Lou wrote:

A "rational" seller will accept the offer that
nets the greatest amount of money after all the fees, commissions, etc. are
paid. Unless it affects the seller's net, why the seller would care if the
buyer had a buyer's agent or not is beyond me.

Let me explain what I *was* thinking (I don't want
to get attacked again for not getting it; I am getting it, I am
just explanining my original reasoning).
It *seemed* to me - apparently, erroneously - that in
the absence of a buyer's agent, it is possible to arrange the
deal that the seller nets more, the listing agent gets paid
more than his customary 3%, and the buyer pays less.
It *seemed* to me that such a deal would be advantageous
to a rational seller and to a rational agent. Apparently,
I was wrong.

Now, folks have attacked for me for suggesting this,
and explained that I don't understand the system, and
admittedly I don't. Apparently, no listing agent would
agree to such a deal even if everyone gets paid more
than they would with a buyer's agent. Okay, I accept that.
The original idea will not work.

Doesn't make any difference to me. As I said before,
the seller can pay 90% of the price to the listing
agent, it's all the same to me.

Then how you can consider that you should get a rebate doesn't make sense.

I was not saying that I *should* get a rebate. I was
conjecturing that the absence of a fourth party who
usually collects 3% of the selling price might enable
the seller to net more, the listing agent to net more,
and the buyer to pay less. The mathematics of this
works, but in reality this is not likely to happen, or
so people here tell me. Okay, I accept this.