Kind of Prussia. Hm....your idea sounds feasible, but here are things that you need to consider. If the seller's agent is representing the seller, how can that same person represent your interests? You can see the conflict of interest here and that is why we have Buyer's agents. I don't know where you got the idea that you would save on the Buyer's side of the broker's fee, as that may or may not be a fact. Sometimes a Buyer's agent can save you more on pricing reduction that you would ever save by reducing the commission...this is something for your to consider? Hope it's helpful..

S,
You have to be comfortable and understand dual agency, However i advise a buyer's agent, i see it this way, the comission is set already to be paid and the seller is more than likely set on the net proceeds, so the theory to save comission on the offer is measured in the sum of money that is not worth the idea to eleminate a buyer's agent.

Just ask for a much lower price. Do you want 10% off? 15%? The buyers agent commission is worth 2.5-3%. You need to decide how much of a discount you want on the house, be prepared to do the research, be a tough negotiator, and make sure you keep all contingencies, especially those involving loans and repairs.

Another option is giving the buyers agent 1% to handle the "transaction management" meaning the paperwork and offer negotiations, and have the agent rebate you the additional 1.5-2% after closing. But before you bring in a buyers agent, figure out how much of a discount you want on the house, throw out a price to the sellers agent and see what happens.

In all markets this is true that some agents will give you the discount if you are unrepresented, but in many cases they will not. You might ask the agent first.

ANY agent that would discount their commission because you do not have representation is one that should be "watched." In many case you will come out with a fantastic deal (because the agent is obviously unskilled) but be careful and get EVERYTHING in writing.

Dear King of F----
You get what you pay for. You may think that you are being smart by cutting out the buyer's agent and saving on the commission that is not yours to begin with. If you are dealing with a listing agent representing the seller as a single agent you will be at the short end of the stick since the agents loyalty is to the benefit of his or her employer the seller. If you are dealing with a transaction broker representing the seller the agent should try to put the deal together but don't look to cut him/her out of their hard earned commission they will probably try to find another buyer if they can.
Manny Reynaldo,PA,CIPS,TRC
Prudential Florida WCI Realty
Mreynaldo@2bocahomes.com

As a seller who has many open houses, I would absolutely split the difference of the savings of you not having a realtor. Obviously realtors will have a different opinion.

If you are an experiened buyer you might be okay in the end. But your main priority should be to get the best deal and also make sure YOUR interests are protected. I say call the real estate office that does most of the business in your area to speak to the manager for a great buyer's agent referral. It is legal in some states for a realtor to represent both sides but my question always is how can an agent truly look out for the best interests of both buyer and seller. The answer is it is tricky so I would be safe if I were in your shoes and find someone you know is on your side. When escrow closes down the road you want to make sure you were not taken advantage of in any way. I think that is more important than perceivably getting a discount because you do not have your own realtor don't you?

1 - Have you being house hunting with an agent for about two months or on your own?

a) If you have already an agent, and if you are happy with him/her you should discuss it with your agent before going to open houses on your own.

b) If you don't have a buyer's agent working with you, In your shoes, I would be very careful and discuss the issue with the listing agent to understand his/her brokerage relationship with the owner and with you. Also, make sure to inquire who is going to be the real estate attorney/title company for the transaction and if they are representing the seller.

Either way, having an attorney that you trust to review any documents/deals that you might come to agree with is a wise decision.

S - If you see a home you like at an open house and deal directly with the listing agent, please remember this person is representing the seller. You have no one (who is not emotionally attached) representing you. Also, there is no guarantee that the agent will reduce their commission.

Also, if you have been working with a Buyer's Agent - and signed an Exclusive Buyer Agency Agreement with them, you may be responsible for paying them a commission, even if they did not show you the home.

"Broker's Fee is earned if buyer enters into a sale agreement during the term of the contract, whether brought about by Borker, Broker's agents or by any other person, including Buyer." Be careful.

You're thinking about the commission as something that the seller splits between two agencies -- let's say 3% to seller's agent and 3% to buyer's agent -- and so you're assuming that if you don't use a buyer's agent, you can get the seller to kick some of that 3% back to you.

But in truth, it depends entirely on how the listing contract is written. It's possible that the seller has agreed to pay out one fixed commission, and if the buyer shows up agentless, that entire pot -- we're hypothetically calling it 6% -- goes all to the selling agent. The seller can't refund it to you, because he/she has already committed to it as a fixed cost.

On the other hand, it's possible that the contract has a step structure, so that while a split commission might be 6% total, a commission to the selling agent if there is no buyer's agent might be 4% total. That would leave the seller 2% margin to play with.

Since you can't see the contract, you're going to have to take a stab in the dark as to what kind of seller you're dealing with.

The best person to help you do this is a great local real estate attorney, which, IMHO, you should hire anyway.

They'll have a better fix on strategy than a non-local realtor, I think.

Good luck!

Alison Rogers
author, "Diary of a Real Estate Rookie"
Insider Real Estate Tips with a Twist of Humor
http://tinyurl.com/2ag28z

The answer would totally depend on your experience as a buyer. Keep in mind that open houses are ussually hosted by a seller's agent. So that means overall the seller's interest is being protected at an open house. You probably would be better off getting an agent, and submitting an offer asking for what you think is an appropriate seller assist. This way you still have someone working for you instead of facing the deal alone.
If I can help you let me know I am a local agent.

Good Luck!

There is no cost-saving to the Seller if you choose to work with the Seller's agent in a dual agency situation. Normally, a Seller contracts with a Listing Agent to provide a marketing fee, i.e. commission, in exchange for marketing, negotiating and facilitating the transaction. More importantly, there may exist a conflict of interest which may impair your ability to get a "fair" deal and advocacy issues that a Buyer's Agent would provide you.

even if there was a reduction in a commission why would a seller give it to the buyer.

A seller chose his/her agent because he/she believed this Realtor was committed to getting the seller the highest price and best terms. The seller may have chosen the Realtor without interviewing others, solely based upon past business, referrals, and relationship. The seller may have met with a few prospective Realtors and asked many questions about why this Realtor could get them the best contract. The seller and the Realtor have already discussed, probably several times, the pricing and the competition.

The commission and any fees were established at the time the seller entred a contract w/ the listing broker. It is unlikely that will be altered, but even if it is, it is most probable that the seller perceives that as his/her savings, not yours.

Getting a discount on a fee, but paying too much for a property is like buying an itme on sale from a store because it is a good pice, but you have not use for the item. In other words, savings aren't always what they seem.

It is likely the seller will be saving nothing. But you could make the listing agent very happy. Generally, the commision amount negotiated between the seller and their agent is worked out as a percentage of the sale price. It will be paid to the brokerage at settlement regardless of how the buyer was found. Of that percentage, the broker typically offers a portion to other agents as incentive to bring potential buyers to the home. If there are no other agents involved in the transaction, the listing agent doesn't have to share.

So, how can this be good for you? Some listing agents will discount their commission and pass that savings on to you. It seems as if everyone wins. You have gotten the house at a small discount, the seller has sold the house and paid less commission dollars and the listing agent gets credit for both sides of the transaction. That is good but for you it's not great. Through the entire transaction your interests are not being represented. While the listing agent may be nice and helpful guiding you through the process, it should not be forgotten they represent the interests of the seller. It is their duty to get the highest possible price and best terms for the seller. Not you. So while they got you that $3000 off the list price they won't be volunteering the information that the last 3 comparable homes sold for $15,000 less than list.

You need a buyers agent to be working for you. And by buyers agent we don't mean an agent who just shows up to unlock doors and fill in paperwork. Quality agents learn about your needs and lifestyle and search for the right home to fit. Discovering the perfect home is the easy part for a good agent. From that point, they will discuss with you the information gathered about the most accurate comparable sold homes, pricing strategy and other terms negotiated in the Agreement of Sale. They will work for your best interests when negotiating with the listing agent not only on the initial contract but also on things such as home inspection reports. They have the potential to save you both money and aggrevation throughout the home buying process.

So, can you benefit in the scenario you outlined above? It's possible but we find, honestly, the disadvantages of being unrepresented outweigh the potential benefits.

S,

I've read your question and the responses. I won't rehash. Everyone wants to save money, especially these days. A good agent, who is looking out for your interests, can certainly save you money, both in terms of dollars in your pocket, but also in time saved, advice given, and service offered. While dual agency (acting as an agent for both the seller and the buyer in the same transaction) is legal in the state of Pennsylvania, I'd never allow my mother to buy a house that way.

I'm local, I know King of Prussia and can certainly be of assistance. Feel free to send me an email at mainlineagent@gmail.com or call me.

Regards,

Pete Simonetti MBA, ABR
Rosie Foster, ABR
Weichert Realtors
111. N. Wayne Ave.
Wayne, PA 19087
610-687-4400
610-662-9695 cell

I see your point and understand that you wish to save some money - you worked hard for it and want to keep as much as possible. This route you are thinking of taking by going directly to the seller has a large hazard in the middle, who exactly will be representing you and your best interests?

I'm sure this transaction is something you can do by yourself and with enough time, you'll be successful. Keep in mind the biggest reason people work with real estate professionals is because they want someone on their side representing them.

The selling agent works for the seller and will get the best deal for the seller, that is what they are hired to do. They owe you courtesy and respect, that is all. Anything you say to the selling agent can and will be repeated to the seller. If you suggest you are flexible, this will be relayed back.
If you are comfortable with this scenario, by all means, approach the seller.

There is no cost to you as a Buyer purchasing a property from the Seller. It would absulutly be in your interest to you a Buyers Agent to assist you purchasing a Home. The biggest reason outside of costing you absulutely noting is that you will get the best negotiate purchase price. If you would us the Sellers agent to represent you...there effectively is no independent representation... the Sellers Agent is going to keep 100% of the commission that they would normally have to split with the Buyers Agent....this commission is paid buy the Seller of the home...so as I stated there is no cost to the Buyer with the commission...only that you will get the best representation and get the best bargained purcase price if you would use a Independent third party Buyers Agent in your Home Purchase. Feel free to contact me, I would be happy to represent you as your Buyers Agent.

You should have a buyer agent, and ask for the lower price! The seller pays the comission and you will need all the support of this frustrating process - trust me! You will need someone to help negotiate for you. The seller or sellers agent cannot tell you what they will sell for, but they will tell the buyers agent. Just a tip. Let me know if I can help. If you try to make an offer on your own - you are technically negotiating for your self against a professional negotiator and most likely will not get all you deserve.

Many agents will take umbrage to this but to say that a seller's agent is looking out for the seller is nonsense to me.
The agent is out to make the commission, so will do what's in their interest to get the property sold.
It's in the buyer's interest to get the lowest price possible because he/she is paying also for the commission in a higher price and is taxed accordingly in California EVERY YEAR.
Really, taxes should be paid on NET price paid, which is sales price minus the commission.

Have you ever heard about not serving as your own attorney, or your own brain surgeon? There's a reason for this....primarily that you will get caught up in the emotion of the deal and forget the business end, inspections end, negotiations end, closing conflicts.....and on and on and on....Thats why 90% of all home buyers use a buyers broker. Try it once and I think you will agree....

Steve Condurelis

All the real estate agents seem to be asking "who will represent you?" or assuming that the selling agent will represent. The buyer clearly wants to represent his/herself. You are ultimately represent yourself anyway even if you have a buyer's agent - the agent only provides advice and offloads work. If you are willing to do the work yourself, then you should be able to. One of the agents here also had a point about having someone who is emotionally detached - useful for some people but you can be the judge of that. There is, however, a very good solution to this problem that none of the real estate agents has mentioned and one which they won't like. You can use a discount broker like Redfin or ziprealty - you get most of the money back but still get most of the benefits of a real estate agent. There are even some agents who will work by the hour and give you 100% of the commission. Unfortunately, the agents here are right about being unable to get the commission otherwise. Most seller's agents would get the full commission if no buyer's agent exists so this is really the route to go.

I found two houses I liked without a realtor. One I used the listing agent as a transaction broker and the other I hired a “discount buyer’s agent” that refunded me $10,000 at closing. In this buyers market you do not need a realtor to help you find a house. A buyer’s agent’s main interest is the commission so it is in their best interest for you to pay as much as you are willing since they typically get 3% of the sale price. All of the advice that you need a “buyer’s agent” came from realtors. They want you to think they offer some invaluable service. I do not think realtors compare to brain surgeons or lawyers. I think soon their role in the sale/purchase of homes will decrease due to the internet. Remember the days when only insurance brokers sold insurance? The internet made them obsolete. For a $500,000 home somewhere in the contract is included the 3% for the buyer’s agent of $15,000. Realtors do not work for free. You can look at MLS information on the internet to determine a good offering price. Take into account days on market, how bad the people want to sell, similar property prices, etc. The one thing an agent can look at is if a home sold but has not fully closed. They could probably find out the sale price before it becomes public record. You can do it. Either hire the listing agent as a transaction broker or hire your own discount buyer’s agent if the listing agent will not be the transaction broker. Check out this article: http://www.slate.com/id/2105114/

Ann and Uri,
Sorry, you both are wrong.....A professional real estate agent is NOT looking for a quick closing deal...you guys have been poorly represented in the past or have issues I am not familiar with. A Buyers Broker with any sense at all wants to strongly represent their client....just as an attorney would. We are paid very well to perform what shoud be the lowest possible price, with the least problems for our buyer....and on their time schedule.....We also pay for Errors and omissions insurance...which is similar insurance to what docs and attorneys pay....We must bring considerable skill to the table and be ready to use it "on the fly", when our clients most need it. Money and savings are KEY in any real estate transation.....and thats why my clients have been turning to me for 30 plus years.

In Las Vegas you would be classified as a customer and the seller is the listing agent's client. While you have to be treated with a high degree of ethics that all REALTORS have an oath to follow, You will not be treated with the same services as if you were a client. (Dual Agency situation and the REALTOR should have experience in this and a thorough understanding of what it means and the implications involved before even attempting it due to liability issues.)

As far as saving the seller the commission, the seller agrees to the amount of commission to be paid when they sign the listing agreement with the Brokerage. The Brokerage determines the amount cooperated with a buyers agent. (Somebody who would treat you as a Client if you used one.) So, the seller does not make the decision on lowering the commission rate at this point because the rate is already in contract.

In other words, it's up to the Brokerage if they will agree to lower the commission rate based on your offer. I can't speak for Philadelphia but in Las Vegas, it's very common to find other agents within the same brokerage and not the actual listing agent performing the open house.

There really is no set answer to your question and in Nevada, we have a duty to disclose and explain the situation you'll be in for a dual agency situation. It's up to you (and the seller also has to agree) if they are comfortable with this.

My answer relates to Nevada laws. Every state has their own guidelines and many states don't even allow dual agency to begin with. Of course... a good Buyers Agent in Philadelphia would be able to explain this to you :)

Paul Francis, ABR,CRS
Coldwell Banker Premier http://www.PremierLasVegasRealEstate.com
702.592.3058

I am in NJ so we may have different agency rules: I don't know many sellers who would go "oh gee I don't have to pay a buyer's agent a commission, I'll give it to the buyer" They will just figure it as extra money. Whomever is going out there and saying "use the listing agent, you'll get a deal" didn't count on the greed of the seller. Do you know how to write up an offer and take yourself all the way to closing? Know how to negotiate? Do you know the comps in the area? How do you know you aren't overpaying? Or insulting the seller with your offer? In my area, sellers are getting 98% of list price. What is it in your area?

When you see a house you like during its open house you should get a buyers agent because you'll be paying that commission anyway.

The seller pays the commission. so with or without a buyer agent you will not save any commission. But if you sign on with an agent they will represent you and will work for you, they will still be paid by the seller. This agent you sign on with is in a better position to negotiate for you on your behalf, and they better understand the contracts and time line dates. You can also use the sellers agent, which depending on the state you live in may become a dual agent representing both the seller and buyer.

Agents insist on saying the seller pays the commission.
My question is; who pays the sales price of the property sold, which includes the commission?
What am I missing here?

Dear prospective home buyer,
I read some of these responses by the people that are not real estate agents and it makes me feel bad for them as they obviously haven't had any experience with the benefits of using a good agent or just haven't done any real estate purchases at all?? If you have ever used a good agent to represent you as a buyer or seller, you would not even consider doing a transaction yourself. Good agents will pay for themselves EVERY single time, with a combination of financial negotiations, hard and difficult work, taking the legal liability off you, and guiding you through very difficult procedures and a stressful process. My sincere apologies to those of you who have a bad experience with an agent, I really mean that. It makes those of us who are experienced, sincere, hard working, and who ONLY have the interest of their clients at heart look bad. A good agent treats every transaction as if it were their own personal purchase or sale, and saves their clients work and lots of money and liability. The pay off for a good agent is seeing their clients be happy and achieve the ultimate dream of home ownership, the commission is certainly how we eat but is more of an added bonus to our clients needs being met. In all sincerety, my favorite transactions have been my smallest sales by FAR, because when you help that single mom who has been working for years saving money and working on her credit just to be able to buy a $85,000 dollar place for her three small children to call home.......it's an UNBELIEVABLE feeling! When its all said and done, it cost you more in time and money than your commission was, and you still feel great! Now you tell me it's all about commissions and our best interests, I'm sorry but NO! Are there some agents that aren't worth the fees.....yes, but their are FAR more that have nothing but their clients best interests in mind and as I said, always pay for themselves in the end. Sorry for my rambling but some of these responses are just so disheartening and frustrating to hear to a good agent. To answer your question, keeping in mind that this can vary state by state, but in most cases, yes, the listing agent has a listing agreement with the seller that gives him the ability to be a dual agent and represent the buyer and seller if the situation should arise, and this agent will certainly earn this as they are doing double the work. However, I would suggest asking the listing agent if they would be agreeable to doing the buyers side for around 1.5 to 2% as they didn't have to do some of the normal duties of a buyers agent, showings, research, house hunting, searches, etc. The savings of the 1.5 to 2% could then be passed down to you not through cash back at closing but rather a reduced purchased price in addition to your hopefully already negotiated down purchase price. Best of luck and wishes, and please know that a good agent truly is worth their weight in gold. Most Sincerely, Chris Warmuth Windermere/North Spokane, WA.

I love this discussion! Just remember gang, as realtors representing buyers or sellers, what we really do is.......manage conflict....or the potential for it breaking out......The internet will.....try as it might....never calm nervous sellers...angry spouses.....or clients that choose...and demand..... to have first class representation.

I don't think what the Seller is paying in commission is your concern. Getting good representation and a knowledgeable agent should be your main concern. If the agent at the open house does not represent the Seller, then it would be ok to use them. I am primarily a listing agent and I just rarely facilitate. If you are a very knowledgeable Buyer and have bought numerous properties then representation may not be as important to you.

I am a realtor who often sits open houses on new construction where I do NOT represent the seller. Indeed... I'm the buyers agent. There are many times when I know things about the seller that creates a LOT of savings for my buyers. I save buyers many more dollars in negotiation, inspection results, contract knowledge and headaches. If a buyer simply goes with the listing agent.... instead of getting his/her share of the commission ... that listing agent gets %100 of the commission he/she has already negotiated and you would be left with no representation. In my opinion... always use a buyer's agent.

Would you go up in a Heavy Weight Championship fight in boxing with the opponent's manager in your corner????? I do not think so. Any good buyer's agent can probably save you 20-30% on the asking price and on top of that in a lot of states such as Florida all the commissions are payed by the seller to the listing agent, meaning if your buyer's agent do not get it, the other agent will pocket it anyway.
Peter Just

Basically the Seller has already agreed to a set comission, let's say 6% for argument sake. 1/2 to the sellers's agent and 1/2 to the buyer's agent OR if there is no buyer agent - the seller's agent is considered a "dual" agent and get's the full 6%. So this "dual" agent is representing both - already agreed by the seller ok in their listing contract with the agent. The selling agent isn't going to help you get this home without a fee - whether or not you are aware of them getting tihs from the seller. So not using an agent will only get you this home for a little cheaper and this selling agent alot more money, and hurt you in the long run. Hope that helps.

My New York City apartment is For Sale by Owner. I priced it carefully, based on sales and listings in my building and neighborhood and on market conditions here in Manhattan. After just 10 days I'm already negotiating with three serious buyers. Meanwhile, real estate agents have done everything they could to get their claws on my property, even though my listing says "No brokers please." One pretended to be a relative of a family that came to my first open house. Another claimed to be a "relocation specialist" with an interested couple from Houston (there was no couple). Mostly, brokers waste my time with hard sells on the phone, by mail, and electronically. They won't take no for an answer, and they are often insulting -- for example, insinuating that I'm too stupid to figure out what my home is worth without their help. My advice to you: hold out against this totally unethical and aggressive group of people. You'll save tens of thousands of dollars and possibly your sanity as well. After my experience I will never, ever, ever work with a "Realtor" again. I'd frankly rather be homeless.

Most agents will not bend on the 6% commission.
If a property is listed at $800K then the fee is $48K. and If I find the property myself then why should I get a buyers agent to split the fee. Instead the listing agent should be willing to lower that fee to 3%. What's so unreasonable about that? Still a nice chunk of change at $24k or even $12k if that has to be split with the brokers office.
Agents will argue that they will negotiate the "best" price for the buyer. I say it's the market that determines the outcome and the buyer has to do their due diligence to know what that is.
I'm all for fair compensation for work done but the price of real estate varies greatly bringing vast ranges of commissions for basically the same amount of work.

Minimum the selling agent will do their 3% plus a minimum of another 2% (most selling agents don't want all the extra paperwork, headaches, etc. - but it is also not free...)

Most agents will not bend on the 6% commission.
If a property is listed at $800K then the fee is $48K. and If I find the property myself then why should I get a buyers agent to split the fee. Instead the listing agent should be willing to lower that fee to 3%. What's so unreasonable about that?
~~~~~~~~~~~
No way Jose, sorry, Ernst. I just closed a deal last week where I had both sides and I gave in 1% (for a 5% commission) BECAUSE I had both sides. Never again. My buyer/customer caused me a heap of extra work, dilly dallied and nickel and dimed my client seller who was inflexible to the point where both of them, I'm sure, would have like me to pummel the other. I will never give in on my commission again especially when I'm doing the work of both sides. It's more than twice the WORK, it's twice the headache and you play psychoanalyst to BOTH instead of just one.

Joan:
real estate agents have done everything they could to get their claws on my property, even though my listing says "No brokers please." One pretended to be a relative of a family that came to my first open house. Another claimed
~~~~~~~
Welcome to Trulia, Joan. I see this is your first and only post. I hope you enjoy your stay here. Forgive me for being skeptical when I see the words "claws", "pretended", and "claimed" all in the same vicinity. How do you know they were pretending? How do you know the are lying when they "claim"....If your place was so hot that you had THREE offers to negotiate in 10 days, there were probably some other possible buyers to negotiate with also. Maybe you were underpriced and could have a bidding war. I guess we'll never know because you'll be handling all these suitors yourself and cannot possibily divorce yourself from the outcome enough to make a balanced decision.

"Most agents will not bend on the 6% commission. If a property is listed at $800K then the fee is $48K"
You may think the agent is getting 6% but you forget there are 4 players in the game: if it's 6% then the listing broker sees 3% or 3.5% of that the broker who gets 50%, the listing agent who get 50% (or if you are very sucessful the split is 28% and 72% or about 1% of asking price for the agent; the other side gets their 2.5% to 3% and the buyer's broker gets its cut and the buyer's agent his cut.

Your home is advertised in magazines, newspapers, national and local websites. The seller's agent may have their own website to pay. Then there are the paper costs: $300 per ad, Coldwell Banker pays for our homes to be on the NYTimes and Wall Street Journal websites to get NY buyers to NJ; postcards, postage, the processor who processes the file and checks; the admin, lights, rent for the building, toilet paper. All gets paid out of the commission.

The advertising costs alone drives most For sale by owners to an agent.

Valerie, if you go back and read my post to which you are referring I pointed out the commission split scenario.
The cost of advertising can indeed be expensive but with the internet and FREE sites s.a. craigslist, zillow, Trulia and many others, buyers are not falling for the agents' lingo or fancy pictures.
Brokers are inundating newspapers with starlike pictures of agents in the "winner circle" and such. Is this not "a bit" over the top?
If a buyer does not want to put in the time for research by all means they should contact an agent and especially when they are looking in a non familiar location such as out of state.
I still maintain that a sale is better than no sale and if I were an agent I would cut my take to make it happen.

Rememeber the Selling agent is working for the Seller first and than you. The commission is already in the price and if the Selling agent presents your offer to her seller they will want to get paid on both side's of the transaction, because she is negitioating for you and presenting it to the seller. I recommend working with a Buyers Agent.

Ernst: I don't know where you live, but use of a buyer's agent is free in NJ. If you choose to sell and buy without an agent, then go for it. But as the conventional wisdom says "Beware the client who wants to dip into your pocket and beware the agent willing to cut into his own"

Have you ever told your employer "Dont' worry about paying my health insurance this month, I don't need it"?

Not necessarily true. Remember, the most important part of the transaction is representation and why have the sellers agent also represent you. Not always, but may be a major conflict of interest. That is why the federal government established agency law because of that representation. In my office if an agent has both sides of a transaction, one of the parties is then overseen by me, the Broker-Manager and the reason being fiduciary responsibility to the client.
It also does not mean the seller will sell for less, it just means that the seller well net more.
Good luck.

oh my,
agents stop defending why you deserve the money.
The real estate market has been around for ever and will continue to thrive.
The 5% of fisbos will not hurt anyones bussiness. Let them live and learn... I am sure some of them the hard way?

Most of the responses which I have seen is from realtors. To be frank I think most of the realtors just want to make money. They want higher price to be paid for the house so that they can get fat commisions. When did you see a realtor without a BMW or a mercedes? In San diego where median price is ~550K the comission price is approx 6% for both buyer and seller agent which is approx 35-40K. If you have seen a house in open house you should use one agent who takes fixed amount like 1.5k and find the comps using trulia or redfin and kill this stupid money seeking realtors business. It doesn't make sense at all.

K, you indeed will earn the commission and I would gladly hire you on either end of the transaction.!

Your post illustrates my initial commends with the example I gave with an $800k home (I live in the Pasadena, Ca. area) and the resulting commission of $48k. In this case there is a huge difference in compensation for basically the same work done! That's most of the gripes by buyers and sellers alike. Of course some variations in fees due to demographics is understandable.

Many of the agents here have danced around the point of my argument to justify their tremendous fee of 6% (only in my example given).

Look at this post by J R complaining about "headaches" in transactions........
Some transactions close without a glitch and some will not.

No way Jose, sorry, Ernst. I just closed a deal last week where I had both sides and I gave in 1% (for a 5% commission) BECAUSE I had both sides. Never again. My buyer/customer caused me a heap of extra work, dilly dallied and nickel and dimed my client seller who was inflexible to the point where both of them, I'm sure, would have like me to pummel the other. I will never give in on my commission again especially when I'm doing the work of both sides. It's more than twice the WORK, it's twice the headache and you play psychoanalyst to BOTH instead of just one.

Yesterday, 07:44

You may choose to use the listing agent but as mentioned before most agents will not change the commission either way. The listing agent already has a contract with the seller defining what commission will be paid. This contract is often with the listing agents firm not just the agent so the firm would have to agree to reduce the commission as it is not just cutting into the agents commission but also the firms. Some will reduce by 1% when they have both sides. I would not think you would save much if anything on the price of the home. I think the bigger question is do you feel like that agent can represent both you and the seller equally. If you question it then get a buyers agent.

Look at this post by J R complaining about "headaches" in transactions........
Some transactions close without a glitch and some will not.
~~~~~~~~~~
Correct, and we have no way of knowing which will and which won't, as my post showed.