That question seems to be leading the latest reincarnation of the part-timer debate, as more agents are willing to accept their part-time counterparts, provided they keep to the “less complicated” buying side of the transaction.
“I have no problem with a part-time buyers' agent [who] is willing to work diligently with a buyer to help locate a house,” John Murphy, a broker in Nova Scotia, writes in the REP forum. “They should be up-to-date on the tools required to make sure they don't miss an opportunity for their clients. When it comes to a sellers' agent, I have a completely different view.”
Murphy’s sentiments are shared by many in the profession who believe buyers’ agents are more able to have a day job, since their working hours often revolve around their clients’ own nine-to-fives.
Lee McDonald, another commenter in the forum, says not all part-time agents are incompetent, as some industry players would have others believe. By that same token, though, not all full-timers are as professional as they should be.
“Full-time or part-time does not determine, in itself, how effectively a professional performs their job,” McDonald writes. “Controls are in place to deal with complaints and issues that arise from poor performance, as there are in any association of professionals. As long as there are standards of practice, I agree that part-time [agents] should be allowed to work...”
Murphy agrees, adding that the onus should be on the part-time agent to inform his or her clients of any time constraints.
“At the very least, if our Industry permits sales people to work on a part-time basis this should be part of full disclosure,” Murphy writes. “The public has the right to know what sort of representation to expect.”
Are selling agents better than buying ones?