[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.