Frank Castle

I find it very interesting that every Realtor/ agent (I know the difference) on this thread says the same thing about the seller paying the commission, so their services are "free" to the buyer. While it is true that the seller pays the commissions of both the buyer's and seller's agents, please use common sense when answering the following question? WHERE DOES THE SELLER GET THE MONEY TO PAY THE COMMISSIONS? The answer is...THE BUYER!!! The seller will set the price of the house high enough to pay all the commissions and get as much money as possible through the sale. So even though it's indirect, the buyer always pays the commissions. Nothing is free.

On the other hand, if you purchased a home without a buyer's agent, you could probably negotiate a lower price by getting the listing agent to agree to only receiving their half of the commission. What a novel idea, right? Getting the agent to only get paid for their half of the work. Especially in this slow real estate market, saving money on half the commission could really help people sell their homes. There are bargains everywhere.

For example, assume you are purchasing a home for $200K. If the seller agrees to pay their agent 6% commission, which would be split with your buyer's agent, each agent receives $6,000. If you can get the listing agent to agree to only their portion of the commission, you could buy the house for closer to $194K. If it means that the agent either receives their 3% commission or the house sits on the market for another 3 months, than it should be a win/win for everybody involved.

Finally, all of the Realtors on this site like to ask why a person would forego "FREE Representation". Since I already debunked the myth of "free" service, I have to ask this question. Why is it that when a person says they don't want to use a realtor, you all assume they won't be represented? By hiring an experienced Real Estate attorney, a buyer can be represented by somebody who truly has their best interest in mind. Since an attorney does not get paid based on the sales price of the house, they have no incentive to get the buyer to agree to higher than necessary sales prices. You may have to spend a few hundred dollars to retain a good real estate attorney, but it makes all the sense in the world if it saves you $6,000 as in the example I used before.

A "buyer's" real estate agent gets paid based on the sales price of the home, so they can not really work in your best interest. In other words, the realtor who is supposed to look out for your best interest gets paid more when you spend more. How can they be on your side? How can they negotiate for you? Think about that when you tell a real estate agent that you only want to spend up to $200K on a house but they keep showing you houses that cost $230K.

If you're willing to search for houses on your own, analyze the value of recent nearby sales, and negotiate a sales contract, you don't need a real estate agent. You can use the internet to find houses, and since houses are staying on the market for longer, this shouldn't be a problem. You can find out about recent nearby sales (not asking prices) on the internet, and find trend data from the local Realtor's Association. You can find out how much the seller paid for their house and when they bought it from the local courthouse or Assessment Office. It's public record. You can use a real estate attorney to help you with putting together a purchase offer.

I admit this is not for everybody, but if you really want to buy a house without a buyer's agent, you can very well do so. - Tue Jul 22 2008, 21:06