> Just because another buyer came in "after" that had a better price changes nothing;
If the broker landed what was truly the highest price at the time, then you're right. However, the implication is that the broker managed to get the deal done (ie, misrepresented the market-value) and then collected money in a side transaction when the second transaction completed. That's pretty dirty, if it's the case.
The article (intentionally?) confuses seller's agent and buyer's agent. The seller's agent gets the best deal they can get for the original seller. After that the seller's agent is pretty much in the dark for the rest of the process, the way I understand it.
The buyer's agent, taking advantage of the assignment clause and delayed close, can now shop the property (probably without possibility of showings) and if somehow they can find a better offer, pass along to their buyer the chance to flip it for some quick cash.
I don't see anything remotely illegal, unethical, or even unfair.
> After that the seller's agent is pretty much in the dark for the rest of the process, the way I understand it.
It is possible that a seller's agent could fail to recognize a huge mispricing of the accepted offer, and if that is the case you are absolutely right.
However: The seller's agent failed to recognize a huge mispricing?! And lost all of those commission dollars (3-6% depending)? Totally suspicious. At best the broker is incompetent, at worst, corrupt.
BTW: During the previous housing bubble, several folks worried about "pocket listing', which could be a technique for pulling this off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_listing
If the broker landed what was truly the highest price at the time, then you're right. However, the implication is that the broker managed to get the deal done (ie, misrepresented the market-value) and then collected money in a side transaction when the second transaction completed. That's pretty dirty, if it's the case.