On May 4, 6:01 am, WDS wrote:
On May 3, 9:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:

In article . com,

Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.

It would go something like this:

Seller and agent list house for $100,000. Agent gets 7% ($7000) if it
sells. Buyer pays $100,000 and seller gets $93,000.

Buyer off the street comes in and says to seller "I will buy for
$95,000 straight up and screw the agent." Buyer pays $95,000 ($5000
less) and seller gets $95,000.($2000 more).


If the buyer does not have a "buyer's agent" the "selling agent" is
only entitled to 3.5% (7%/2) since half of the commission is for the
buyer's agent.

And, this thing that it is the seller who pays the commision is
arguable. If I want $100k for my house and decide to use an agent to
sell it, of course I will include the agents fee in the price, which
will go to $107.5k. Mostly after my previous experiences buying and
selling houses where did not see the agents value in the fee they got.