It's about time...

That will not eliminate the dishonest that will just initial the lie for the seller, but it will help.  It will put a crimp in those that hold good offers to get their own buyers lower offer accepted.

Besides, how many BA will actually "request in writing" and how many LA"s will flip out because they "never heard of it...

Eve

I've had my suspicions as to whether offers were presented to a seller... I would support a required form that is signed off by the listing agent if not also their client. I don't love having to deal with extra forms, but too much abuse of the process in a hot market that we can't otherwise control.

WORDING OF THE RULE

It's precisely because the COE requires sellers to be notified of offers, under existing rules (as John Juarez points out), that listing agents must acknowledge their compliance if the buyer's agent requests it, unless the seller provides a written waiver of the requirement, per the new rule.

The confusion (as Ryan Huggins - Thousand Oaks, CA points out) is understandable.  A must rule mandates action, but making it conditioned by the word if can make the interpretation iffy, unless the word unless is used to create an exception to the rule.

Makes perfect sense.

It is often frustrating when our buyer's agents don't know if their offer was presented. Listing agents are required to do so, but we have never had verification required to certify that this was done. Good that there will be some changes to this.

Ok, so it's an NAR thing not a state law thing.

I've only been asked for the initial on the rejected line twice in 4 years and never for the presented one.  I do so love their wording on this.

According to the letter of the code we are required to respond that an offer was submitted to the seller is the other agent requests, unless the seller provides written notice saying not to present it.

So, if an agent asks, the COE REQUIRES use to say it was presented... EVEN IF IT WASN'T!!!  Way to go NAR!!

I saw that on the CAR forms update webinar the other day. 

For all the work that a buyer and a buyers agent do just to submit an offer, I feel that seller acknowledging receipt of the offer is the very least the seller can do in exchange for the time and effort extended in submitting an offer.

I'd like to see the signed "rejection" be a mandatory requirement. There is no way of truly knowing if an offer is presented to a seller unless the seller signs acknowledging it was presented, and rejected.  I don't like the word "rejected" either. I've asked that it be changed to not accepted.

I appreciate some acknowledgement the offer was received and presented. I think it should be done in all instances, but it is not. 

It is not a hard process to check the box next to "Rejected" and sign on the line, but there are agents that can't afford that courtesy to people. I always require my seller to sign the rejection.

Like Candice A. Donofrio said, it is professionalism.

It's shameful that it has come down to this. ALL offers should be presented, and the cooperating agent should feel confident that it is so. 

Yes, I believe it should be mandatory, why not? 

     I've had it happen.  Listing agent wanted both sides of the commission.  My Buyer called the Seller directly to find out why his offer was not countered, and found out his offer was never presented.  

Good, I support that.

Sounds like a good change.

Inna Ivchenko - I usually confirm the receipt of the offer from the buyer's agent. (And also, expect the listing agents to do the same with the offers from my buyers!)

As a listing agent, I usually prefer calling and if I don't get an answer I leave a message!

it took long enough....

I don't know if they should. But I do!
To me that's professionalism.
"Seller is in receipt of your offer."
Way too easy to not do.

In our AZ Commissioner's rules, a buyer-agent can request the signature & date from the seller as evidence that a offer was presented.

I support the change in the Code of Ethics.

I'm from the old school - nothing prevents a buyer-agent from presenting an offer directly to a seller as long as you copy the listing agent.

Enforcement?  Penalties?  A good idea but I wonder. . .because I can and do. . .

In the world of doing whats right, this shouldn't have to be put into law. What this says is there is shenanigans afoot by agents. There shouldn't be!

Thanks for sharing this new requirement. 

Should? yes. Do they? rarely

Accountability is a good thing.

Its an idea, have the buyer sign all offers? 

Never was an issue for us here in CT though.

Why not make it mandatory, Inna. Add a line to the Offer that the sellers' agent submitted the Offer to them - no commitment on behalf of the sellers to respond further - just that YES they did receive the Offer. 

I think this, "he asked, she said" is just a step (a.k.a. delay) to the ultimate requirement (as above).

Why not just take it all the way and make everybody happy? Sellers will KNOW that they've received all Offers and buyers will be assured that the sellers did, indeed, see their Offer.

oh I would have liked to have had that in places yesterday when I am suspicious that a listing agent shopped our offer. 

#1…I would never think of not presenting an offer to a seller. It is a basic requirement.

#2…I always notify the buyers’ agents of the receipt of their offers when received and the seller’s decision when it is made.

#3…if an agent lies about whether an offer has been presented, that same agent will be willing to sign or initial a form saying that the offer has been presented when it has not.

If I was in CA , I'd probably write across the first page REJECTED (have Sellers initial it) and scan it over .

That's probably a good idea. I consider an email appropriate & always do tell an agent that I've given it to the seller. 

I'm liking this change.

It makes common sense o keep eveyrone honest . we all know there are agents of ill repute out there...  I"m good with it. 

It's a bit over reaching, but them again it is NAR!

I think the best solution is to revoke licenses to unethical individuals

Morning Inna.

In some cases I would agree.  It does make one wonder, doesn't it?

This might help part of the time.

I believe it should, I always do

No, but it would be nice upon request.

No, but it's a good idea.

This might be a good idea.

I think we would be better served if NAR concentrated on other issues.

Thank you for sharing 

I knew this change was coming and frankly it is said it has come to this that aggents have to be mandated that they submitted it. Many agents forget who they represent. My thinking is that these type agents will likely not tell the truth and only halfheartedly present an offer so nothing much will change.

In CO it is not required sadly, as think many listing agents never present all offers.  Some don't even respond to an offer.

100% absolutely!!! this will get the slimeballs out of the business or they will start to play the game by the rules...

No. Too many buyer agents do nothing more that waste time and generate work by submitting 'Not a snowballs chance in Hell' offers from their 'investor types.' 

Instead, the INDUSTRY needs to embrace a more transparent methodology where the anonymous owner responds to every offer received from anonymous buyers. Perhaps a seller could impose condition such is any offer  below $$$ will be automatically rejected by the system and seller does/will not see it at all.

Seller responses could be:

1 Wait for response

2. Reviewed and your offer is # 23 in ranking. If you receive not further communication understand another offer was accepted. Now try submitting your real 'highest and best' within 4 hours.

3. Terms, price and /or conditions unacceptable. 

4. Rejected because you thought you could compel a response by 5 pm.

5. Drop dead.

Agents may be authorized by the seller to make responses based on written instructions of the seller.

NAR/CAR effort is just more of the same.

Transparency, such as that provided by open ledger systems is the answer.

Inna,

I did not, and our reputations preceeded us.