2 ms·
The buyer's agent is supposed to act in the best interest of the buyer. It's tough to say that's always the case when the buyer paying a bit more rather than wa
by froindt 8y ago
The buyer's agent is supposed to act in the best interest of the buyer. It's tough to say that's always the case when the buyer paying a bit more rather than walking away would actually help the buyer's agent earn more. Normally there are pre-negotiated commission rates the buyer's agent would receive.
To ensure you've got someone who is truly on your side as the buyer, maybe it'd make sense for your agent to be paid for services as consumed. E.g. $50 for doing a private showing, $200 for putting together the first offer and $70 for subsequent offers.
- dvtrn 8y agomaybe it'd make sense for your agent to be paid for services as consumed I've actually heard/read of a few boutique style agencies taking this approach in LA. Will dig around the history and update this post if I find the blog post talking about it.
- prawn 8y agoWhy would you even have a buyer's agent? In Australia, the seller has an agent (often on commission) to arrange ads and conduct opens. Buyers visit and then make an offer if they wish. A buyer's agent would be quite rare - maybe only for very, very expensive properties. Does the buyer's agent in the US handle the role of a conveyancer in sorting paperwork of the final sale?
- laurencerowe 8y agoUS estate agent fees are absurd too. Standard seems to be 5-6% split between the buyer’s and seller’s agents (both paid by seller) - almost $100K on the median San Francisco home. In UK only seller has an agent and fees are 1-2%.