I was not suggesting that both parties can save the same dollar; what I am saying is that, in this and many other markets, the property won't get shown if it is offering what is considered less than typical selling broker fee. Period. So, if the showing agents would get a contract signed, and explain to the buyer that they are responsible for making up any difference, then the seller can 'save' some money. What is of the biggest concern to me in all of this is the apparent reluctance of the industry at large to change anything. How many brokers are willing to let their salespeople offer fee-for-service? My broker told me that it is not to be advertised, nor offered without his consent, as it ruins the chance of getting a "full commission" through the door. In my humblest of opinions, he has his head up his a** in this matter (I work there for many other reasons, and he is a truly great broker!), but his response is so typical of brokers across North America - WE MUST DO ANYTHING TO PRESERVE THE DOUBLE-DIP! Wrong boys, so very wrong. Just think when the consumer wakes up to the fact that they have been getting the shaft for all these year - think how low we will be in the Gallop polls then. Another area of concern to me is the issue of commission versus fee. Why does the entire industry seem so set on contingency pay? When will it wake up to the far-better option of fees paid regardless of whether the house sells or not. Don't tell me it is against RESPA, because it isn't. You just have to call it a FEE for marketing services, not a commission for selling.

Back to Previous Post Printer Friendly Version | E-mail This Article to a Friend