After substantial prodding she admitted that the listing was an “in house deal”. When I said, oh you mean the buyer was represented by you or another agent in your office, she did not give a straight answer.
I suspect ‘in house’ was literally ‘in house’.. ie. someone from the brokerage bought it before the general public had a chance. This is why they were evasive on the followup question, and why it was on the market for such a short time. This type of behavior was rampant in the stock market of the 1920’s and helped cause the crash. The SEC was formed and one of the regulations they pushed had to do with broker’s fiduciary responsibility to their clients. The behavior of these RE brokers violates their fiduciary responsibility to whom they are representing the house. With the SEC, if a licensed stock/commodities broker breaks fiduciary responsibility in this manner, they can be held financially/criminally responsible. Unfortunately, RE brokers only have a ‘code of conduct’.. not much happens of they ‘violate’ this.
Personally, I think that the banks selling from the REO side should drop any broker who gets an immediate sale.. The banks should be watching their listings on the MLS.. and possibly have one of their reps spot check the process. A RE broker violates the trust and the bank can refuse to do any more sales through them.
