Caliban wrote in message
ink.net...

conflicts of interest (both agents since they work for the same
company
want
to make the company as much money as possible) are present, which
sucks
IMO.

Here we go with the "make most money" argument. All you need to do is
work
up the numbers to see that the argument is bogus. How much of a gap have
you
seen in your vast experience? $2K? $5K? 10? How much commission is
involved
and what percentage of the total commission does it represent?

Are you saying dual agency for a buyer has less or the same risks as
having
strictly a buyer's agent for the buyer?

Dual agency works just fine. What creates risk are bad agents and stupid
buyers. In fact, the buyer's agency contracts I've seen expose the buyer to
the potential of having to pay a commission!

Agents do fight over a thousand dollars. If you dispute this, then your
suggestion above that agents do expect compensation for merely spending an
hour with a potential buyer is bull****.

You missed the point entirely becasue you're mixing dollars. You suggested
that agents try to get a buyer to spend more for the INCREASED commission
and to that I say bull****. Since you seem incapable of doing it yourself,
I'll give you an example.

Let's say that a house is listed for $200K. At that price, the typical
selling agent's net commission (assuming a 70% split) will be $4032. Now,
let's say a buyer wants to offer $195K. If that is accepted, the commission
will be $3931. So, you're contention is that an agent will jeopardize a
deal, create bad will and generally be a bad agent for an additional $101?
That's just plain stupid and a thousand dollar difference is even dumber.

Many internet sites say what I say.

Sure. Internet sites that are trying to sell you on the idea of enlisting a
buyer's agent.

But hey, if it says so on an internet site it must be true, right?