QUOTE(deodorant @ Jul 11 2012, 03:09 PM)
well, for example a landlord engage an agent, let's call him Agent A. then this agent go and pakat with his friend (also agent, called Agent B). Agent B then goes and lists the property on some website somewhere and he says "sorry agents, already co-broke" on the listing.
now enter you as the prospective tenant. If you see the listing, you call up Agent B, then if the deal goes through, Agent B will represent you and Agent A will represent the landlord.
or let's say that you lazy to do your own searching, and you engage an agent (agent C) to help you search. This Agent C will not even consider this property at all, because Agents A and B have already agreed to co-broke the deal together.
On the other hand, if the listing says "co-broke welcome," then it's a different scenario. In this case, Agent A has not made any exclusive arrangement with any other agent, so Agents B and C (and D, E, F ... Z) are all welcome to bring their prospective tenants to deal.
Oic. i think i understand about the term co-broke, thanks deodorant. now enter you as the prospective tenant. If you see the listing, you call up Agent B, then if the deal goes through, Agent B will represent you and Agent A will represent the landlord.
or let's say that you lazy to do your own searching, and you engage an agent (agent C) to help you search. This Agent C will not even consider this property at all, because Agents A and B have already agreed to co-broke the deal together.
On the other hand, if the listing says "co-broke welcome," then it's a different scenario. In this case, Agent A has not made any exclusive arrangement with any other agent, so Agents B and C (and D, E, F ... Z) are all welcome to bring their prospective tenants to deal.
So with agent better or without agent better?
Jul 11 2012, 03:15 PM

Quote
0.0384sec
0.33
6 queries
GZIP Disabled