I don't like it as I haven't seen most limited agency really work for the benefit of a client. But it's the client's choice and at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.

    Consumer Choice is always a good thing.  The Federal Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division has several pages devoted to this topic. 

I think that agents care about this MUCH more than their clients do.

If client wants limited services it's their choice.

If you were the client what would want from agent?

I think every real estate agent should pick one side and represent that one side....

Fred Griffin and Nina Hollander have this one.

Nothing is good or bad but what we make it.  Choices for consumers is a good thing, as long as they understand what the choice means.

I suppose it depends on the client and what they want. Although whay they might want and should have could be very different

I don't believe it is my decision. The reason limited agency exists is to give the consumer choices they think are best for their situation.

Fred Griffin is spot on. Check out the Federal Department of Justice Anti-Trust Division website on this topic.

It all depends on the situation.

Of course it is bad for the consumers.  The problem is that they do not realize what limited agency means.

Would you want someone to represent you only part time, or for certain events? (limited agency)

Or would you prefer undivided loyalty?(Single agency)

Eve

Depends on who 'the one agent is' and who 'the other agent might be'.

I think it is an awful idea. Full service and agency allows the agent to better take care of their client

It can be either.

YOu get what you paid for.

I believe in total agency and services but if the client doesn't want it then it is an indication maybe I need to move on.

It would depend on the client and the laws of the relevant jurisdiction.

Depends on the skill, expereince and knowledge of the consumer.

It is similar to "Should consumers be allowed to purchase foreclosed property that has sat vacant for five years?" Depends on their skill, experience and knowledge.

It really depends on the agent and broker.

limited = poorer

We do not have agency in Oklahoma, we have been statute law for many years.

They should choose.

Limited benefits.

Carol Williams gave you the answer I was going to post.

Of course, it is limited - so they can reap only partial benefits and not full benefits.

It depends on the agreement.

Absolutely, as long as the terms of the contractual agreement are disclosed to clients in a meaningful way

Oregon is a limited agency state. We work on behalf of our clients. Whatever is in the best interest of our clients is how we conduct our business - in conjunction with the Realor Code of Ethics and our state agency regulations.

It really depends

I don't think clients know what it is for the most part and agents don't go to any lengths to explain it. I don't think it's good for clients because agents would not put same effort into this sort of representation.

What-even you need to do to get business. If this is the only way you can get a listing, start there. 

I like what Carol Williams said.