Hacker News Reader

Comment by WirelessGigabit | Hacker News Reader

The problem in this case is that the seller's agent takes the whole 6%. It's not that they only take 3% (which is the most disgusting part here).

View on HN

6% and 3% are negotiable figures.

Right now one of the realtors we've interviewed takes 5% and offers 2.5% to the buyer's agent. Not much better. They also offer 4% if they are a dual agent.

But I know of cases where a buyer without an agent got the seller agent to accept 4% overall while only representing the seller (but handling the paperwork necessary to complete the transaction.) That 2% was a worthwhile part of negotiating, allowing the buyer to get a lower price.

It is customary, at least in some locales (US-AK), that the commission is split evenly between the agents.

I would caution against assuming that anything related to commissions is actually customary, including an even split. All of this really is negotiable, and when I think about the past year, I've seen multiple occasions where different splits were offered. For example - I referred some business to an agent in Tennessee, who in order to pay my referral* convinced seller to offer a lesser split to the buyer's agent. I know of at least one agent in my market who does similar. I know of another agent who charges at least 10% on any land deal, while others are flat-fee.

* If I were a member of the public, I'd be more upset about referral fees than commissions. This is a far more grey / nebulous area of real estate compensation. We have to disclose and discuss commissions up front, but referral fees are often in the shadows and definitely can cause buyers / sellers to pay more.

yep, agreed. I know and have talked to some brokers about this in the past, and also closed a few deals as both a buyer and a seller. The commission was split evenly in my experiences but I should have said ‚typical‘ even if only as a starting point in negotiations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com