Representing buyers is no picnic, especially when you are working uphill against your own industry. Buyers work with other agents while working with you, they look at homes without telling you, and they often deliberately or inadvertently cut you out of the deal when they purchase through another agent. Despite the incredible loss of man-hours and expense, the traditional real estate industry encourages such behavior.

Isn't there a better way? There might be if the traditional real estate industry would help. Until now, it's done a great job convincing buyers that their real estate agents are expendable:

Traditional real estate:

• Discourages agency, particularly in the representation of buyers
• Makes it common practice to assist buyers without representation agreements
• Disempowers buyers and their representatives by allowing the seller and listing agent to dictate compensation to the buyer's agent via the MLS

All of these practices impact the behavior of buyers toward their agents, spawning behavior such as wasting the time of multiple agents to show them homes when only one or perhaps none will accompany the buyer to closing. Since the agents don't insist on contracts to safeguard their time, the buyer certainly sees no need to respect agents' time either. The kiss of death is the practice of telling buyers that you can represent them for free, which does nothing to generate loyalty. You just told them you work for the seller!

Traditional real estate hardly makes it worth the effort to represent buyers. If you get into a commission dispute with another agent, your buyer's representation agreement is worthless as evidence in procuring cause disputes according to the current NAR Code of Ethics. Buyers receive prejudicial treatment in a way that listing agents do not. If there is no procuring cause in sellers' agency, why can't it be eliminated in buyer's agency? No one ever says, "I was the first one to make a listing presentation to that seller, so I have procuring cause." The only thing that matters is who got the seller under contract. The same standard should be held for buyer's agency.

Many buyers' agents throw up their hands in despair believing that getting a buyer under contract is simply too difficult. That's hardly a surprise when your own industry doesn't back you up. But just as sellers aren't allowed to put their homes in the MLS without a contract, buyers could be trained the same way. It may take time, but it could happen.

If the industry is so intent on protecting sellers and sellers' agents, then the industry should go all the way and only allow registered buyers to view Realtor-listed homes. Buyers would quickly get with the program no matter how many homes they see on Realtor.com. Without a contract, they aren't getting in to see them. And other agents would also quickly get with the program and ask if the buyer is under contract. If so, the listing agent can refer the buyer to make an appointment through his/her own agent. If not, the listing agent can put the buyer under contract before allowing him/her to view the home. The industry could go one step further and only allow preapproved buyers to view homes, but that's another story.

It just doesn't make sense that an industry that was built on protecting the seller would allow unrepresented, unqualified buyers to traipse through sellers' homes. Is that what it takes to enlarge the pool of buyers? To make sellers think they are getting more activity? Any intelligent, informed seller would rather have one real committed-to-buy buyer than a crowd of lookie-loos.

This isn't a rant in favor of exclusive agency, or agency at all, because these dysfunctional practices hurt traditional agents as much as they hurt single agency agents. Traditional agents are at the same disadvantages of wasted time and opportunity representing disloyal buyers as an exclusive buyer's agent. The industry cost of not getting these buyers under contract is huge and hurts the very traditional industry that is preventing their proper representation.

While there is no way to gauge the cost in man-hours and resources, there is a very real cost in numbers of buyers at the closing table without representation.

According to the NAR's latest buyer/seller survey, 64 percent of traditional buyers use an agent to buy a home. The number shoots up to 77 percent when buyers who use the Internet are counted. If we assume that the 36 percent of traditional buyers and 23 percent of Internet weren't represented, because they bought from builders and owners, but the number could be much higher. How many buyers who bought a home through an agent were represented at all? Or by a dual or transactional agent? By their own independent agents? While this survey didn't tell us, the next one might as NAR looks into the question.

In an age of shrinking commissions and narrowing broker profitability, is it smart to leave money on the table? Clearly, representing buyers could be the next and only growth sector left in real estate, as listed sellers are represented at closing 100 percent of the time.

Getting more buyers under contract could help traditional brokers become more profitable, as they would be representing more clients at closing. And representing buyers could be more profitable than representing sellers.

According to a study performed by an appointed NAR committee, "A Changing Landscape," commissions nationally are no longer averaging six percent, but are coming in closer to 4.2 percent. In the same report, it was noted that brokers clear approximately $150 per side, indicating a nationwide crisis in profitability.

Consider also that the trend toward discounted commissions is mostly against listing agents and brokers, as evidenced by the number of new business models that discount commissions. The seller sees the most value in representation in finding a buyer for the home, according to NAR's 2002 buyer/seller survey. This makes it foolish for listing agents to offer below market commission splits to buyers' agents when their duty to the seller is to get the home sold. It's an impossible Catch-22.

The inequitable treatment of buyers and their agents by the real estate industry as well as the agents who represent them is making it increasingly hard on real estate practitioners to make money - whether they represent both buyers and sellers or practice single agency.

Disloyalty is expensive, and more expense is not what the industry needs. Traditional real estate is hurting its own brokers and agents by perpetuating anachronistic practices which allow buyers to waste agents' time and resources.

That's why making buyer's contracts the foundation of representation and access to sellers' homes is crucial. It's time to start selling homes to qualified, serious buyers.

There is hope that traditional real estate will see the high costs of devaluing buyer representation. The president of NAR has appointed a PAG to look into the issue. One of the points that the mostly traditional PAG committee members will be considering is procuring cause. Let's hope the committee considers how contracts for buyers would benefit traditional agents as well as buyers' agents. Their decision could be crucial in determining the importance of the buyer representation agreement, as well as the status of traditional and nontraditional agents as they try to represent buyers.