Sign up  |  Log in

Reading 2: fair dealing and transaction allocation (Preston and Colby)

book 1, reading 2, page 87: Example 4 (Fair Dealing and Transaction Allocation):

The second part of the Comment states:

“Among other things, Preston must disclose to the client that the adviser may act as broker for, receive commissions from, and have a potential conflict of interest regarding both parties in agency cross-transactions. After the disclosure, she should obtain from the client consent authorizing such transactions in advance.”

I am not clear what the textbook is trying to explain here.

Could anyone enlighten me?

Thanks

You’ve made it this far, and you know what it takes to pass. Don’t be fooled by false promises and unrealistic claims. Schweser’s study packages give you the proven study tools and expert instruction you need to finish the job.

It’s saying that the broker might represent both parties in a transaction.  Therefore, the broker might not be working in your best interest.

Interestingly, I get many advertising flyers from real estate agents in my neighborhood in which they proclaim, apparently proudly, that they represented both the buyer and the seller in a recent transaction.  I wonder why they’re proud of their obvious conflict of interest.

(I also wonder why real estate agents who represent buyers get a commission that is a percentage of the transaction price.  That’s another obvious conflict of interest; if they act in their client’s best interest they should be negotiating for a lower price, not a higher one.)

Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.

Financial Exam Help 123: The place to get help for the CFA® exams
http://financialexamhelp123.com/

S2000magician wrote:

It’s saying that the broker might represent both parties in a transaction.  Therefore, the broker might not be working in your best interest.

Interestingly, I get many advertising flyers from real estate agents in my neighborhood in which they proclaim, apparently proudly, that they represented both the buyer and the seller in a recent transaction.  I wonder why they’re proud of their obvious conflict of interest.

(I also wonder why real estate agents who represent buyers get a commission that is a percentage of the transaction price.  That’s another obvious conflict of interest; if they act in their client’s best interest they should be negotiating for a lower price, not a higher one.)

cash back lol