of the real estate market. Will the relevant authorities look into this suggestion?

While I am tempted to say I have lost faith in the professionalism of our property agents, I cannot make a sweeping statement as I believe there are good agents too.

Therefore, I can only urge property sellers to be rational and wise. Even if you have appointed an agent, insist of being at the viewing sessions and always ask for the contact details of the potential buyers. There have been many incidents of buyers who are interested but agents who hindered the deal, or vice versa.

And sellers, whatever papers you are asked to sign with the agents are just private contracts. Read the terms carefully and if you find anything unreasonable, ask for it to be changed, or simply change your agent.

Or try to sell directly through the newspapers or other media.

I think currently it is just the buyers who are in a weak position with little say. But with cooperation from sellers and understanding in the market, there is no need to urge the Government to intervene.

Remember, sellers will become buyers, so do your part because what goes around, comes around.

I refer to the letter by Mr Jason Lim "Too many agents jostling for too few deals" (Sept 13) in response to my letter ("Dual commissions help make ends meet", Sept 12).

The fact that the current property market for housing agents is "oversaturated", as Mr Lim asserts, should be more reason for the authorities to show empathy with, rather than to turn the screws on, our housing agents and their families.

It is easy enough for someone outside a profession to suggest that housing agents should simply leave the market if they find the going too tough to handle. The hard fact is that they simply cannot ? because, among other things, of the lack of employment opportunities commensurate with their commitments.

As an outside observer, I see no wrong in housing agents asking for dual commissions for HDB resale flats, so long as they do not breach any existing housing rule.

On the flip side, if a buyer or seller of an HDB resale flat wants to cut out the housing agent, there is nothing to stop anyone from advertising in our dailies to buy or sell an HDB resale flat.

The authorities should let market forces to continue to dictate the market commissions payable to the housing agents as a logical corollary.

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages

Real Estate News Provided Freely

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

// posted by Shajahan @ 10:32 AM

<< Home

	This story was printed from TODAYonline


	Whose hands to leave the deal in? Can an impartial third party weigh in on dual commission issue? It's a sellers' market that benefits only the real estate business Power is in the hands of the sellers ? use it wisely Let the market decide what commissions the agents deserve Friday ? September 15, 2006 Letter from Mohd Noor Abdullah Letter from Toh Hai Joo Letter from Steve K Ngo Letter from Yap Swee Hoo The exchanges of letters between Voices readers ? in particular Mr Jimmy Ho ("How do we deal with this?", Sept 14) and Mr Low Swee Kim from the Institute of Estate Agents ("Dual commission does not mean conflict of interest", Sept 13) ? are interesting. Would the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) care to comment? And perhaps the appropriate legal body could comment too on the ethics in a situation where the agent chooses not to entertain a buyer even though the buyer offers the highest price, just because the buyer does not succumb to the seller's demand for commission. Can the buyer goes directly to the seller and make the offer? Mr Low stated in an earlier letter ("What 1% sales commission means", Sept 4) that the seller's agent has the right not to entertain the buyer, if the buyer does not agree with the payable commission. Mr Low's interests for obvious reasons lies with the estate agents. We need to hear from a neutral party ? as suggested by Mr Ho, "an impartial watchdog". The existing practice of having the buyer pay 1 per cent commission on top of the 2 per cent commission payable by the seller of a HDB flat encourages the real estate agents to concentrate their effort only on looking for a seller. With such an underlying bias towards the sellers' market, it artificially deflates transacted prices of HDB flats without the market realising this. This is the natural outcome of a market with more emphasis on supply than demand. The real beneficiaries of such a "market practice" are the real estate agents and companies. Mr Jimmy Ho has clearly illustrated the need for an impartial third party to regulate the rules and practice of the real estate market. Will the relevant authorities look into this suggestion? While I am tempted to say I have lost faith in the professionalism of our property agents, I cannot make a sweeping statement as I believe there are good agents too. Therefore, I can only urge property sellers to be rational and wise. Even if you have appointed an agent, insist of being at the viewing sessions and always ask for the contact details of the potential buyers. There have been many incidents of buyers who are interested but agents who hindered the deal, or vice versa. And sellers, whatever papers you are asked to sign with the agents are just private contracts. Read the terms carefully and if you find anything unreasonable, ask for it to be changed, or simply change your agent. Or try to sell directly through the newspapers or other media. I think currently it is just the buyers who are in a weak position with little say. But with cooperation from sellers and understanding in the market, there is no need to urge the Government to intervene. Remember, sellers will become buyers, so do your part because what goes around, comes around. I refer to the letter by Mr Jason Lim "Too many agents jostling for too few deals" (Sept 13) in response to my letter ("Dual commissions help make ends meet", Sept 12). The fact that the current property market for housing agents is "oversaturated", as Mr Lim asserts, should be more reason for the authorities to show empathy with, rather than to turn the screws on, our housing agents and their families. It is easy enough for someone outside a profession to suggest that housing agents should simply leave the market if they find the going too tough to handle. The hard fact is that they simply cannot ? because, among other things, of the lack of employment opportunities commensurate with their commitments. As an outside observer, I see no wrong in housing agents asking for dual commissions for HDB resale flats, so long as they do not breach any existing housing rule. On the flip side, if a buyer or seller of an HDB resale flat wants to cut out the housing agent, there is nothing to stop anyone from advertising in our dailies to buy or sell an HDB resale flat. The authorities should let market forces to continue to dictate the market commissions payable to the housing agents as a logical corollary.

	Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

www.shaproperty.com

Friday, September 15, 2006

[RealEdge] TodayOnline Forum : Whose hands to leave the deal in?

Previous Posts