What a buyer gives up when a deal moves to transaction brokerage mid-stream
Here is a scenario worth working through, because it comes up constantly and the paperwork moves faster than the buyer reads. A buyer is under contract on a triplex at $412k, all three units leased, gross $3,450 a month. Nothing exciting, which is the point. The agent who showed the property is also the listing agent. The buyer asks about it going in and is told dual agency is not permitted in that state, so the brokerage handles it as transaction brokerage instead, and a two-page consent goes out. The buyer signs on Tuesday because escrow wants it before they will open. Read again after signing, the form says the agent is a neutral facilitator to the transaction, that she owes both parties honesty and accurate accounting, and that she is not obligated to advocate for either party's price position. That last sentence carries most of the weight in the document, and it is the one people fail to register in the moment. Separately, the buyer agreement says 2.5%. The seller is offering 2%. That leaves half a point unaccounted for, which on $412k is a couple thousand dollars, and in most versions of this nobody raises it. Inspection is Thursday and the roof is 19 years old on the disclosure. So the question for the room is who argues the buyer's side of a credit conversation under that form, and what a buyer should do on Wednesday if the honest answer is nobody. Nobody wants to blow up a workable deal over a form. Nobody should walk into an inspection assuming representation the paper says is not there either.