Shane Bellone Thinks It's Ok To Bypass Broker.

[talhahassan]

Hi

I sent two LLL.com domains which I was brokering to Shane Bellone in response to his thread in Domains Wanted.

He replied to me first about dropping the price.

I asked how much is his client's highest offer . To which he said how many months finance would be agreeable.

I told him owners won't agree to financing options.

He then asked me why I messaged him in the first place as his requirement was related to financing the domain and he will contact the owners now to see if they will agree.

I apologized to him for missing the financing part and asked when did it become a good business practice to bypass brokers and contact the owners directly.

His reply was " My business is to get the best price for myself and my clients. Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money."

I am attaching the link to the screenshot as well.

imgur. com/a/l4VDz
I think it's totally unethical to bypass a broker . What are your thoughts on this?

 

[S-B]

Good.. That is all I wanted to know. Buzz me once you learn straight talk and honesty.

You accuse me of having no ethics for "going around" a broker when I simply contacted them to see if financing was an option. In other words, you are insinuating that contacting an owner when they have a broker is bad business. So my question is valid. How do you know if they are an exclusive broker and how do you know the broker is representing their best interests? You take a stranger on the Internet for their word? That's stupidity.

 

[N-A]

Ok Shane, take the cotton out of your mouth and answer me this; do you think it is OK to go around a broker if you know he has an exclusive contract (and try to get the seller to break that contract), solely with the purpose of securing a better price for your buyer?

Even though Shane's response is spot on already, there has been a real estate scenario brought up several times. I think this relates. There are many people (buyers and sellers alike) who would be willing to wait out an exclusive contract if a buyer came along with the intention on bypassing the realtor. There's no difference...

 

[promo]

You must suffer from poor reading comprehension. I asked you a straight question and you gave me a politicians answer.

Please read carefully this time. My question supposed that you KNOW that the broker has an exclusive contract. What would you do in this hypothetical scenario?

 

[S-B]

You must suffer from poor reading comprehension. I asked you a straight question and you gave me a politicians answer.

Please read carefully this time. My question supposed that you KNOW that the broker has an exclusive contract. What would you do in this hypothetical scenario?

I'm failing to understand how a hypothetical situation impacts the ethics involved in a real situation.

You have continued to say that my practices are unethical and now admit that you have no idea what I would do if this situation presented itself.

I think you're a murderer. Not because you've murdered anyone but I suspect in the right situation you would.

 

[promo]

You would be right about that assumption even though I have no idea how you came to it. Not that I am. But I could under the right circumstances. For sure.

However my assumptions are based completely on your posts and subsequent failure to answer our questions in any meaningful manner.

 

[S-B]

You would be right about that assumption even though I have no idea how you came to it. Not that I am. But I could under the right circumstances. For sure.

However my assumptions are based completely on your posts and subsequent failure to answer our questions in any meaningful manner.

I don't owe you an answer. This conversation is based on what did happen not what could have happened.

Keep hoping... I like when people look stupid.

 

[promo]

Yeah I noticed judging by your posts...

 

[Jason.tv]

 

[S-B]

Yeah I noticed judging by your posts...

You have no leg to stand on and have been insulting people regularly because of that.

The fact is I would not encourage someone to break a contract but I would buy a domain from someone who did break a contract.

It's no different than someone here buying Nike shoes. Just because they're made by children doesn't mean you hired children to make your shoes. There's a distinct difference.

 

[promo]

Oh I am insulting you by mirroring your statement back at you?

Boohoo little man. If I wanted to insult you, you would know.

 

[S-B]

Oh I am insulting you by mirroring your statement back at you?

Boohoo little man. If I wanted to insult you, you would know.

Again, the inability to correctly conjure logic in a debate does not grant you the right to insult people. Your assumptions were wrong. Be a man and admit that you made a mistake.

 

[promo]

I certainly would do that if it was the case.

But I do not conjure or have the need for it. I speak straight and read straight. No need for shenanigans and I insult the people I think need it. Its obvious to me what type of person you are, that you have some sycophants in your corner does not alter this. Especially not considering who they are.

 

[mr-x]

that you have some sycophants in your corner does not alter this.

People disagree. Assigning false motives, name calling doesn't make you look professional.

 

[S-B]

I certainly would do that if it was the case.

But I do not conjure or have the need for it. I speak straight and read straight. No need for shenanigans and I insult the people I think need it. Its obvious to me what type of person you are, that you have some sycophants in your corner does not alter this. Especially not considering who they are.

I would like you to bring fact to the table instead of speculation. You can speculate about anything you want. Unfortunately for you, that doesn't make it true. You are simply picking a fight with someone you don't know on a subject that you know anything about. We can all sit here and debate about what someone MIGHT do but we can't speak on it with any authority until it does ACTUALLY happen. There's a word for this... conjecture.

I purposely left this discussion open for interpretation for this long. I could have shut it down immediately but I enjoy watching people speak on subjects they know nothing about.

The fact is, I gave you an answer. The answer didn't match your expectations and now you result to insulting me. That's a reflection of your etiquette and not mine.

 

[promo]

Please. I brought your statement to the table. When you objected at the obvious meaning of your statement, I asked you straight up what you would do.

You refused to answer this and changed the focus elsewhere and upped your phrasing using a higher lix number. Now probably you are used to be able to distract people with tricks like that, but I will hold you to your words. As poor as they are.

The fact is you gave me no answer to the question I posed. You gave me a question in return. Thats all the answer I need from you.

 

[Joe N]

Please. I brought your statement to the table. When you objected at the obvious meaning of your statement, I asked you straight up what you would do.

You refused to answer this and changed the focus elsewhere and upped your phrasing using a higher lix number. Now probably you are used to be able to distract people with tricks like that, but I will hold you to your words. As poor as they are.

The fact is you gave me no answer to the question I posed. You gave me a question in return. Thats all the answer I need from you.

No one owes you an answer. Get over yourself.

 

[S-B]

The fact is you gave me no answer to the question I posed.

I would not encourage someone to break a contract but I would buy a domain from someone who did break a contract.

I believe I did answer your question.

If you continue beating a dead horse you will just look stupid and get tired.

 

[promo]

I will stop beating you then. Could you then please go back to being retired or whats this weeks story?

 

[DU]

I am not sure why it's so difficult to understand the situation?

Broker: People who are Broke
Exclusive: The owner grants permission to ONE person to sell
Non-Exclusive: Anyone can buy from any broker or directly from the owner.

I like that brokers have no money

The reason that it's so difficult to understand is that people get half explanations. Your explanation is partially correct and absent of critical components that imply an incorrect understanding.

Exclusive Broker Right to Represent Agreement-
Anyone can buy from the owner direct or even via another contacting broker (buyer-side). The exclusive broker (seller side) will get commission regardless. The owner can only have one broker representing the sale.

There are some tricks - if there is a buyer and seller broker then the commission could be split (i.e. owner will give me 20% I'll give you 10% to provide the buyer).

Again it should be noted (and Shane is correct) that the interests of the client are all that matter. Buyers agent to the buyer, seller's agent to the seller. A broker's goal is to end up being both the buyer and seller as that maximises money in their pocket. There is no room for shady activities - "I'll reduce the price the owner wants to his floor price but you sell at the buyers full price and we'll split the difference".

This exclusivity listing is often a challenge in the domain world because owners will change exclusive brokers without the appropriate shutdown - that happened with Whiskey.com as I mentioned a number of times when that was at Flippa that was simultaneously available at Sedo.

Non-Exclusive Broker Right to Represent Agreement -
Anyone can buy from the owner or via another broker or in any way they want. The Non-exclusive broker will still get commission if they initiated the sale. An owner could have an army of brokers if they wanted but must pay commission on the party providing the lead. Only direct owner communication by buyer or buyers agent (non-contacted) would avoid compensation.

The best response in this thread is @equity78 which is very clear. The broker should supply their client with a list of people that have shown real interest that they contacted if they are non-exclusive to ensure they get compensated. A owner could not pay but that's an agreement violation.

Where @Shane Bellone is wrong is here in this thread:

Bypassing a broker who may or may not have an exclusive contract makes sense. Saves them a commission which therefore saves me or my client money

It saves commission if there is NO agreement but in that case there is no commission to pay or save anyway. Whether the arrangement is exclusive or non-exclusive the commission is not and should not be saved. There is a right to represent without compensation; however, that's an unlikely scenario in this case.

The onus is still on the owner/seller to fulfill their obligations but the contacting party should not actively and knowingly encourage the counter-party to renege on their agreement. In the real world that ends careers. In the domain world it gets you some fans and some enemies that have almost no real impact.

Also - as many have pointed out... many brokers are "brokers" and many "clients" are made up because people want to pretend that they have clients when they're just trying to get names on the cheap.

Sorry I'm late to the party.

*Of course the above depends on the agreements signed and there's nothing indicating they need to be solid or follow a rule. This is a highly unregulated industry... and thus full of shady ethics.

 

[HUKU]

It saves commission if there is NO agreement

You mean between broker and seller? I think that's correct word to use because the obvious misconception being pushed around here is that the broker needs a contract (exclusive or otherwise). Though a contract is preferable, that's absolutely not the case because only an agreement (exclusive or otherwise) is needed and the validity of which is determined simply by mutual acceptance. The industry respects informal arrangements all the time so its nothing unusual.

contacting party should not actively and knowingly encourage the counter-party to renege

That's true. If its not any breach of contract (since he doesn't have any such obligation with the broker or seller) or even of ethics, then it is at the very least a double standard especially if the contacting party is himself a broker relying upon sale commission for his trade.

Of course the above depends on the agreements

Very much and as per the old English expression: "the devil is in the details."
What you said about the broker sharing commission is a good idea, it really should be used more to bring buyer/seller together on price and solve the problem of pitting one broker against another.