Why do sellers still offer 2.5% to buyers' agents?

[Anonymous]

What would happen if a seller offered 2%? 1.5%? 1%? Perhaps buyers' agents would be more aggressive in pointing out any flaws that they see on a low-commission house, and more positive towards competing houses? But this would be incredibly unprofessional, and I think would risk both the buyer bolting and future referrals (I would find it very suspicious if a buyer agent were particularly negative towards a given house, or indeed if they expressed any strong opinion at all).

[Anonymous]

Here you are. Still.

[Anonymous]

What makes more sense is offer 1% to the sellers agent and 1.5% to the buyers agent. The buyers agent generally spends a bit more time with a client to make a sale than a sellers agent does.

But OP is right that realtor fees need to come down. Insane to spend 5% with home values so high.

[Anonymous]

Bigger question why is dual agency mandatory in the DMV? In other states realtor can represent buyer and seller. Hence lower commission as listing agent not always splitting.

When I sold in NY agent did 3.5 percent if she has both sides and 5.0 on the split. But if my agent forced to split 1/2 of 3.5 I’d nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bigger question why is dual agency mandatory in the DMV? In other states realtor can represent buyer and seller. Hence lower commission as listing agent not always splitting.

When I sold in NY agent did 3.5 percent if she has both sides and 5.0 on the split. But if my agent forced to split 1/2 of 3.5 I’d nothing.

Btw way discount brokers in NY will do 3 percent and 4 Percent and I have seen as low as 2.5 on dual

[Anonymous]

OP, you have the risks exactly right. Buyers' agents have lots of influence over buyers, so you don't want to do anything to anger them. Why do you think there are so many escalation clauses and waived contingencies? You really think buyers want to do those things? It's the agents encouraging them. So unfortunately, you really need to give them 2.5% to keep them happy and so that they encourage their clients to do dumb things like put in escalation clauses and convince themselves that it's OK for four bedrooms on the upper level to share one closet-sized bathroom. If you're going to save on commission, do it with the selling agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you have the risks exactly right. Buyers' agents have lots of influence over buyers, so you don't want to do anything to anger them. Why do you think there are so many escalation clauses and waived contingencies? You really think buyers want to do those things? It's the agents encouraging them. So unfortunately, you really need to give them 2.5% to keep them happy and so that they encourage their clients to do dumb things like put in escalation clauses and convince themselves that it's OK for four bedrooms on the upper level to share one closet-sized bathroom. If you're going to save on commission, do it with the selling agent.

Thanks. I suspect you are correct. As a buyer, I can't imagine bidding or not bidding on a certain house because of what an agent said, but I could see how some buyers could be swayed to waive contingencies or add an escalation clause by an agent seeking a larger paycheck.