[sokoloff]

I agree with you based on who is bringing the money to the table, but in most cases, the seller has signed a contract with the listing agent stating the fee structure for the deal before you made an offer on the house. The seller has obligated themselves to that structure, so you're not saving money by doing it yourself.

I found our house entirely myself, but brought in an agent on "my" side with whom I'd negotiated a 75bpp refund if I bought a specific property. I did and they cut me a check (out of my own money) at closing. In retrospect, I perhaps should have held out for a full point. (1 for the agent, 1 for the agent's brokerage, 1 for me)

[harryh]

Is there a reason you didn't do the deal without an agent and specify in your offer that you wanted the entire 3 points rebated back to you (which is kind of silly accounting, but whatever)?

Certainly this would have been possible.

[sokoloff]

The contract that I signed to sell another property specified that the full commission was due from the seller regardless of buyer representation, but that any registered real estate agent working on behalf of the buyer would share equally in the commission, paid by the listing agency.

IOW, I don't think it would have been possible, as it wouldn't have been possible in my listing contract. If I thought it was possible, I'd definitely have gone that route (since 300 >> 75).

TBH, "my" agent added extremely little (it was her first closing) and may not have even been a net positive towards getting the deal to happen.

Edit: This was an existing house, not new construction.

[FireBeyond]

> The contract that I signed to sell another property specified that the full commission was due from the seller regardless of buyer representation, but that any registered real estate agent working on behalf of the buyer would share equally in the commission, paid by the listing agency.

Not anti-competitive, at all...

[sokoloff]

While I find real estate representation to be an inefficient anachronistic racket overall, I'm not sure that specific term is anti-competitive nor particularly egregious. See my sibling/cousin comment for why I think that.

[harryh]

Seller's contracts are so weird in that they specify a 2x difference in fee depending on whether the buyer has an agent or not. SO WEIRD.

[sokoloff]

From the seller's perspective, the fee is the same. The seller wants a piece of property sold and is willing to pay a certain commission and signs a contract to make that happen. They're paying for an outcome not an input, effort, or number of mouths fed/hands out.

Whether it sells to Abel who has a traditional agent, Baker who has a buyer's agent, Charlie who uses an agent who happens to be at the listing agent's agency, or Dave who doesn't have any agent at all, doesn't change the seller's commission charge, which seems roughly reasonable and aligned with the value the seller received.

[gamechangr]

Curious..."how do you know "certainly this would have been possible?'

Which market/city are you referencing?

[harryh]

certainly was perhaps too strong a word to use. How about "seemingly" ?

I guess I'm saying I don't see any reason it shouldn't have been possible.

[gamechangr]

I appreciate your point and I wasn't trying to nitpick.

For some builders I would guess you would be right, though I'm not confident that all/most would though. New construction "seemingly" should allow that. Totally agree.