[koolba]

> The 6% fee was paid by the sellers, not the buyers. Buyers didn't pay anything to the agents.

Buyers are the ones paying everything.

At 6%, that means the seller is willing to accept 94% of the sale price for the deal. So with a lower fee or simply less middle men feasting on low information transacters, a buyer with 94-100% could purchase that house and both parties would be happier.

[itake]

No. Buyers never consent for "their" money to go to the buyer's agent or sellers agent. The selling agent's contract with the seller (not the buyer) is the seller will pay the 3% fee to seller's agent and offer a 3% fee to the buyer's agent.

Buyers historically have never negotiated the fee paid to their agent, other than choosing an agent that would refund part of their fee.

[knodi123]

> Buyers historically have never negotiated the fee paid to their agent

Negotiated, no. Paid, yes. If the government adds a 6% tax on shoes, I promise that doesn't mean a 6% drop in Nike stock. It just causes the price to go up.

[cortesoft]

You can switch the words “buyer” and “seller” in your statement and it still works. If you want to consider it being paid by the buyer, you can, or you can say the seller pays it. It is all factored into the deal either way.

I would argue, though, that it is more accurate to say it is paid by the seller, though, since they are the ones who agree to the percentage with the agent, and who signs the contract to pay the agent.

[aiaiaiaiaiai]

Probably extra true for peoperties owned by salaried employees whose price is in a large part dictacted by income multiples. In other words market sets the price.