[fatnoah]

I have an even more cynical take on things. I purchased a house last summer and played the naive buyer and entered into a dual-agency agreement with the selling agent. Due to the competitive market in the town we were buying in, this was to hopefully give us the tiebreak with competing offers. I have few expectations from a buyers agent beyond opening doors to let us in to view properties and to communicate with the seller's agent.

For selling our prior house, I think our seller's agent actually performed some services. She ran the open house, gave us great advice on pricing in our town (5 square miles, she's been selling for 30 years), and -most importantly- gave a buffer in communication with the buyer. Should any issues arise, there's no direct communication with the buyer AND it also helped us be dispassionate when choosing among our various offers.

[shostack]

Was your hope with this strategy that the double commission would cause the agent to steer the sale to you?

I see things about strategies like this, and then seriously question whether I feel agents in general have enough integrity to warrant leaving me out of the communication process as you propose.

[fatnoah]

Yes, that was definitely part of it. In the town we purchased in (near Boston suburb) the median home value is > $1 million, so that extra 2.5 percent is a lot of money.

In our last homebuying experience, we lost two houses to other buyers. In both cases, our offer was higher than the closing price by 5-10% BUT our buyer's agent was from a different agency than the sellers. In both of those cases, the people who got the house were represented by someone from the same agency as the seller.