New York City · Member since 2019 · 7 posts · 1 vote
I've begun looking for my first investment property and have read in multiple posts that you ought to have a real estate broker/agent dedicated to you (as the buyer) instead of using the listing agent (seller's agent). I'm wondering how many of you abide by this rule and, if you do, what are the benefits? I understand the concept of fiduciary duty and a dual agent, but I'm not understanding how a buyer's representative would benefit by pushing for a lower purchase price (and thus lower commission).
Assuming one does want to interview and 'hire' a real estate broker, should they be local to the target city or is it enough if they're familiar with the general region?
Attorney · NJ · Member since 2016 · 1k+ posts · 794 votes
7y
The listing agent is only going to push the property they are listing. A buyer's agent's sole goal is to find you the right property. They will (or should) make you comparison charts, projected income reports, set up multiple showings at your convenience without each listing agent having to come out and open the door for you, so it's much faster and more efficient. You're relying on a single agent to represent your interests. You don't pay the commission anyway, so why not have the personal attention? As far as familiarity with the area, it totally depends on where you are located. So for example, I'm in NJ. The suburbs in particular are more conducive to an agent that is knowledgeable in the whole county. If you are looking in specific cities with numerous neighborhoods like Jersey City or Newark, you would want an agent that is very specifically well versed in those cities. Hope that helps! Best of luck.