The world is full of wonders. If single mom wants to buy a house and she wants to get help from someone who she trusts, that someone should stay away from her for sake of own safety? Do you mean that somebody of the buyerâ??s choice cannot advise the buyer? It is something wrong with that and it seems to me that buyerâ??s human rights wiped out here first.
But we all know that we are dealing with system rather than with reality. So for to satisfy the system should I buy the house and than to offer it to my buyer? Or we have something less radical available for to make this case work?
Posted by Natalie-VA on March 19, 2008 at 08:01:12:
I think the system is designed to protect consumers from taking advice from unlicensed people. The point of having a buyer’s agent represent you is to ensure the the agent is looking out for you, not someone else. I don’t think it’s clear what you’re trying to accomplish. Are you trying to help someone, or are you trying to collect a fee? It’s okay to do both, but you should be licensed if you want to bring buyers and sellers together for a fee.
Yes, I try to do both. However I would like to be a RE investor, not a RE agent. The reason is that I believe I will do better job for client since I am free of corporate interest and I stay in client’s shoes rather than not. I hope you know what I mean.
Posted by Natalie-VA on March 20, 2008 at 07:15:55:
Actually, I’m not real clear on what you mean. You’re referring to “clients”. Real estate investors act on their own behalf; they don’t have clients. Real estate agents have clients. I’m not intentionally trying to be difficult, I’m just not sure where you’re going with this.