Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This idea that an agent gets to charge more for an unrepresented buyer is truly hilarious. Where do agents come up with such stupid ideas? Can you imagine if a lawyer said they'd charge more for doing a case against a pro se plaintiff? An agent should welcome unrepresented people because they're more likely to make mistakes that would benefit the client, not act as though they're some sort of undue burden warranting extra compensation.

It's common practice to charge an additional fee if you are working for the seller and the buyer. It still ends up being considerably less commission than if two agents are involved. I have only done this one time and I will not do it again. It's a disservice to the buyer and really complicates the transaction.

OK, but a seller's agent is not working for an unrepresented buyer. The buyer has simply decided that he/she doesn't want representation. The seller's agent may find that to be inconvenient or annoying, or it may upset their world view as to how these transactions should work because it shows how agents are unnecessary, but the seller's agent doesn't represent an unrepresented buyer and has no rational justification for charging more in that scenario.

Anonymous wrote:This idea that an agent gets to charge more for an unrepresented buyer is truly hilarious. Where do agents come up with such stupid ideas? Can you imagine if a lawyer said they'd charge more for doing a case against a pro se plaintiff? An agent should welcome unrepresented people because they're more likely to make mistakes that would benefit the client, not act as though they're some sort of undue burden warranting extra compensation.

It's common practice to charge an additional fee if you are working for the seller and the buyer. It still ends up being considerably less commission than if two agents are involved. I have only done this one time and I will not do it again. It's a disservice to the buyer and really complicates the transaction.

Wake up people. I don’t blame the real estate industry anymore. The average American, even wealthy, seems to be not well versed in personal finance and negotiation. Just keep giving away money folks.

This idea that an agent gets to charge more for an unrepresented buyer is truly hilarious. Where do agents come up with such stupid ideas? Can you imagine if a lawyer said they'd charge more for doing a case against a pro se plaintiff? An agent should welcome unrepresented people because they're more likely to make mistakes that would benefit the client, not act as though they're some sort of undue burden warranting extra compensation.

Thank you all. I negotiated with the listing agent and got the listing down to 2.5% and no additional fee if they have to work with an unrepresented buyer.

I just listed two homes at 2.5 percent each. In the first home, we compensated the buyer’s agent 1.5 percent. On the second, we compensated three percent - we asked for less but they insisted on the buyer side on the 3 percent.

That’s an awful deal.

Your listing agent is greedy. Shop around.

Don’t pastors than 2.5% and don’t agree to a buyer’s fee up front.

My listing agent wants 3%, plus 1% if a buyer has no buyer agent. Is it reasonable for the current market? Our neighbor cross the street sold their house in 2 days at full asking price.