This can be risky. The realtor who holds the listing has a fiduciary responsibility to the seller first and foremost. They also hold all the cards since they can see all the offers coming in so how do you know they're not manipulating you to get the sweetest possible deal for the seller while cashing in on both sides of the commission? But sure....there are plenty of low integrity realtors in this business who will do whatever' is necessary to double dip even if means the seller doesn't get the best offer.
Of course. The key is that you need to educate yourself enough to mitigate that risk. This is part of the reason why I mentioned that you need to know enough about construction to not shoot yourself in the foot. On a related note, when buying a house in this market, I am convinced that some people should take a month of unpaid leave, learn how to buy a house on their own and then do so. The reduction in cost and risk could easily exceed a months salary, unless the house was low value and/or their income is high. However, that kind of out of the box thinking is uncomfortable for most, so we all just pay a premium instead.
I was completely transparent with the realtors I dealt with; I told them I want them to dual agent and I want them to tell me what I need to do to get the house. Of course, you use your own judgement and don't give them exactly what they ask for. However, you will be surprised how willing they are to help you. In my experience, they almost always divulged information that gave me an advantage.
The flip side to all this is a mistaken belief that using your own agent provides any kind of risk mitigation. If you are an intelligent person, I strongly believe that using an agent only adds risk. My three favorite pieces of BS in real estate are...
- The seller pays the commission.
- You need an agent, so you have someone protecting your interest.
- You can trust your agent, because they need to get referrals from you.
Regarding #1, this is just a sales tactic; the buyer pays for everything. It blows my mind how many people get sucked into this line of thinking. I understand how that argument is backward-rationalized, but it is nonsense.
Regarding #2, there is almost never anything to bind the economic self interest of the agent and the buyer. The self interest of an agent is generally to make the fastest, highest value and lowest effort transaction. More often than not, this stands in direct opposition to the self interest of the buyer. It's a classic
principal-agent problem. Virtuous realtors do exist, of course, but it would be unwise for anyone to assume theirs is one of them.
Regarding #3, realtors don't need to do a good job; they only need to make you think they did and that can definitely be more profitable for them. The reason for this is because there is generally huge information asymmetry at play; if you knew enough to know that you were getting a good deal, you wouldn't actually need the agent in the first place.
TLDR: If you put in enough effort, you can beat the game.