View Full Version : Some property agents fail to be professional
Jan 8, 2007
Some property agents fail to be professional
I HAVE been looking for an HDB flat in the resale market with my husband for the past four months. We have met agents from various companies who are unprofessional and unhelpful when they find out we want to represent ourselves, effectively depriving them of commission.
We are both first-time home buyers and state at the outset that we will do any paperwork on the purchase ourselves. We also do the legwork ourselves by looking up advertisements for specific apartments.
These agents, who are appointed by the seller, turn hostile and refuse to take us to see properties when they learn we are independent buyers who don't want to incur commission for their services.
By not taking us to see the flats, these agents fail in their professional capacity and do not represent their clients' interests either. They hinder potential deals from closing. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone.
Agents benefit from a 2 per cent commission based on the HDB flat sale price, paid by the seller who appoints the agent. Assuming a four-room flat costs $300,000, the commission is $6,000, hardly a meagre sum.
Rosalyn Lim Ching Mun (Ms)
well penny wise pound foolish...
a buyer can save on comm, but if seller agt do not want to entertain them, tough luck.. such situation, a buyer agt don't need to be ard cos he's transparent...
such buyers can only try their luck on seller's agt and do all the calling themselves...
unless its a big property or hard to sell property, maybe the agt may entertain u, or rather wait for a cobroke case or another direct buyer...else good luck..
say for a seller agt to sell a flat and knowing tt it can be sold at 300k, his 2% comm would be 6k and 1%buyer's comm, 3k and tt's a total of 9k..
dun want to pay comm, seller agt lose 3k for this deal, but may jack up the price to 305k. Seller agt still gets his well deserved 6k as comm based on 300k... the extra 5k, 3k to cover as seller's comm and 2k for seller's extra cash...
so who's on the winning side?? :D
there is a hokkien sayin
" kiang lor hor, mai gei kiang"
Loosely translated "smart is enough, dont act smart if u are not".
Well, actually its the duty of the agent to get the highest price for the seller, but usually all these type of "dont want to pay commission buyer" is on very tight budget, quite tough really to get a high price from them. But of course I will still go ahead to show them the house.
I want my buyer to get his house sold. (but in the end confirm need to do all the admin work for buyer also, if let them do themselves i also scared they cocked it up for my seller, so for most agent the theory is DO WORK NO PAY, who wants? Your boss ask u to work but dont pay u, u want meh?!)
michael8330
08-01-2007, 09:04 PM
but usually all these type of "dont want to pay commission buyer" is on very tight budget,
i don't agree with this statement , i have see a lot with tonnes of cash , they just trying to win in all deals (even buy fish ball noodles also want extra mees if it free), but in real estate is quite impossible (chicken and egg, those understand this statement will understand , those cannot understand, very diffcult for me to reveal more, trade behaviour )
some time i very scare meet those super nice buyer, (when buyer nice , i tends to lost more cause i want to help them to own their dream hse , but their price some time cannot meet , so have to cut a bit of commission to help them.)
those 'nian' buyer than good luck to them. i don't want to comment to much, but there is 101 ways to teach them to be nice.
i have see renovation contractor do work before, so i know how they 'punish' the customer, for my own hse, i buy the contractor's worker dinner almost every nite. (what is a few packet of rice + drinks, compare to around 40k renovation.)
if u want the horse to run fast , u must feed the horse well.
anyway buyer pay 1% to the seller agent is the market practice and have discuss many time in many forum, if u don't want to pay the 1% , get yr own sister/brother to arrange with the seller's agent and neg. the deal then u will save the 1% lor.(since buyer mention they know the rule from A-Z , anything cock-up, the buyer's sister/brother will get all the blame and not the seller agent, good deal for every one )
i am consider a very patient agent , or not how to last this long, some time also cannot tanhan , one ball big, one ball small.
my 2 cents thought , don't flame me :D
guess such DIY buyers got the hard way out...
dunno who gonna reply her letter :s8:
Convoy
10-01-2007, 08:02 PM
So how should i go about being an agent ? i seriously wanna quit what i am doing now and go be a Real Estate Agent instead !
How to select the right company to work for and must i go get a CEHA cert to qualify as an agent ?
Thanks in advance
PsyNidE
11-01-2007, 01:51 AM
Ok correct me if I'm wrong but I did read an article somewhere on paper long time ago that even if we appoint our own agent for buying or are independent buyers, it is not a must to pay commision to the seller's agent as their agent already earn commision from them.
Alpha_Hippo
11-01-2007, 01:26 PM
Chiu got vested interest reply ish veri funni
Convoy
11-01-2007, 05:01 PM
Ok correct me if I'm wrong but I did read an article somewhere on paper long time ago that even if we appoint our own agent for buying or are independent buyers, it is not a must to pay commision to the seller's agent as their agent already earn commision from them.
Whatever rules they set . The seller's agent still have the rights not to open the door to the buyers, unless they make enough $$$$ ... from it.
Worse still if the seller gave exclusive rights to the agent to market their unit .
Convoy
11-01-2007, 05:22 PM
Chiu got vested interest reply ish veri funni
Got a very hard time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
Care to educate me with the internet language ?
Jan 17, 2007
When property agents hinder rather than help
LET ME share my experiences in buying a HDB resale flat. I flip through the Classified section every day, but when I call to ask about advertised units, the agent usually refuses to entertain any questions unless I say I am a buyer.
Some ads even state 'sole agent'. If I say I already have an agent, the reply is either 'I prefer to work with you directly' or 'sorry, my colleague is the seller's agent for this flat. I have to be the buyer's agent'.
To agents point of view, u got agt, get ur agt to do the calling.. if u call other agts from the papers, they deal with u direct (they take ur agt as transparent).. dun jump the line of command...
It seems these agents work in teams to ensure that all buyers have to use their services.
Isn't tt obvious, unity is power??Rather than a buyer calls up the whole estate of agts to get them all to work for him, and agts themselves end up they are sourcing hard for the same buyer?
I went for a flat viewing recently and liked it enough to put in a bid, even though the valuation report was not available. Ms A, the agent supposed to represent me, called me the following night and informed me that the owner wanted to stay in the flat for three months after the transaction, free of charge, so that he could look for a new place.
She wanted me to confirm my bid immediately and admitted that she just wanted to close the deal fast. She claimed that another buyer was very interested as well.
After some thought, I refused her. My conditions were:
1. I must see the valuation report first,
2. The owner must pay me rental,
3. I want to view the flat again with my parents.
Amazingly, her SMS reply was 'In that case, I'll go look for the other buyer!'
I am sure there are many other buyers out there who have experienced such poor, or even worse, service from property agents.
In this case, this agt Ms A, is not working towards your interest... She just want to pressure u to act fast. else give it a miss..
To me, the reason agents can act so arrogantly is because they know that flat sellers will direct all buyers to them. Thus agents hold the bargaining chips, especially for flats in prime areas.
It is unfortunate that flat sellers still employ agents when they can save thousands of dollars by handling the sale themselves.
Why not employ an agt and save urself from the trouble from filtering out un-qualified buyers, as well as window shopping buyers? Someone tt's meant to be in this trade and do all the work for u for a fee? and at the same time may get u a good price for ur flat?
Same goes like getting a main contractor to renovate ur flat than to own source each contractor for its own job?
HDB resale transactions are not rocket science; there are monthly seminars conducted in English and Mandarin to teach the public how to handle all procedures. Flat sellers have more to gain by going the do-it-yourself (DIY) route than buyers because agents usually charge sellers 2 per cent and buyers 1 per cent of the purchase price of the flat.
In my view, there are two problems with the current system.
Firstly, the same agent can represent both buyer and seller in a transaction. As a buyer, how can I trust someone to bargain with the seller or fight for my interests when he is also paid by the seller to do the same? Worse still, he gets more from the seller!
The other problem is, buyers' agents are paid 1 per cent of the transacted price of the flat. The buyer wants to get the lowest price possible, but his agent gets more money for a higher flat price. How are the interests aligned?
Every $1K increase in selling price translates to $10 commission for a buyer agt, $20 for a seller agt, does it worth the effort? to push up a few K more, and risk deal from bursting?
If the buyer says the price is too high, agents like Ms A will just say goodbye and look for a richer buyer. This is how they 'represent' buyers!
My proposed solutions are these:
1. Make it illegal for the same person or company to represent both buyer and seller in a transaction. This will prevent collusion between agents.
2. Tie agents' remuneration to the property type instead of the property price. This will remove any incentive for agents to push the price as high as possible, to the detriment of buyers they are supposed to represent.
Granted, this is a business decision the Government would probably leave to the private sector to decide.
However it also means that nothing will change unless a competitor comes along that allows buyers and sellers to meet and go DIY, charging fixed fees for those who need assistance. Does NTUC fancy setting up a property cooperative?
:s13:
The "underline wordings" is it part of the article that appears in the papers? Or is it jq75 's view?
Real confusing when i am reading through this article.
Anyway, there are good hats and bad hats around, just that all the bad one get highlighted in the papers, and the good one just carry on with life. It’s quite well known that Singaporean like to do lots of complaining, and never like to do much complimenting
vinz
The "underline wordings" is it part of the article that appears in the papers? Or is it jq75 's view?
Real confusing when i am reading through this article.
Anyway, there are good hats and bad hats around, just that all the bad one get highlighted in the papers, and the good one just carry on with life. It’s quite well known that Singaporean like to do lots of complaining, and never like to do much complimenting
vinz
underlined are jq75 comments.. sorry for the confusion =:p
earthyblue
18-01-2007, 03:57 AM
hahaha, buyers complain about agents.
How about agents talk about some of the dirty, stupid tricks tried by buyers?
1) Buyer call up agents tell them they want to view. When they want to make an offer, dirty buyer said his brother is an agent and must cobroke with his brother so that the brother get a cut of the commission. All this because the buyer want to get a cut of the commission.
2) Buyer call up agent and said want to view. When want to make an offer, ask the family member act as agent to call up and cobroke and try to press down the price. The best part will be this so-called agent will never appear.
3) Buyer call up agent to view the unit. When want to offer, directly go up to the owner in the night and ask him for the best price, all for the sake of not going through the agent.
With ref on jg75's article on the term sole agent, is not because no cobroke.
Agents use the term sole agent is because there are many agents who do not have the listing actually advertise the unit on the same day of newspaper. The reason these agents do these is so that they can catch buyers to cobroke with the sole agent. :s13:
ekardo
20-01-2007, 01:47 AM
actually I also fed up with the buyer agent as I can never get the flat that I want even by offering close to the asking price.
I am glad I have found one unit which I liked, and the seller is not going thru the agent too!!!
I think, most agent have make the Agent's name bad....be a good agent to get the reputation back..else..this will be a sinking industry...
earthyblue
20-01-2007, 02:34 AM
actually I also fed up with the buyer agent as I can never get the flat that I want even by offering close to the asking price.
I am glad I have found one unit which I liked, and the seller is not going thru the agent too!!!
I think, most agent have make the Agent's name bad....be a good agent to get the reputation back..else..this will be a sinking industry...
The seller is not going thru his agent mainly because he wants to save on commission.
I still remembered how my 1st deal was.
It was a tenancy deal where I brought a tenant to see a condo unit in Goodluck Gdns. Tenant liked the place very much because she can have her golden retriever to stay with her. This is because her hdb flat lease cannot allow her to keep such a big dog and she had signed a 1 yr tenancy lease with another HDB flat landlord. So in order not to put the tenant in another tenancy dispute, I asked her to talk to her HDB flat landlord and even advised her how to do it in a way where she can get back her full security deposit.
Guess what? she solved her issue with her HDB flat and went straight to the condo landlord and signed a tenancy agreement without me.
And when I called the landlord, the landlord can even lie to me they rented to a korean family. The tenant even told me that she felt there was nothing wrong with her going straight to the landlord.
Landlord asked me to bring my tenant. Tenant called me to show her the unit. Both of them signed the tenancy agreement without me. I even drove my tenant from clementi to view the condo in bukit timah. And they can tell me there is nothing wrong in what they are doing. hahaha, I felt like a sucker all because people like them treated me like one.
People these days can feel morally and ethically they have done nothing wrong. :s8:
If one has seen the unit through the agent, just go through the hdb transaction process, pay the agent his commission and live your life in your new home.
Not trying to scare anyone, but seriously I believe in karma. Just a true life incident.
There was this landed owner of mine who told me she wants to sell her house because her husband has passed away and she no longer wants to stay there. After doing a caveat check, I realised her family only bought it a year ago at a very cut-throat price which was 300K below market value. Checked with her neighbours and realised that a year ago, the prev owner wanted to sell the house at 1.5Million. The owner then passed away living behind his wife and 2 small kids. The buyer knew of the situation and knew they needed money, pressed the price down to 1 Million because he knew they needed cash. The buyer became the new owner and within a year suffered from heart failure.
There is no wrong or no right. But I believe there is a God up there who can see what we are all doing. Sometimes its not just paying the money but the peace of mind that comes with it. =:p
ralfale
20-01-2007, 12:15 PM
Not trying to flame here ... just expressing my own views .. :)
I've just bought a flat. Initially after reading up, I also want to do my own processing to save on commission. Seriously, for young couples like us, even 1k means a lot to us. Considering the sum you'll need to do renovation, furnitures etc. However as time goes by, I realise its natural agents want to maximise their commission. This is just human nature. You dun want to give commission? Off you go. They can always sell to another person who's willing to pay. I dont blame them for this. So in the end, I realise the best way we buyers can do, is to find the seller agent and buy from them direct. For them, they can take comm from buyers, so it'll be easier for us to negotiate commission down (how low you can go, is really up to your bargaining powers :P)
A word of advice to agents reading this. Don't be too hard on negotiating commission. Sometimes buyers will just be happy to pay the commission as long as you give them some discount from the 1%. ;) The deal will be much smoother if both side are happy.
So, I believe govt now is slowly introducing the idea that agents cannot take comm from both side. However, to really stop this issue, there must be black and white laws to stop it. Otherwise the problem will persisit. Maybe in a few more years time we've have the law to stop this.
ekardo
20-01-2007, 03:21 PM
I have the black and white that says agent cannot take both side commission..will attach here on mon..
earthyblue
21-01-2007, 02:23 AM
Not trying to flame here ... just expressing my own views .. :)
I've just bought a flat. Initially after reading up, I also want to do my own processing to save on commission. Seriously, for young couples like us, even 1k means a lot to us. Considering the sum you'll need to do renovation, furnitures etc. However as time goes by, I realise its natural agents want to maximise their commission. This is just human nature. You dun want to give commission? Off you go. They can always sell to another person who's willing to pay. I dont blame them for this. So in the end, I realise the best way we buyers can do, is to find the seller agent and buy from them direct. For them, they can take comm from buyers, so it'll be easier for us to negotiate commission down (how low you can go, is really up to your bargaining powers :P)
A word of advice to agents reading this. Don't be too hard on negotiating commission. Sometimes buyers will just be happy to pay the commission as long as you give them some discount from the 1%. ;) The deal will be much smoother if both side are happy.
So, I believe govt now is slowly introducing the idea that agents cannot take comm from both side. However, to really stop this issue, there must be black and white laws to stop it. Otherwise the problem will persisit. Maybe in a few more years time we've have the law to stop this.
Not trying to flame too. Though I don't sell HDB flats, but I do feel for fellow agents in the industry.
If today you are an agent. You arranged a unit for your client to view. You make the appointment, spend time to go down with them for viewing. In the end your client want to make an offer to buy the unit and decided to go direct and find the seller's agent. The client did all these to save on commission. It may be a few K to the buyer but this amount of money is what the agent could use to feed his wife and kids at home.
How would you feel if such a buyer does this to you?
=======================================
If I have a buyer who tells me they have no money to pay commission and yet can buy house at least $200K, who is trying to smoke who?
It's not no money to pay but a matter of whether want to pay or not.
ralfale
21-01-2007, 08:56 AM
Hi earthyblue, you clearly misunderstood me. See me comments below.
Not trying to flame too. Though I don't sell HDB flats, but I do feel for fellow agents in the industry.
If today you are an agent. You arranged a unit for your client to view. You make the appointment, spend time to go down with them for viewing. In the end your client want to make an offer to buy the unit and decided to go direct and find the seller's agent. The client did all these to save on commission. It may be a few K to the buyer but this amount of money is what the agent could use to feed his wife and kids at home.
How would you feel if such a buyer does this to you?
My reply: No I do not encourage this. What i meant is, do not find a agent to hunt for house for you. Instead, do your own diligence and look through classified ads every weekend for the desired house. Then contact the agent selling the house. This is what i meant by 'going to the seller agent' :P
=======================================
If I have a buyer who tells me they have no money to pay commission and yet can buy house at least $200K, who is trying to smoke who?
It's not no money to pay but a matter of whether want to pay or not.
My reply: I am talking about hard cash here needed to do renovation, purchase furniture for the house flat, and giving commission. All these are hard cash!
Buying a 200k house does not mean taking out 200k on the spot. We are allowed to pay by installment via CPF. There's a lot of differences here dude.
ekardo
21-01-2007, 06:57 PM
I do agree with Ralf..
go to seller agent...what the buyer agent does, everyone can do too...
200k is cpf...and not cash....
I can also buy a 500k condo...but the downpayment require too much cash !
earthyblue
21-01-2007, 10:50 PM
Hi earthyblue, you clearly misunderstood me. See me comments below.
Then I teach you all 1 move where you all can even siam the seller's agent. Everyday so many classified ads.
So read through and call up the agents. Ask them facing, ask them above which floor. Ask them which block. If the agent tells you is street what and blk 5XX series above 5th floor, then don't make appointment through the agent. Go to 6th floor and knock door to door and ask the owners whether they selling house. Who knows, you might knock the door that the owner whom who is selling.
Since no prior arrangement was made through the agents, its only between owner and buyer. None of you need to pay commission.
To be even more hardworking, just sit below the block at night and who knows you might see an agent wearing a lanyard telling the whole world he is an agent and bringing his clients along for viewing. Bingo!!. Follow them into the lift as though you are a resident and after their viewing, just go and ask the owner whether they selling or not lor.
Like that not considered undercutting, neither is it considered unethical. It is a method of fishing information and of course one must really do up some homework on knowing the place well.
If agents can go house to house and do door knocks and get listings just to earn commission, I don't see why buyers cannot do the same thing if they want to get the house they want just to save on commission.
Don't everyone agree? No more conflicts on whether this agent deserves his money or that agent should get comm. DIY ownself, and no need to even fork out a single cent on comm. :)
earthyblue
21-01-2007, 11:01 PM
I do agree with Ralf..
go to seller agent...what the buyer agent does, everyone can do too...
200k is cpf...and not cash....
I can also buy a 500k condo...but the downpayment require too much cash !
Buying a house is not a decision made in a few days. Its long term planning. And likewise, saving up is also done via long term planning.
There is a reason why a minimum amount must be forked out using cash. If one does not have the cash, can one sustain paying off property loans?
Imagine if today Singapore did not implement CPF, will Singaporeans be able to afford HDB living? The sad fact will be Singaporeans are "forced to save" because of CPF. If whole salary is being brought home, I can boldly say many will not even be able to afford a 3 rm flat. :)
swatdila
22-01-2007, 10:57 AM
I am one who is trying to carry out this transaction on my own. Although the actual process itself (of submitting the application for, signing the option, etc) is not impossible to do on m own, but i realised that this paying of commission thg is the part that is more complex (due to market practices, agents behaviour, etc).. i hv contacted some agents who say they will charge me the 1%. I hv even spoken to an agent who gv me these reasons why he wil charge me 1%:
1) i hv advertised in the papers and you hv responded to my ad, so i hv done a service for u
2) I hv to negotiate with the seller on ur behalf
3) if u dun want to pay the 1% then i will not want to bring u to view the house, i.e. dun want to entertain me
For me, i will pay the 1% if i engage an agent and gv him specific instructions on my requirements and he search for the house for me. He deserves that 1%, not a problem. But for the reasons stated above, I dun feel that it is right for an agent to charge me that 1%. Afterall, i paid 80cents to buy the straits times in order to read the ad. and he is paid the 2% to advertise for the seller. As for negotiatiing, he is representing the seller and i negotiate with him. If he thks that if i dun pay him he wont negotiate with me, then i can negotiate direct with the buyer. why would i want to pay him 1% to negotiate for me as there would be a conflict of interest.
Do a search, its been discuss fiercely in this forum, even in Straitimes forum
page.
refer to the link below, then decided if u need/want to pay or not.
http://forums.hardwarezone.com/showthread.php?t=1267975
earthyblue
23-01-2007, 02:15 AM
I hv even spoken to an agent who gv me these reasons why he wil charge me 1%:
1) i hv advertised in the papers and you hv responded to my ad, so i hv done a service for u
2) I hv to negotiate with the seller on ur behalf
3) if u dun want to pay the 1% then i will not want to bring u to view the house, i.e. dun want to entertain me
For me, i will pay the 1% if i engage an agent and gv him specific instructions on my requirements and he search for the house for me. He deserves that 1%, not a problem. But for the reasons stated above, I dun feel that it is right for an agent to charge me that 1%. Afterall, i paid 80cents to buy the straits times in order to read the ad. and he is paid the 2% to advertise for the seller. As for negotiatiing, he is representing the seller and i negotiate with him. If he thks that if i dun pay him he wont negotiate with me, then i can negotiate direct with the buyer. why would i want to pay him 1% to negotiate for me as there would be a conflict of interest.
You shall decide. To you, property is not your bread and butter, but to a property agent, it is his bread and butter.
Of course you can say you pay 80cents to buy the straits times.
The agent can also tell you, he pay $11 per line and its a 4 line ad to advertise for the seller
You can rebuke that the agent gets 2% from seller so that is why he is obligated to advertise for seller.
The agent can tell you back that if the unit is not sold, who does he claim his ad fees from?
An employed person will get his salary from his boss mthly.
A property agent gets his salary only when he sells the flat. And somemore the commission only comes upon completion which is 10-12 weeks from transaction.
On the above 3 points which the agent tell you, it is valid.
1) If the agent did not advertise the unit in the 1st place, would you have known that a unit in that area is for sale?
2) If the agent don't negotiate the deal for you, do you seriously think that anyone else will want to negotiate the deal for you free of charge? You can say that you negotiate yourself with the owner. Let me tell you lah, when a buyer talks to a owner direct, he cannot negotiate a better deal than an experienced agent. You negotiate a deal not many times in your lifetime, but to an agent, who went through numerous deals, they will know how to handle situations like this. Negotiating a deal is not just using mouth and talk. We work upon seeing body language, intent of selling, human psychology.
When I negotiate an offer with the owner, I do my caveats checks, competitors checks, with these, these are my "weapons" in closing deal. Do you have any of these in the 1st place?
3) The agent is right to say that if you are not willing to pay him 1%, why should he show house to you. If today you are an agent, and the buyer tells you, " I am not going to pay you a single cent of commission even if I go through you." How would you feel?
HDB buyers are required to pay commission, because the value of HDB flats sold is not as high as private property. If agents are not fed, no one will want to sell HDB flats. If no agents want to advertise for owners because the commission is not enough to offset advertising fees, then owners have to DO IT THEMSELVES. And how many owners can actually advertise consistently and negotiate a good price? :)
ekardo
23-01-2007, 03:55 AM
if you dun wanna pay agent the $$, when you call up, tell the agent straight lor.
since there's no specific rules yet....let's wait and see...
swatdila
23-01-2007, 02:54 PM
ya lor, actually a lot of grey areas la. all points are debatable. i hv no issue if agents tell me upfront u dun want to pay, i wont show u the house. but i hv an issue if everyone keeps quiet then end of the day, u tell me, u hv to pay bcos it is assumed that u hv to pay right from the start. also, there are other ways to negotiate abt this 1%, end of the day, if the agent dun even want to nego and show the unit, its just a lose-lose situation.
Victor
29-01-2007, 03:33 PM
Thank you for the info.
So it shd or shd not pay seller agent if I find the HDB myself?
zero20sg
29-01-2007, 06:16 PM
Thank you for the info.
So it shd or shd not pay seller agent if I find the HDB myself?If u look for HDB yourself, but the seller has an agent, normally,
u're obligated to pay him 1 % as he settle the admin for both buyer and seller.
That's of course you 're generally satisfied with his/her services.
The 1 % is for his service to u of course.
Victor
29-01-2007, 06:52 PM
ya lor, actually a lot of grey areas la. all points are debatable. i hv no issue if agents tell me upfront u dun want to pay, i wont show u the house. but i hv an issue if everyone keeps quiet then end of the day, u tell me, u hv to pay bcos it is assumed that u hv to pay right from the start. also, there are other ways to negotiate abt this 1%, end of the day, if the agent dun even want to nego and show the unit, its just a lose-lose situation.
I agree...
see this: (iea website)
http://www.iea.org.sg/index.cfm?GPID=10
Yes , I agree seller agent also need to cover the expense for advertisement.
but you can calculate , if a seller agent sell a house S$350K
how much for his expense?
but he earn up to S$350k X 3%= S$10.5k commision if he charge buyer 1 %
His earn is much much higher than the expense.
Victor
29-01-2007, 07:00 PM
If u look for HDB yourself, but the seller has an agent, normally,
u're obligated to pay him 1 % as he settle the admin for both buyer and seller.
That's of course you 're generally satisfied with his/her services.
The 1 % is for his service to u of course.
but if I not satisfied with his/her services, he also will charge you 1%, right?
that is why so many issues, IEA website call it is professional fees , not commison fee.
What is professional mean?
earthyblue
30-01-2007, 01:46 AM
I agree...
see this: (iea website)
http://www.iea.org.sg/index.cfm?GPID=10
Yes , I agree seller agent also need to cover the expense for advertisement.
but you can calculate , if a seller agent sell a house S$350K
how much for his expense?
but he earn up to S$350k X 3%= S$10.5k commision if he charge buyer 1 %
His earn is much much higher than the expense.
A $3.5 Million landed property is sold and the agent gets 1% commission. Earning $35000.
I am sure many out there will say this amount is unjustified.
If the agent is paid 2% by the seller, I am sure the $70000 commission will make many tear their hair off
Victor
30-01-2007, 11:38 AM
....................................................................................
yenfong1
08-02-2007, 09:10 AM
I agree...
Victor
23-03-2007, 02:22 PM
A $3.5 Million landed property is sold and the agent gets 1% commission. Earning $35000.
I am sure many out there will say this amount is unjustified.
If the agent is paid 2% by the seller, I am sure the $70000 commission will make many tear their hair off
yes, you have your point
Feb 4, 2008
ACCREDITATION SCHEME
Plans for new group to lift standards of housing agents
By Tan Hui Yee
A GROUP of property agencies plans to form a new association to raise standards in response to growing complaints about estate agents.
The group, which will be separate from the Institute of Estate Agents (IEA), will work closely with an ongoing accreditation scheme to lift the industry's game.
Complaints about agents have shot up in the past two years amid a property boom, prompting disquiet among some about the sector, which remains largely self-regulated.
Unlike the IEA, which has individual agents as members, the new body will involve estate agencies, said the chairman of its interim committee, property consultant David Ong.
The new body is likely to be linked to the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies Scheme (SAEA), which last year was reported to have vetted more than 7,000 agents out of the 30,000 or so working in the industry.
It is understood that more than 10 agencies - including HSR Property Group and KF Property Network - will be joining the group. KF Property is the agency division of Knight Frank.
More details are expected soon, but the director of KF Property, Dr Tan Tee Khoon, told The Straits Times that the new body would allow the agency heads to share information about rogue agents as well as host seminars and conferences to raise standards.
A register of agents from member agencies could also be set up.
The group could rival the efforts of the IEA, which introduced a registry in 2006. That registry lists about 350 agencies with almost 21,000 agents.
Dr Tan denied that the new group would rival IEA, saying rather that it would help curb the problem of errant agents. 'We are really trying to cover more ground. Members of the public are free to choose whether they want to use an IEA agent or an agent with the new association,' he said.
His firm was among a group of agencies that raised concerns about IEA's practising certificate scheme when it was launched last year.
The certificate was given to IEA members - which number about 1,400 now - who pledged to abide by its code of conduct. The dissenting group, which included HSR, DTZ Debenham Tie Leung and Global Real Estate, felt the certificate could confuse the public and called instead for the industry to support the SAEA.
One agency chief, Mr Chris Koh from Dennis Wee Properties, said the new group could work if it united all the industry's head honchos. But IEA's first vice-president and the chief executive of Propnex, Mr Mohamed Ismail, felt it would divide the industry instead and spread resources too thinly.
There were 1,717 housing agencies in Singapore as at the end of last year. The largely unregulated property sector has had a bad reputation over the years. The Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) received 1,113 complaints last year, up from 991 in 2006.
Case said the complaints involved agents misrepresenting facts, failing to honour promised terms and providing unsatisfactory services, among other things.
Industry veterans say the problem lies in the fact that only agencies are licensed, so agents sacked for unethical conduct can simply practise in another firm.
The Government, however, has consistently shied away from regulating agents.
Case is working with IEA to look into setting up another accreditation system for housing agencies.
michael8330
09-02-2008, 01:43 PM
additional move.
should improve together with existing IEA.
and not to start another body .
so many voices, so who should gov. body work with???
i will give this new body a miss.
i had already join iea and saea.
i think enough is enough, better forcus on earn money then all this.
additional move.
should improve together with existing IEA.
and not to start another body .
so many voices, so who should gov. body work with???
i will give this new body a miss.
i had already join iea and saea.
i think enough is enough, better forcus on earn money then all this.
got talk no bite, its a toothless tiger
sepultura
09-02-2008, 10:22 PM
Bottom line - when the market is hot and very much unregulated, you are bound to find crooks who are unprofessional or out to make a fast buck.
As for home buyers, I find it's better to use a trusty agent. Better to do the selling on your own as long as you have a good lawyer, since the commission is double for sellers.
Feb 14, 2008
Why confuse people with a new association for real estate agents?
I REFER to the article, 'Plans for new group to raise standards of housing agents' by Ms Tan Hui Yee (ST, Feb 4).
Being the founding member and council member of the former Association of Singapore Realtor (ASR), now known as IEA (Institute of Estate Agents), I am surprised to see my former council member of ASR and past president of the IEA wanting to set up another association with the reasons of raising standards or covering more grounds.
If this new group has the interest of the realtors and the real estate industry at heart, then it would make more sense to work with the IEA. Why waste resources, time and personal commitment which, I doubt, many can give to form this new association. And would the new association be more effective or is it a clash of personalities?
From my understanding from the realtors, I believe the present IEA has done a fairly good job for realtors in Singapore. They have the Central Register Scheme (CRS) which is already well supported by the majority of the larger agencies. Be it raising standards, sharing of information or conducting courses, I believe these are being done by the IEA. As reported in the newspaper, the IEA has captured more than 354 licensed agencies and about 21,000 agents' names. The bulk of the industry's players have been supporting it since 2006. Why confuse people with another register or association now?
More importantly, now, for the IEA is to work harder for the day when we can see the association governing realtors in Singapore, like the Singapore Institute of Architect or the Singapore Medical Council.
As the saying goes: Rivalry will surface when there is more than one tiger in the hills. Work together in unity for the betterment of the industry and not oneself.
Khoo See Pheng
Feb 6, 2008
More should be done to prevent rogue property agents from fleecing the public
I REFER to the report, 'Plans for new group to lift standards of housing agents' (ST, Feb 4), in the face of rising complaints against rogue agents.
Recently, I encountered an agent from a top agency who tried to reduce the sale price of my flat and pressure me into quickly closing the sale.
I made a complaint to the agency. But it replaced the agent only after he had filed successfully, against my wishes, with the HDB for the first appointment.
Many people are using a large portion of their CPF money to buy a roof over their heads. Hence, I urge government agencies to do more to protect HDB flat owners from rogue agents. It should not be left to the industry to self-regulate as this has been unsatisfactory so far.
I suggest the following:
>>That agents representing sellers cannot represent buyers for the same property, that is, buyers' agents must be independent of sellers' agents because of conflict of interest.
>>That a list of registered agents be maintained as well as a list of barred agents and that no agency is allowed to employ agents who have been debarred to practise under its umbrella.
>>That HDB conduct workshops to educate flat owners on all the procedures, legal forms and declarations, etc, involved in the sale and purchase of HDB flats.
I hope the relevant authorities can look into these suggestions.
Goh Hock Tee
Feb 4, 2008
Bad experiences with unprofessional housing agents
I WOULD like to highlight some unpleasant experiences with housing agents in Singapore and, hopefully, I might find someone who shares the same problem as I do.
These happened while I was looking for an apartment to rent.
One housing agent advertise an apartment as renovated, but when we reached the apartment, we found that renovation had not been done, and that it would depend how much we had to offer.
Last week, an agent from PropNex advertised an apartment for rent. The ad stated the size of the flat and I even called to confirm the size and was also told that there was a maid room. But when we arrived, there was no maid room and the size of the flat was about 300 sq ft smaller.
I have written to PropNex about this incident, but have yet to get a reply.
Is there any real estate association in Singapore that governs these agents?
Melvenie Rasmussen (Mrs)
ummaj123
19-02-2008, 01:24 PM
Jan 17, 2007
When property agents hinder rather than help
LET ME share my experiences in buying a HDB resale flat. I flip through the Classified section every day, but when I call to ask about advertised units, the agent usually refuses to entertain any questions unless I say I am a buyer.
Some ads even state 'sole agent'. If I say I already have an agent, the reply is either 'I prefer to work with you directly' or 'sorry, my colleague is the seller's agent for this flat. I have to be the buyer's agent'.
To agents point of view, u got agt, get ur agt to do the calling.. if u call other agts from the papers, they deal with u direct (they take ur agt as transparent).. dun jump the line of command...
It seems these agents work in teams to ensure that all buyers have to use their services.
Isn't tt obvious, unity is power??Rather than a buyer calls up the whole estate of agts to get them all to work for him, and agts themselves end up they are sourcing hard for the same buyer?
I went for a flat viewing recently and liked it enough to put in a bid, even though the valuation report was not available. Ms A, the agent supposed to represent me, called me the following night and informed me that the owner wanted to stay in the flat for three months after the transaction, free of charge, so that he could look for a new place.
She wanted me to confirm my bid immediately and admitted that she just wanted to close the deal fast. She claimed that another buyer was very interested as well.
After some thought, I refused her. My conditions were:
1. I must see the valuation report first,
2. The owner must pay me rental,
3. I want to view the flat again with my parents.
Amazingly, her SMS reply was 'In that case, I'll go look for the other buyer!'
I am sure there are many other buyers out there who have experienced such poor, or even worse, service from property agents.
In this case, this agt Ms A, is not working towards your interest... She just want to pressure u to act fast. else give it a miss..
To me, the reason agents can act so arrogantly is because they know that flat sellers will direct all buyers to them. Thus agents hold the bargaining chips, especially for flats in prime areas.
It is unfortunate that flat sellers still employ agents when they can save thousands of dollars by handling the sale themselves.
Why not employ an agt and save urself from the trouble from filtering out un-qualified buyers, as well as window shopping buyers? Someone tt's meant to be in this trade and do all the work for u for a fee? and at the same time may get u a good price for ur flat?
Same goes like getting a main contractor to renovate ur flat than to own source each contractor for its own job?
HDB resale transactions are not rocket science; there are monthly seminars conducted in English and Mandarin to teach the public how to handle all procedures. Flat sellers have more to gain by going the do-it-yourself (DIY) route than buyers because agents usually charge sellers 2 per cent and buyers 1 per cent of the purchase price of the flat.
In my view, there are two problems with the current system.
Firstly, the same agent can represent both buyer and seller in a transaction. As a buyer, how can I trust someone to bargain with the seller or fight for my interests when he is also paid by the seller to do the same? Worse still, he gets more from the seller!
The other problem is, buyers' agents are paid 1 per cent of the transacted price of the flat. The buyer wants to get the lowest price possible, but his agent gets more money for a higher flat price. How are the interests aligned?
Every $1K increase in selling price translates to $10 commission for a buyer agt, $20 for a seller agt, does it worth the effort? to push up a few K more, and risk deal from bursting?
If the buyer says the price is too high, agents like Ms A will just say goodbye and look for a richer buyer. This is how they 'represent' buyers!
My proposed solutions are these:
1. Make it illegal for the same person or company to represent both buyer and seller in a transaction. This will prevent collusion between agents.
2. Tie agents' remuneration to the property type instead of the property price. This will remove any incentive for agents to push the price as high as possible, to the detriment of buyers they are supposed to represent.
Granted, this is a business decision the Government would probably leave to the private sector to decide.
However it also means that nothing will change unless a competitor comes along that allows buyers and sellers to meet and go DIY, charging fixed fees for those who need assistance. Does NTUC fancy setting up a property cooperative?
:s13:
Thank u for posting about this w/c exactly represents the main issues of a property buyer...i really felt it's not fair to base commission on the property price, it makes the buyer always on the shaky end...it just simply does not give an agent any motivation at all to work hard to get lower price for the buyer.
property market is still too hot w/c makes it difficult to get a house if u are someone w/ a tight budget.. getting an agent that will genuinely represent BUYER'S interest is another difficult task http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/images/icons/icon5.gif
Axisx
26-02-2008, 08:51 AM
If you are a buyer, try to stick to 1 agent. If you are a seller... do the same. Too many agents, you would get confused and you would definetely be LOST.
commsion wise.... there are many agents out there who charge lower than 1% / 2%. However most of them are known as agent pirate ( no company / solo ). check your mailbox and you can find pieces of paper saying " I am sincerely looking for a flat and have ready cash of $$$...no agent's please" . They are your best bet if you want to pay a lower commission. If any issues pops up in the future you have no recourse. My 1 cent worth.
wish all the best in your sales and purchaseres.
May 2, 2008
Better laws needed to regulate estate agents
I REFER to the Saturday Special report, 'Rodeo realtors' (April 19).
While the number of complaints is of much concern, it should be noted that they are committed by errant agents from a few companies.
As realtors deal with high value-added services, it is unfortunate that many of these complaints have invoked strong reactions.
For all intents and purposes, most practitioners realise they need to uphold the professional code of ethics and conduct to ensure long-term success in their profession.
These complaints are further compounded by the fact that, unlike in most developed countries, there are presently no well-defined laws regulating real estate practice in Singapore, an industry which is neither fully regulated nor totally deregulated.
I am of the opinion that self-regulation, in the context of the local consumer culture, operates optimally only within the framework of a well-crafted legislation for both real estate companies and agents.
Any private regulatory initiatives in a highly competitive industry are almost impossible unless there is adequate support and appropriate power to champion the best interests of consumers.
In appointing their agents, consumers should ensure they are committed to a stringent code of practice. They must go through comprehensive and vigorous training on a continuing basis.
In addition, agencies should be equipped with state-of-the-art technology and marketing resources. They should be in a position to submit an effective sole agency marketing plan, backed by a series of guarantees for performance, service and results.
Consumers can be assured, if they do their due diligence, there are many professional advisers in the market who can meet, and even exceed, these criteria.
Patrick Liew
CEO
HSR Property Group
May 2, 2008
Don't tar all with same brush
I ENJOYED the Saturday Special package of features on the real estate sales industry (April 19).
But I was disappointed and dismayed by the statement by Dr Yu Shi Ming, head of the real estate department of the National University of Singapore (NUS), when he was quoted as saying: 'Every time people think of real estate agents, they think 'unscrupulous', 'untrained', 'unprofessional' and 'unethical'.
My mother was upset and embarrassed after reading Dr Yu's hurtful remark and asked if I, a real estate agent, was also unscrupulous, untrained, unprofessional and unethical.
I assured my mother I belong to the vast majority of real estate agents who abide by the core value of sales, including always trying to achieve the greatest savings for my customers and always ensuring that my customers will need to 'move house' only once when they relocate from one place to another.
Such deals are often complicated and require agents to have good people skills, good coordination skills, an eye for the nitty-gritty, patience and a cool head.
Most real estate agents, though poorly educated, will not say things without first thinking how the words we use will hurt the feelings of others, especially their parents.
I may not be as highly educated, but I have learnt the virtue of not making sweeping generalisations against others from my primary school teacher - who, like me, was not as well educated.
Doreen Chan (Ms)
be happy
17-11-2008, 02:26 AM
Not trying to flame here ... just expressing my own views .. :)
I've just bought a flat. Initially after reading up, I also want to do my own processing to save on commission. Seriously, for young couples like us, even 1k means a lot to us. Considering the sum you'll need to do renovation, furnitures etc. However as time goes by, I realise its natural agents want to maximise their commission. This is just human nature. You dun want to give commission? Off you go. They can always sell to another person who's willing to pay. I dont blame them for this. So in the end, I realise the best way we buyers can do, is to find the seller agent and buy from them direct. For them, they can take comm from buyers, so it'll be easier for us to negotiate commission down (how low you can go, is really up to your bargaining powers :P)
A word of advice to agents reading this. Don't be too hard on negotiating commission. Sometimes buyers will just be happy to pay the commission as long as you give them some discount from the 1%. ;) The deal will be much smoother if both side are happy.
So, I believe govt now is slowly introducing the idea that agents cannot take comm from both side. However, to really stop this issue, there must be black and white laws to stop it. Otherwise the problem will persisit. Maybe in a few more years time we've have the law to stop this.
As I believed Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
We are taught it from childhood. We learn it from our parents. We learn it at school. But more than any other place, we learn it in our churches because it comes straight from the Bible.
If you don't want to be ripped off, don't rip off others. If you don't want your people to cheat on you, don't cheat on your others. If you don't want to be judged, don't judge.
In this world, heaven is up in the sky, Agents are also earning a living, they do not have a basic salary, they are also earning a decent living by going through all the ways to help marketing houses. What would you feel if the boss employed you by later don't pay you? Or what if you are a taxi-driver, after ferry the customer to one places, they find ways to get out without paying you the money? Because there is law to enforce on the above, it seldom happens, but it doesnt apply to housing agents, just put yourself in other people's shoes, you will know what I mean. Heaven is just above you, what goes around will come around one day.
How would you feel when your boss wants to cut your pay when you are doing the best for the company? Same thing goes around, nobody will want to take less or doing something for free.....
be happy
17-11-2008, 02:38 AM
The seller is not going thru his agent mainly because he wants to save on commission.
I still remembered how my 1st deal was.
It was a tenancy deal where I brought a tenant to see a condo unit in Goodluck Gdns. Tenant liked the place very much because she can have her golden retriever to stay with her. This is because her hdb flat lease cannot allow her to keep such a big dog and she had signed a 1 yr tenancy lease with another HDB flat landlord. So in order not to put the tenant in another tenancy dispute, I asked her to talk to her HDB flat landlord and even advised her how to do it in a way where she can get back her full security deposit.
Guess what? she solved her issue with her HDB flat and went straight to the condo landlord and signed a tenancy agreement without me.
And when I called the landlord, the landlord can even lie to me they rented to a korean family. The tenant even told me that she felt there was nothing wrong with her going straight to the landlord.
Landlord asked me to bring my tenant. Tenant called me to show her the unit. Both of them signed the tenancy agreement without me. I even drove my tenant from clementi to view the condo in bukit timah. And they can tell me there is nothing wrong in what they are doing. hahaha, I felt like a sucker all because people like them treated me like one.
People these days can feel morally and ethically they have done nothing wrong. :s8:
If one has seen the unit through the agent, just go through the hdb transaction process, pay the agent his commission and live your life in your new home.
Not trying to scare anyone, but seriously I believe in karma. Just a true life incident.
There was this landed owner of mine who told me she wants to sell her house because her husband has passed away and she no longer wants to stay there. After doing a caveat check, I realised her family only bought it a year ago at a very cut-throat price which was 300K below market value. Checked with her neighbours and realised that a year ago, the prev owner wanted to sell the house at 1.5Million. The owner then passed away living behind his wife and 2 small kids. The buyer knew of the situation and knew they needed money, pressed the price down to 1 Million because he knew they needed cash. The buyer became the new owner and within a year suffered from heart failure.
There is no wrong or no right. But I believe there is a God up there who can see what we are all doing. Sometimes its not just paying the money but the peace of mind that comes with it. =:p
Yes I totally agree with you whole heartedly, As I believed Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
We are taught it from childhood. We learn it from our parents. We learn it at school. But more than any other place, we learn it in our churches because it comes straight from the Bible.
If you don't want to be ripped off, don't rip off others. If you don't want your people to cheat on you, don't cheat on your others. If you don't want to be judged, don't judge.
In this world, heaven is up in the sky, Agents are also earning a living, they do not have a basic salary, they are also earning a decent living by going through all the ways to help marketing houses. What would you feel if the boss employed you by later don't pay you? Or what if you are a taxi-driver, after ferry the customer to one places, they find ways to get out without paying you the money? Because there is law to enforce on the above, it seldom happens, but it doesnt apply to housing agents, just put yourself in other people's shoes, you will know what I mean. Heaven is just above you, what goes around will come around one day.
How would you feel when your boss wants to cut your pay when you are doing the best for the company? Same thing goes around, nobody will want to take less or doing something for free.....
March 18, 2009
Government to tighten rules for housing agents
THE National Development Ministry is reviewing the framework that property agents work under given the recent spate of unethical practices that have surfaced.
Minister Mah Bow Tan told The Straits Times: 'The status quo, in my view, is not tenable. I think we need to do something.'
The MND is looking to see if it could get property agencies to keep a closer watch on their agents, among other things.
'Surely the agencies, who I believe share in the commissions of the agents, have a responsibility too. Whoever is offering a service for a fee must have a responsibility, a duty to maintain certain standards,' he said.
It may even take even tougher measures if agencies do not rein in their agents, said Mr Mah.
'We have to see how agents do not mislead, and if they do mislead, they engage in unlawful practices, what action we can take against them.'
This is the first time that the Government has hinted at the possibility of mandatory regulations for the real estate industry. For years, it has maintained that the industry should regulate itself despite the fact that various such attempts have been found lacking.
Although housing agencies are licensed by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, the over 20,000 housing agents here are not regulated. They do not need to meet minimum standards and can continue in the trade even if they are found to have done wrong.
In a highly publicised case last month, a couple took ERA Realty Network to court after they sold their downtown apartment for $688,000 in 2007 and learned subsequently that their home was bought and resold by the wife of their agent's boss for $945,000. The couple won the case and have since received the difference of $257,000 back from ERA.
ERA had argued during the case that the agency was not liable for the actions of its agents because they are considered independent contractors.
Years of infighting have left housing agencies unable to agree on common standards for self-regulation.
The Institute of Estate Agents has only a small fraction of agents as its members and there is confusion over what it takes to be an accredited agency under the four-year-old Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA) scheme.
The board behind the programme initially required accredited agencies to have all their agents pass the Common Exam for House Agents (Ceha) by this year, but introduced a scaled-down test called the Common Examination for Salespersons (CES) just before that deadline.
Mr Mah said: 'I don't think it worked well, based on all accounts...It's not satisfactory. The whole current system is not satisfactory.'
His comments buoyed industry players like Mr Jeff Foo, the president of the Institute of Estate Agents, who said: 'It's about time for a change. We have to do things in the interests of the consumer.'
But the chairman of the SAEA, Mr Peter Koh, maintained that voluntary accreditation was making 'satisfactory progress'. About 300 agencies with more than 6,000 agents under them have been accredited so far.
'With government support, we can do better. We are doing our level best given that it's so fragmented.'
TAN HUI YEE
March 20, 2009
Punish rogue property agents
I REFER to Wednesday's report, "Government to tighten rules for housing agents".
I agree with National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan that certain standards must be set and tougher measures must be taken against agencies that fail to rein in their agents.
Punitive action - and not the passing of examinations - is the best way to deal with unethical agents.�
Examinations will not prevent a similar incident from happening in the future as this is an issue that involves moral values, not academic knowledge, of the agent.
For example, an agent may pass the Common Examination for House Agents and represent an accredited agency, but continue to make "secret" profits from other sales transactions if he joins another real estate company.
(It is my understanding that some companies still accept agents who have been convicted in court.)
I suggest the following:
1. Housing agencies should do a cross-check on agents who have resigned or had their services terminated by another agency. If they are found to have any previous criminal convictions, they must be barred permanently from returning to the industry.
2. Impose a heavy fine on agents who make "secret" profits at the expense of their clients.
Raymond Lim
March 26, 2009
Housing agents: Need for a strong regulator
IN YESTERDAY'S report, 'Regulation of property agents under review', Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport Lim Hwee Hua told Parliament the Government is reviewing ways to strengthen the regulatory framework for housing agents. This was in response to complaints about malpractices by housing agents.
The measures being considered refer to raising the professional standard of agents, quality and training requirements, the dispute resolution framework, as well as the framework for enforcement.
The approach is similar to the regulatory framework used for the sale of life insurance and investment products. It has failed to deal with the problem of mis-selling credit-linked notes and other financial products that are bad for consumers.�
This approach relies on the principle of the free market, which is to provide information for consumers to make their decision. The crux of the problem is that the information is provided by the seller, who makes a bigger profit or commission by mis-informing the consumer. There is a serious conflict of interest.
If this approach is adopted, the regulator must look after the interest of consumers, and take appropriate action against cheating, which is a crime that includes profiting unfairly by misleading the other party.�
A better alternative is to have a strong regulator to set the rules for the market. An example is regulation on the sale of medicine and food products. These products are tested to be safe and suitable for consumption. The regulator can carry out the test or engage independent experts to do the work. But the regulator takes responsibility to put the stamp on the product.
A better system is one in which the regulator licenses agents and sets professional standards of ethics and conduct. If agents fail to meet the standard, they should be removed, which is the case in the licensing of doctors, lawyers and other professionals.
The regulator has the option to outsource the actual assessment to a professional or self-regulatory body, but this body should have 'teeth' and the backing of the regulator. Stronger regulation actually benefits the majority of ethical agents and creates a better market for all parties.
I hope the Government will consider these suggestions.
Tan Kin Lian
March 25, 2009
Regulation of property agents under review
The aim is to strengthen enforcement framework and raise overall professional standards
By Jessica Cheam
FRESH details emerged in Parliament yesterday of a review that is now under way, which is aimed at regulating Singapore's housing agents more effectively.
The review follows a high-profile court case which highlighted the problem of unscrupulous agents.
Senior Minister of State for Finance Lim Hwee Hua told Parliament the review will cover areas such as agent qualifications and training standards.
The review will also look at putting in place a dispute resolution mechanism and an enforcement framework against agencies with errant agents, she said.
News of the review was first disclosed by National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan last week during an interview.
Mrs Lim was responding to a question from Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade GRC), who asked if there were plans to license individual agents.
Currently, any housing agent can switch from one agency to another, even if he is sacked, Mr Lim noted.
'How does the ministry intend to deal with such rogue agents who behave in an unethical manner ... Wouldn't it be better to issue licences to individual agents instead of regulating them through agencies?' he asked.
Mrs Lim said that these were issues that 'the review will have to take into account - such as the ethical and performance standards, as well as the mode of licensing'.
The government review follows a high-profile case last month where a couple took estate agency ERA Realty Network to court after they sold their downtown apartment for $688,000 in 2007.
They eventually discovered their home was bought and resold by the wife of their agent's boss for $945,000. The couple won the case and have received the difference of $257,000 back from ERA.
Mrs Lim, who did not make any reference to the case in her reply, said yesterday that the Government agreed that the 'current state of the industry is not satisfactory'.
There have been frequent complaints against unscrupulous housing agents.
Government agencies including the National Development Ministry, the Housing Board (HDB), Ministry of Finance and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) are 'reviewing possible ways of strengthening the regulatory framework and raising overall professional standards', she said.
'Among other things, there is a need for greater control by the housing agencies over the conduct of their agents,' she added.
Agency bosses that The Straits Times spoke to said they welcomed the move, and felt that licensing individual agents would be the way forward, with a central agency involving the Government playing a regulatory role.
The Government said previously that it preferred to let the industry regulate itself.
The industry currently lacks a high level of accountability, transparency and professionalism, and making agents responsible for their own actions will help in these areas, said PropNex's chief executive Mohamed Ismail.
HSR Property Group executive director Eric Cheng felt that steps have to be taken to consider agents in the older age group, who might not meet new qualification standards - and not to set obstacles for entry into the industry.
ERA Asia-Pacific's associate director Eugene Lim said he was open to a new regulatory framework for the industry, but hoped the Government would consult the industry before anything was decided.
Mrs Lim said the outcome of the review will be announced when it is completed, although no date was mentioned.
jcheam@sph.com.sg
March 30, 2009
Real estate agencies fully back govt review
I REFER to last Wednesday's report, 'Regulation of property agents under review'.
The Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA) is fully supportive of the Government's move towards a more effective way of regulating housing agents.
The housing agent industry is largely fragmented and unregulated. The current basic requirement is to pass the Common Examination for House Agents and apply for a house agent licence from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras). This licence is issued to agencies - that is firms and not individual agents. Once licensed, the proprietor usually recruits many associates (not employees), who work based on an agreed shared commission. So many agencies recruit agents indiscriminately, many without proper qualifications.
Therefore, the industry ends up with more than 30,000 agents and most without sound understanding of real estate practice.
We believe professionalism arises from, first, basic certification of skills and knowledge with continuing professional development training; and, second, a code of practice which agents follow. This can come about only if there is mandatory licensing and accreditation of individual realtors and a body familiar with real estate practice that is sanctioned by the Government to be a watchdog.
We understand the Government has always encouraged the industry to self-regulate. This is feasible if the industry is in the first place regulated. To exercise control on an industry which is unregulated is indeed daunting. Nevertheless, the SAEA scheme was officially launched on Nov 11, 2005 by the then Minister of State for Finance and Transport, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua. When launched, this scheme was supported by the HDB, Iras and Ministry of Finance.
As a result, there are now more than 300 accredited agencies and 6,000 accredited agents and salesmen, sharing the common vision of raising professional standards in the industry by certified competencies and compliance to a professional code. We believe this is a good scheme and leaders of all our accredited agencies, which comprise 23,000 agents in total, will endeavour to work with government bodies to build a better real estate agency force in Singapore.
Peter Koh
Chairman of Executive Committee
Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies
April 4, 2009
Doubts about real estate industry's ability to self-regulate
THE comments of Mr Peter Koh, chairman of the executive committee of the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA), in the letter "Real estate agencies fully back govt review" (March 30), are certainly incongruous with both the situation in the industry and my unpleasant experience with a few property agencies under its scheme.
Since December, I have been receiving nuisance calls from agents, the majority from PropNex and HSR. To stop these calls which were made to my residential line and severely invaded my privacy, I had contacted these agencies to request that I be taken off their mailing and contact lists. They gave me the nonchalant reply that the calls and mailers were telemarketing efforts by their agents over whom they had no control.
At my wits' end, I then contacted the SAEA and asked it to compel these agencies to act. More than a month has passed since an e-mail message was sent to PropNex and I have not received a response to my complaint.
To date, I am still receiving nuisance calls from property agents, the last being from DTZ, whose agent showed no remorse and told me that such telemarketing calls were normal when I asked what gave her the right to call my residential line.
If the SAEA is unable to solve my problem, I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of its accreditation scheme and the ability of the real estate industry to self-regulate.
Bryan Ong
April 5, 2009
More expats fall prey to rogue property agents
Many caught in rental scams unable to get back their deposits
By Elizabeth Soh
http://www.straitstimes.com/STI/STIMEDIA/image/20090404/ST_IMAGES_ESESTATE.jpgMr Jones took his claim to the Small Claims Tribunal, which ruled in his favour but he still has not been able to recover his money.
More expatriates have become victims of tricky landlords, dodgy tenancy agreements, disappearing deposits and other rental snares.
According to the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case), foreigners lodged 32, out of a total of 365, complaints against real estate agents from last October to March this year.
This was a 23 per cent increase from the 26, out of 516, complaints within the same period a year earlier .
The Institute of Estate Agents itself has received five complaints from foreigners since last October. None of the agents mentioned was registered with it.
Case executive director Seah Seng Choon said that most of the complaints it received concerned rental agreements.
Commonly cited were overcharging and failure to honour agreements, especially with regard to refunds.
The onset of the economic crisis, with many retrenched foreigners terminating their leases early, may be a push factor for rogue agents.
Mr Chris Koh, a director at realty company Dennis Wee Group, said: 'There are probably dishonest agents acting alone, desperate to collect their full commission, who resorted to underhand tactics to withhold deposits.'
American technician Robert Jones, 36, and Mauritian IT professional Ashwin Ramdeehul, 29, spoke to The Sunday Times. They claimed they were cheated out of their deposits by the same person they had separately contacted.
Both had sought an HDB flat to rent, and had contacted an 'agent' through his advertisement.
When taken to view their prospective units, they were introduced to the 'landlord', a 40-year-old woman.
In Mr Jones' case, he signed a tenancy agreement with her on Feb 20 to rent a four-room HDB flat in Woodlands for $1,050 a month. He wanted to move in without delay as his wife was due to give birth to their first child soon.
He said that in his haste to rent, he did not pursue the fact that the owner was listed as someone else, but the 'landlord' on the documents was listed as the woman.
After paying her $5,250 (the deposit plus four months' rent), he then found he was unable to contact her. Anxious, he approached the owner's family at the Woodlands flat on Feb 23 and was told that the unit was being rented to the woman from March 7.
The owner assured him that he could move in as agreed on March 20.
He later went to the flat again, just to be sure, but was told that the woman had found another tenant. 'I was offered another flat in Ang Mo Kio, which I rejected,' said Mr Jones, who then asked for a full refund from the woman.
However, he was told he would get only $4,200, or four months' rent, as $1,050 was being forfeited because he 'backed out' of the agreement, a contention he disputed.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, the woman said: 'The owner did not want to rent to him because he was a nuisance who harassed them even before he was allowed to move in.'
She said she was acting on behalf of the owner, and produced a written agreement that was signed by the owner.
To date, she said, she has refunded Mr Jones $1,889 and added she would repay him $4,200 eventually.
However, Mr Jones wants all his money back. 'I paid $5,250, never got the house, and now she wants to return me $1,050 less?' he said.
He made a police report on March 5 and furthered his case at the Small Claims Tribunal on March 25, where he was granted a money order to collect the full amount from her. However, he has yet to get the money as she has remained uncontactable.
Like Mr Jones, Mr Ramdeehul paid a deposit in December last year to the same woman after signing a tenancy agreement for a two-room flat in Ang Mo Kio. He said she even provided a set of keys.
But he claimed she later told him the owner no longer wanted to rent out the flat and offered to find him a similar unit. When he refused, she returned only $550 of his $3,200 deposit, he said.
He made two police reports after he used the keys she had given him. 'When I opened the door, I saw a family who told me that she never gave them my deposit like she had promised,' he said.
He, too, filed a complaint at the Small Claims Tribunal and was issued a money order to collect the full amount but, like Mr Jones, has been unable to contact her since.
A check by The Sunday Times found an advisory on the Chinese Embassy's website which said that since many cases of rental disputes involve the sublease of property estates handled by that woman, 'the embassy would like tenants to stay alert when working with her'.
The Sunday Times spoke to other foreigners here who found themselves involved in complicated rental disputes or were allegedly cheated of money.
Mrs Nadya Begum, 37, and her engineer husband from Manchester, England, said they have been cheated not once but thrice in their seven years here.
'The first time, we were ignorant and did not ask for the agent's personal details. We ended up paying a deposit for a flat which had already been 'rented' out to four other couples, also foreigners.
'The second time, the agent cut off his phone line after he collected our deposit. The last time, in November 2008, we were smart enough to get the details of the agent and all the paperwork, but the landlord absconded with the money and is still uncontactable.'
ERA Reality associate director Eugene Lim said: 'Some unethical agents prey on the ignorance of foreigners, especially those who cannot speak English or Chinese and face a language barrier.'
South Korean housewife and study mama Kim Ae Ran, 46, said she was cheated of a $6,000 housing deposit by a real estate agent who claimed to be working for PropNex agency.
When she decided on Dec 9 last year to terminate her lease early and return to South Korea because her husband's business in Seoul was ailing, she gave two months' notice via e-mail to her landlord through her agent.
The landlord replied, also via e-mail, that he would refund her the full deposit of $6,000 with the 'expiry or lawful termination' of her lease.
But it has been 11/2 months since she and her two children moved out. They are now staying with a friend and she has not received any of the promised money.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, the agent said that Mrs Kim had 'unlawfully terminated' her lease and was not entitled to her deposit. He added that he was 'only an agent, not responsible for the sum', and that the landlord was away in China and uncontactable.
When PropNex was contacted, it investigated and found that the agent had already left the company when he signed the tenancy agreement with Mrs Kim.
It also found that the tenancy agreement he drew up stated that commission would be paid to an agent of 'PropNex Reality', rather than 'PropNex Realty'.
PropNex has since lodged a police report against the man.
Meanwhile, industry players say the recent announcement in Parliament to review and regulate agents could not have come sooner.
Mr Koh of Dennis Wee Group said: 'At the moment, only about one-third of real estate agents here are CEHA-certified.'
CEHA is the Common Examination for House Agents started in 1996 to raise the standards of real estate agents here.
He added: 'The industry badly needs both regulation and proper training, as well as penalties for rogue or scamming agents - it should be a two-pronged approach.'
protozz
14-04-2009, 05:39 PM
Spoken with many agents. Almost all of them have this notion that buyer will need to pay the 1% commission if they're not represented by any agent.
It's not that buyers are out to cheat the agents of the 1% but as one of the posts said, every cent counts.
I've talked to one who said, even if you did everything yourself, I'll still have to collect 1% from you. This is what they believe in.
And then there's the "already co-broked" issue. The buyer is willing to pay for a service. I'm still wondering what i'm paying for in these cases.
The agent's commission of 1% can amount to 1 month's gross pay. That's a LOT especially for 1st time buyers. People who say that what's 1% compared to the total sale price really should search their conscience.
The professionalism of some agents is just not there. I've recently talked to one selling a Chai Chee block 1 unit. Claims the owner wanted to rent the flat initially but is just trying to see if he can sell his flat. He claims the unit has not been valued before. Agent keep pressuring us to confirm the price WITHOUT a valuation not even willing to wait until a valuation report is out before we confirm. After that, through speaking with another agent, we realised that the unit has indeed been valued before and that the valuation and the asking price amounts to quite a fair bit of COV.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.