Would you want a surgeon with limited skills operating on one of your family members?  Same concept IMHO.

Is this one of these Utah Real Estate School questions? I'm not a fan of a limited service agreement

Debe Maxwell, CRS said it best.

Good luck with your studies.

It does matter what we think. It's either in your state or it isn't. I'm not sure the exam cares about what you think either.

It is as the term implies, limited. The Agent has to disclose any material facts they know about the property but remain as a neutral party in negotiations. At the end of the day they will still get your house sold/purchased but some might be left wondering if they could've done better on price. 

Limited agency = limited service and limited representation. Who benefits?

It definitely waters down the value of an agent for the clients. One of the biggest debates that many people have with the real estate industry is the value of the agent. The value of an agent is in representation. When you limit the agent's ability to represent you as a client you get less than what you are paying for. Furthermore, it increases the risk for all parties, the buyer, the seller, and the agent.

I am not a fan of limited agency, but most agents don’t really know what that means 

"Only if it's fat free and done in moderation"

It depends on the circumstances.

It depends on the agent and the client, it can be very good, or it can be a problem.

Not allowed in Texas, so I have no idea.

There's a time and place for most every resource.

Limited service, limited agency arrangements serve a purpose and have their place. I personally do not work for 1% or $1000 flat fee. There are some folks that "need" to get their home on the MLS at a hugely discounted rate. I'm happy there's a resource for them to do so.  And for those that don't "need" a cheap way to get on the MLS but are only wanting to save a buck or do not perceive any value in hiring a full service agent  - if they want to do all the work, they will earn the savings and run the risk of paying a much higher price by not knowing what they are doing- well the world does work on a risk/reward basis. I wish them the best of luck.

Doesn't matter what I think about Limited Agency, in limited circumstance's it can be very good, in most not so good.

The bottom line is you get what you pay for. You can buy a car in a vending machine and now who do you talk too for more information about the car?

What state? What is your state legislature definition? Too many cooks spoil the broth. Especially cooks with no understanding of what they are doing! Agency has become a state to state joke.

Study hard.

responsibility deminishes.

It depends on the situation.

More is better than less

Let's start with knowing what limited agency is - then decide if you think it is good or bad. 

How is limited anything good for anyone?

Depends on their needs.

there is NOTHING good about a client not having full representation.... limited and dual agency are to the agent's advantage.... and only the agent benefits...

No such thing where I work.

Out here limited agency is where I put it in the MLS for you for a flat fee and you do all the work and pay a buyer's agent comission.  It's not for everyone, but has it's place.

Good or bad, follow the rules in your state.

Not good to have "partial" representation...

Kennith,

You have the answers.

Limited agency is good for the informed client.

That is one of the problems with CHOICE, to make the best use one must do their homework.

Many would prefer the consumer had not choice. Those are called monopolies.  Think about how that may relate to real estate and why the industry needs to be democratized.

Think: 100% and then ask yourself....would you want anything less?

Don't do limited agency.

Not a fan of it at all.