Caliban wrote in message
et...

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!

I agree any buyer's agent contract that requires the buyer to pay his/er
commission is baloney. What's customary is for the buyer's agent contract
to
stipulate that the seller pays the buyer's agent half the total commission
for the sale. (Of course, this may be somewhat negotiable between all
parties.)

Customary? There are contracts out there that say exactly what you wrote,
but the rest of the sentence says, "or 3% of the purchase price, whichever
is greater."

It also puts you in a bad position if the MLS listing shows less than half
of the contracted commission. What then? Seems to me you, as a buyer, could
be liable for the difference.

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.

Houses may easily go for 10% below asking. Now we're up to a $300 or so
difference in commission.

OK, so an agent is going to throw away $3700 because your deal leave $300 in
commission on the table? That's just stupid. It reminds me of a question an
old salt agent/mentor of mine likes to ask in his Socratic style (I hope
it's not wasted on you.) ... If you see a dollar bill in the gutter, do you
pick it up or do you walk around the block looking for a 20?

Plus, for example, the seller may not want to deal
with the hassle of making repairs following a home inspection, and the
seller's agent (assuming no buyer's agent is present) may persuade the
buyer
to pay for the repairs him/herself. A good buyer's agent will negotiate
the
point aggressively.

You can negotiate a lot of things aggressively, doesn't mean you'll get
anywhere. In the end, the decision rests soley on the primaries involved. It
is their minds that must meet, not the agents.

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.

Care to cite an internet web site that advocates dual agency?

Haven't looked, don't care. I know it works with ethical agents and little
will protect you from unethical agents.

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

Do you reject that there are conflicts of interest inherent in dual
agency?

Yes. By taking your position, you imply that someone must get screwed in the
deal. I reject this notion.

This is really not a big deal. I think it's common sense to avoid dual
agency, with the one exception that a dual agent might cut his/er
commission
and make it worthwhile for a buyer and seller to use him/er.

And I think it's foolish to reject dual agency out of hand. In fact, it's
not at all uncommon for a listing agreement to contain a dual agency
discount.

I sense you're rather dug in on this point. By any chance are you a real
estate agent?

I am licensed but am currently inactive. Could it be that my experience with
many dual agency transactions give me good reason to feel as I do?

Without exception, the dual agency transactions I've been involved in and
witnessed went much smoother and resulted in happier principals than the
deals struck in an adversarial environment.