KLS wrote:

The problem is that in the United States, these "semantics" are
exactly what you're battling against, as Doug has been telling you.

It doesn't help that there is a lot of obfuscation around.
For example, many folks have been telling me: "the buyer's
agent doesn't cost you anything, the seller is paying him".
But this doesn't seem to be quite true. The seller has
a contract with the listing agent, not the buyer's agent
(as Doug has certainly driven home). The listing agent
will share his take 50-50 with any buyer's agent, but
would not give a single cent to the buyer himself if
there is no buyer's agent. Okay, I learned something.

You're right that agents can adjust their commissions pretty much at
will, but as he's pointed out to you, 1) they won't unless there's a
financial advantage, and 2) even if there is, they still won't because
the system is so strongly entrenched that their best interests are
supported by the status quo, rightly or wrongly.

It's the second part that I had a hard time understanding -
that someone would sacrifice a financially advantageous
deal to maintain the integrity of the system. But then again,
I am not in this business, so what do I know. It's good
to hear all kinds of opinions here.

My advice to you is to continue the battle you're fighting because
logically you are absolutely correct. However, you also need to be
prepared to lose a lot of deals before you find the one that comes
together the way you want.

Yeah, that's the thing. I am not really prepared to tilt
at the windmills. It seems stupid to pay $15K to a buyer's
agent since we'll be doing all the work anyway, but, on
the other hand, if we have no realistic prospect of
getting a lower price without a buyer's agent, it might
be simpler just to get one. Contrary to Doug's accusations,
I am listening and learning.