[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by schoy

Given the current buyer's market, it seems to me that buyers should be able to negotiate more creative buyer's agent commission structures than merely 1/2 of the total sales commission (historically 1/2 of 6%, down to 1/2 of 3% in recent years). The typical structure doesn't incentivize the buyer's agent to negotiate the purchase price down; rather it incentivizes the buyer's agent to convince the buyer to pay *more* than what they expected (i.e. close the sale, get more $). Maybe something like this could be more of a market commission structure for buyer's agents (using fake numbers):

Assume the commission structure is 3% total, with 1/2 going to buyer's agent. List price is $500,000. So, under the typical structure, if sale is at list, then buyer's agent would get $7,500. But we could structure the compensation differently:

If the sales price equals or exceeds $490,000, then Buyer splits 1/2 of Buyer's agent's commission (so if the sale is at list, then buyer's agent would keep $3,750 and give the other $3,750 back to the Buyer).

For every $1,000 that the sales price is below $490,000, then Buyer's refund is 1/2 of the Buyer's agent's commission, less $75. So if the sale is at $475,000, then Buyer's refund is (half of $7,125) - $1,125 = $2,437.50. Agent keeps $4,687.50. If the refund becomes a negative number, then Buyer pays that amount as a bonus. So if the sale is at $425,000, then Buyer's refund is (half of $6,375) - $4,875 = -$1,687.50. So Buyer would pay the agent an additional $1,687.50.

Seems like this would make the buyer's agent's interests align with the buyer.

I agree with you, but two potential problem areas:

1. They would otherwise be getting the full commission, good luck getting them to give that up and there's enough people out there who simply don't care.
2. Under this model (though I like it), it would require a lot of work on their part and I'm not sure they like that. And could they really get a $500K house down to $425K? Maybe, but even if they did so, their total commission under your model would only be $8,062...not much more than the $490K * 1.5% (or $7,350) - so you would probably need to bump the $75 incentive up to $100 or $125 or so to actually create an incentive.

But I like the thought process...not much tweaking required really and maybe it will give a potential seller an idea.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I agree with you, but two potential problem areas:

1. They would otherwise be getting the full commission, good luck getting them to give that up and there's enough people out there who simply don't care.
2. Under this model (though I like it), it would require a lot of work on their part and I'm not sure they like that. And could they really get a $500K house down to $425K? Maybe, but even if they did so, their total commission under your model would only be $8,062...not much more than the $490K * 1.5% (or $7,350) - so you would probably need to bump the $75 incentive up to $100 or $125 or so to actually create an incentive.

But I like the thought process...not much tweaking required really and maybe it will give a potential seller an idea.

Don't disagree. I just threw numbers in there as an example. The general idea is that there's a penalty/bonus commission structure that aligns the buyer agent's interest with the client.

[Joekerr]

Oops, my math was stupid, benefit is even lower.

But I get your idea and I like it. Maybe someone will do that.

[E90 87ss]

Originally Posted by schoy

Given the current buyer's market, it seems to me that buyers should be able to negotiate more creative buyer's agent commission structures than merely 1/2 of the total sales commission (historically 1/2 of 6%, down to 1/2 of 3% in recent years). The typical structure doesn't incentivize the buyer's agent to negotiate the purchase price down; rather it incentivizes the buyer's agent to convince the buyer to pay *more* than what they expected (i.e. close the sale, get more $). Maybe something like this could be more of a market commission structure for buyer's agents (using fake numbers):

Assume the commission structure is 3% total, with 1/2 going to buyer's agent. List price is $500,000. So, under the typical structure, if sale is at list, then buyer's agent would get $7,500. But we could structure the compensation differently:

If the sales price equals or exceeds $490,000, then Buyer splits 1/2 of Buyer's agent's commission (so if the sale is at list, then buyer's agent would keep $3,750 and give the other $3,750 back to the Buyer).

For every $1,000 that the sales price is below $490,000, then Buyer's refund is 1/2 of the Buyer's agent's commission, less $75. So if the sale is at $475,000, then Buyer's refund is (half of $7,125) - $1,125 = $2,437.50. Agent keeps $4,687.50. If the refund becomes a negative number, then Buyer pays that amount as a bonus. So if the sale is at $425,000, then Buyer's refund is (half of $6,375) - $4,875 = -$1,687.50. So Buyer would pay the agent an additional $1,687.50.

Seems like this would make the buyer's agent's interests align with the buyer.

It's a good idea, but it doesn't work. Also agents that work on straight commission and most do are not paid for their time, gas, or other expenses and working with buyers is more difficult than being a listing agent. And they pay a percentage of their commission to their broker. So for a 100,000 dollar house at 3% you usually net $ 1,050 not $3,000.

1) Some sellers are not willing to budge on price at all. Take it or leave it.
2) I have negotiated down 75K+ for certain properties... More expensive homes can be negotiated for even more... The list price is usually higher with the expectation of negotiations.
3) Houses in the 25k-250k range usually don't have much much wiggle room, meaning you would be lucky to get $1000 off. In some areas this might be different, but not in NJ.
4) In this "buyer's market," buyers are already low balling sellers and the buyer's agent are not always allowed to help negotiate. It's usually the detail that matter and factor into negotiations that make a good buyer's agent...
5) 100,000 vs 125,000 commission for a buyers agent is a difference of $262.5 in other words $1050 vs $1,312. So agents would prefer that the deal go through and are not trying to get a higher price its just not worth it for a few hundred dollars...
6) for more expensive properties the commission is generally lower, so anything above 400,000.
7) There is also the occasional bidding war where you pay more than the asking price.

Again PM me if you have questions and I totally agree that most agents are completely incompetent. I was a buyer before I picked up my license to handle my own purchase, because half of the agents have no idea what they are doing...

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by BX TT3

Buying agents arent entitled to a commission the selling agent is. And 6% is WAY to high im buying and selling with the same agent and she is only getting 3%.... BTW 13k below asking price is just a couple bucks off of your mortgage depending on the term and rate of course.

Are you dim? When the seller signs their contract it stipulates the commission for the buyers agent, which is then included in the listing on MLS. If you tried to negotiate a contract where the buyers agent didn't receive commission, no agent would bother showing your house.

The commission is stipulated and paid for by the seller, so the buyer doesn't pay them, but that doesn't mean they aren't paid.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

And its refreshing to see someone who isn't duped by all this nonsense that O-cha is trying to spout about how one needs an agent / realtor.

Sorry that I'm the only one here with their own house not living in their parents basement. I never said you NEEDED an agent, you can buy a for sale by owner house if you would like. But if a house is listed on the MLS you are either going to be showed it by the sellers agent and they get double the commission, or you will find your own buyers agent and see it. You can't just go knock on the door, if you did and the seller sold it to you, he would be sued for breaking his contract.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

What are you talking about? Who can't show the house to you? You make no sense. There's no "requirement" to have either an agent or a realtor when selling or buying a house...just most parties choose to engage one.

No one said there was, but you have clearly never sold a house before. If you have engaged a sellers agent and put your house on the MLS then the only people showing your house is either a buyer agent or a sellers agent and if either do then you are contractually obligated to pay their commission. If the sellers agent shows to a buyer they get double the commision as both buyers and sellers agent.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

And if you are selling a house would you really sign a contract stating that you would pay your agent 3% irregardless of the other agent if you don't even know the rate? Not likely, unless that agent idemnified you against any claims by the other agent.

Again, no idea what you're talking about. You sign a contract with the commission clearly stipulated the standard is 1.5% each for buyer and sellers agent. This is a contractual obligation.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

So, if one side of the transaction doesn't have an agent, then the seller should be smart enough to say, fine, I'm only paying my agent the half they are entitled to. And reduce the purchase price accordingly.

Again, you don't get to make that choice.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

You smell like a realtor who is afraid for his profession. No wonder - they make a killing and for what?

No, I'm just not a complete idiot.

[E90 87ss]

O-cha is correct... Also there is a requirement for showing houses if it is listed by a realtor, you need to be a licensed to sell/buy in the state, because you don't want random people (non agents) checking out or vandalizing the house. Many houses use lock boxes, in other words the buyer's agent receives the combination from the listing agent and shows the house without the listing agent being there or letting them, many properties are vacant... So yeah you need an agent or you need to set it up with the listing agent to meet them at the property, which would mean you would have to schedule it on different days and times according to the listing agents' schedules if you are looking at multiple properties versus having a buyer's agent and seeing all the properties you want in one day. Would you let random buyers you never met into your vacant house without you being there... That's where the buyer's agent comes in...

Sorry guys some of you sound young and inexperienced. Again will be glad to answer any questions.

And agents barely net 30k a year when their expenses are taking into account: desk fees, gas, office expenses, marketing budget, license fee, and mandatory continued education course...

Not to mention many buyers take you on wild goose chases or want a property for nothing and end up not buying anything I've been on both sides and again I am really a copywriter not a realtor, but i don't mind stating the facts.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by E90 87ss

And agents barely net 30k a year when their expenses are taking into account: desk fees, gas, office expenses, marketing budget, license fee, and mandatory continued education course...

I think that's below average, but yea MOST don't make as much as many people would think. On the other hand you have those agents with a bunch of million dollar listings who roll in it.

I still thing agents are overpaid though, but that's because I'm a serious buyer/seller who doesn't waste peoples time but as a result of other doofuses who aren't really serious, I have to pay for them as well. I think buyers agents should be paid flat rates for showings and return their commission to the buyer, that would flush out the morons.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by O-cha

No one said there was, but you have clearly never sold a house before. If you have engaged a sellers agent and put your house on the MLS then the only people showing your house is either a buyer agent or a sellers agent and if either do then you are contractually obligated to pay their commission. If the sellers agent shows to a buyer they get double the commision as both buyers and sellers agent.

Hang on, like usual, you are jumping ahead in eager anticipation to prove yourself right. You've just assumed above that one has "engaged a sellers agent". My whole point was that you don't need to. Which you ignored in your desperate attempt to feel smarter than everyone else you meet. You are not contractually obligated if you didn't engage an agent, I'm not sure if I'm getting through to you.

Originally Posted by O-cha

Again, no idea what you're talking about. You sign a contract with the commission clearly stipulated the standard is 1.5% each for buyer and sellers agent. This is a contractual obligation.

Please read above. I am at the point BEFORE you sign ANYONE up. Of course if you sign a contract you have to adhere to that, no one is that stupid (though many break them, but that's beside the point). And where is it in this quote that says the sellers agent gets double commission if they are both buyer and seller's agent - first, as an owner, I'd want them to prove that they actually signed the buyer up because I'd put in the final contract the usual clause where the buyer agrees they don't have any other agents that are going to sue me later on for non payment because I didn't know they were the buyers agent. Second, there's no way I'd sign a contract that says they get double if there is no agent (ie. in the case where the buyer doesn't have an agent) because the buyer would probably want a discount on the house. Lastly, I wouldn't allow the agent to be both the buyer and seller agent - why does that benefit me? Then they are on both sides of the fence and not entirely on my side - seems like a losing proposition for both parties.

Originally Posted by O-cha

No, I'm just not a complete idiot.

Don't leap to conclusions. This has yet to be proven.

[E90 87ss]

Originally Posted by O-cha

I think that's below average, but yea MOST don't make as much as many people would think. On the other hand you have those agents with a bunch of million dollar listings who roll in it.

I still thing agents are overpaid though, but that's because I'm a serious buyer/seller who doesn't waste peoples time but as a result of other doofuses who aren't really serious, I have to pay for them as well. I think buyers agents should be paid flat rates for showings and return their commission to the buyer, that would flush out the morons.

Agree, the straight commission really doesn't work very well, but most agents are independent contractors. Also as far as the net 30k pay its not unrealistic especially in this market also that would equate to roughly 42k before taxes, but who knows how much each agent spends on expenses. I supplement my income through real estate and since I am a copywriter my marketing is basically free, so i don't incur some of those expenses... Many of the agents at my office are struggling and some losing their home. Most of the houses I deal with are in pre-forclosure, short sale, or in foreclosure. It's even worse since Sandy hit... The multi-million dollar home owners expect you to advertise/market their house without cost to them whether you sell or not, so that generally takes a large chunk of your commission. In addition only handful of realtors make ridiculous money, just like anything else for the most part...

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

Hang on, like usual, you are jumping ahead in eager anticipation to prove yourself right. You've just assumed above that one has "engaged a sellers agent". My whole point was that you don't need to. Which you ignored in your desperate attempt to feel smarter than everyone else you meet. You are not contractually obligated if you didn't engage an agent, I'm not sure if I'm getting through to you.

That was the poorest attempt to try and save face I have ever seen. I'm actually laughing at you right now. Just in case you are actually to dumb to remember what you said, I'll quote it for you again;

Originally Posted by Joekerr

but, if you use no agent you can always negotiate that into the price and tell the seller he only has to pay his agent the half commission and that way you get the house cheaper.

So again, no you cannot do this, the seller has to pay his agent the full commission, period, he has no say so in the manner, and neither do you.

Just admit you have no idea what you are talking about and leave the thread.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by O-cha

That was the poorest attempt to try and save face I have ever seen. I'm actually laughing at you right now. Just in case you are actually to dumb to remember what you said, I'll quote it for you again;



So again, no you cannot do this, the seller has to pay his agent the full commission, period, he has no say so in the manner, and neither do you.

Just admit you have no idea what you are talking about and leave the thread.

Nice try. I like how you selectively addressed some of that. Allow me to quote the whole bit for you.

Originally Posted by Joekerr

This isn't entirely true. The buyers do pay for the agent, just not necessarily in terms of a payment they can see. Yes, the seller's agent and buyer's agent would split the commission, but, if you use no agent you can always negotiate that into the price and tell the seller he only has to pay his agent the half commission and that way you get the house cheaper.

The cost of splitting the commission is built into the purchase price of the home by the seller - if they pay less commission, they will sell the house for less as long as they are at least made whole at the end.

I'm not sure if agents would do this, but you could also look into seeing whether they would give you a 1/3 or whatever of their full commission in order to be your agent. Not sure what the appetite would be for that, myself I probably wouldn't try that, but who knows. If it was an agent where they were both selling my house and also being a buying agent for me, then I'd certainly ask them for a discount on the sale of the house.

Originally Posted by O-cha

This isn't true, they can't show the house to you, either you get an agent and they get 1.5% or the sellers agent shows you and they get all 3%. Either way it's going to be up to the agent if they want to give up the commission, good luck getting them to.

Also unless the agent is a broker they don't even get all the commission, and the broker has a say in how much they could give up even if they wanted to.

In the above, you just indicated that "they can't show the house to you". Who is it you are referring to? I take it to mean you want me to believe that the seller can't show the house without either the buyer having an agent OR, the seller's agent acting for the buyer (as well as the seller). Neither of that is true. The buyer doesn't have to have an agent, and the buyer doesn't have to accept the seller's agent. And therein lies my point. I'll state it very simply.

The buyer does not have to have an agent to see/buy houses.

A second point:

The seller does not have to have an agent to sell houses


Now if the seller has chosen to enter into a contract with an agent, then he has to abide by the terms of that contract - I never disagreed with this. But my whole point is you do not need one. Whereas your starting point was that you must have engaged an agent and therefore, you are obligated to pay them full commission.

As a side bar, I see no reason why one could / would not modify the agent contract to protect themselves from paying double commission in a case where the buyer had no agent.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

In the above, you just indicated that "they can't show the house to you". Who is it you are referring to? I take it to mean you want me to believe that the seller can't show the house without either the buyer having an agent OR, the seller's agent acting for the buyer (as well as the seller). Neither of that is true. T

Your comment was about a seller who has a seller agent. When this is the case you can only see the house through a buyers agent, or through the sellers agent, the homeowner cannot show the house to you. As such, when you see the house the buyer is BOUND to either pay the sellers agent double commission, or your buyers agent their half. You and he have NO say on them giving up their commission.

I'm just repeating myself endlessly now, what I am saying is a fact, period.

I'm not even going to bother with you further because you are just trying to convince yourself and others you didn't make the statements you made, and now you're even trying to change what I said by applying it to things it was not referring to. You're pretty delusional in this sense, I'm starting to think you're believing your own BS.

You also agreed with the guy who said buyers agents don't get commission, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by O-cha

You also agreed with the guy who said buyers agents don't get commission, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

I never agreed with him. Re-read my comment. It was clearly sarcastic. Except apparently to you.

I'm ok with you not bothering with me anymore...since you just gloss over the points anyways and then try to make a point where there isn't one to be made or pretend I'm arguing against that point.

[Marsden]

Breathtaking amount of disinformation in this thread, which isn't unusual for the topic actually.

Two points: everyone pays for realtors' "services" -- it's factored into the selling price. And it's quite possible to buy and sell without using their "services" (I use the term lightly) even with an MLS listing. I've done it. Just list with a discount brokerage and pay ~$450 instead of ~$54,000 on a $900K house.

Realtors do less work than ever thanks to the internet yet they're paid out the wazoo. A monopoly and control of state legislatures work wonders. The bad news is that realtors are paying off those same legislatures to outlaw discount brokerages in many states.

Meanwhile, they get respect the old-fashioned way. It's hilarious how they now have half the nation capitalizing the word "realtor":

[1fastdoc]

Originally Posted by Marsden

I'm curious as to the source of those figures, which don't even remotely mirror reality.

Farmer makes the prestigious list while Bus. Exec and Banker do not? How are they defining prestigious?? And what exactly is a scientist?

[E90 87ss]

Originally Posted by Marsden

Breathtaking amount of disinformation in this thread, which isn't unusual for the topic actually.

Two points: everyone pays for realtors' "services" -- it's factored into the selling price. And it's quite possible to buy and sell without using their "services" (I use the term lightly) even with an MLS listing. I've done it. Just list with a discount brokerage and pay ~$450 instead of ~$54,000 on a $900K house.

Realtors do less work than ever thanks to the internet yet they're paid out the wazoo. A monopoly and control of state legislatures work wonders. The bad news is that realtors are paying off those same legislatures to outlaw discount brokerages in many states.

Meanwhile, they get respect the old-fashioned way. It's hilarious how they now have half the nation capitalizing the word "realtor":

Only the seller pays for an agents service and the selling price is determined by the market. If you can't sell a property for more than its worth than how would you factor in agents fees... The goal is to get the highest price no matter what...

You can buy and sell without an agent, but most people have other jobs, don't have the expertise or know how, or can't be bothered to do it. Many people inherit property and live in another state, have moved to another state without selling, or live in another state or country and want to purchase something without being there and don't have time to look or do the paperwork/scheduling, so how would you accomplishing buying or selling your house without an agent. How would you show a house or have someone help winterize/fix your home, let someone into the home, or let you know what needs to be done if you aren't there, etc...

A good selling agent does more than list the listing in the MLS...

And the word "realtor" is like Kleenex... its a trademarked word by a company (NAR)...

And as far as respect real estate agents are pretty low on the ladder, it takes 2 weeks, some fees, a test, and a background check to receive a license vs going to law or med school...

I had a lot of similar misconceptions about real estate and agents until I picked up my license. But the best way to do it is simply to get your license and handle your own property rather than doing a FSBO. Although the license is easy to get, real estate is quite a headache and a pain there is more than showing or listing a house unless the buyer/seller use lawyers to close. And again real estate agents really don't make a ton of money, very few sell multi-million dollar properties. Try it out for yourself, i'm thankful I have another source of income.

[O-cha]

Originally Posted by E90 87ss

But the best way to do it is simply to get your license and handle your own property rather than doing a FSBO.

But then you still have to sign on with a brokerage, who take a cut, and may or may not allow you to sell your own house.

[schoy]

Originally Posted by E90 87ss

It's a good idea, but it doesn't work. Also agents that work on straight commission and most do are not paid for their time, gas, or other expenses and working with buyers is more difficult than being a listing agent. And they pay a percentage of their commission to their broker. So for a 100,000 dollar house at 3% you usually net $ 1,050 not $3,000.

1) Some sellers are not willing to budge on price at all. Take it or leave it.
2) I have negotiated down 75K+ for certain properties... More expensive homes can be negotiated for even more... The list price is usually higher with the expectation of negotiations.
3) Houses in the 25k-250k range usually don't have much much wiggle room, meaning you would be lucky to get $1000 off. In some areas this might be different, but not in NJ.
4) In this "buyer's market," buyers are already low balling sellers and the buyer's agent are not always allowed to help negotiate. It's usually the detail that matter and factor into negotiations that make a good buyer's agent...
5) 100,000 vs 125,000 commission for a buyers agent is a difference of $262.5 in other words $1050 vs $1,312. So agents would prefer that the deal go through and are not trying to get a higher price its just not worth it for a few hundred dollars...
6) for more expensive properties the commission is generally lower, so anything above 400,000.
7) There is also the occasional bidding war where you pay more than the asking price.

Again PM me if you have questions and I totally agree that most agents are completely incompetent. I was a buyer before I picked up my license to handle my own purchase, because half of the agents have no idea what they are doing...

I don't disagree with anything you said. Do note that I was just putting in numbers as an example; there was no intent to use #s that had any basis in reality. Like I said in another follow-up post, I was trying to get across some kind of penalty/bonus structure that would align the buyer's agent/broker's interest with the buyer.

Another beef that I have is with exclusivity provisions in listing/agency agreements, which serves to even further disincentivize agents. Because of these exclusivity provisions, agents simply spend their time trying to get as many clients as possible (rather than working hard for the client), knowing that the client is stuck with the agent for a period of time (usually 6 months to a year), and then rely on sheer volume of clients to get their commissions (e.g.. getting 50 clients with 10 that close with them (because they don't care if clients are dissatisfied) is better than 10 clients with 5 that close). I always try to negotiate out these provisions (always fail), or reduce the length of time (moderate success), or include provisions that I can fire the agent at any time that I believe the agent is in breach of its contractual, statutory or legal duties or is otherwise providing unsatisfactory service (moderate success).

[E90 87ss]

Originally Posted by O-cha

But then you still have to sign on with a brokerage, who take a cut, and may or may not allow you to sell your own house.

I signed on with one that allows you to, it's a franchise too. I work with a contractor that flips houses, so he buys and sells his own property without a problem. Most encourage you to handle your own property as a perk. On top of it if you work in a friendly office you could make the buyers agent fee at .5%, a lot of the agents will help each other out.

[E90 87ss]

Originally Posted by schoy

I don't disagree with anything you said. Do note that I was just putting in numbers as an example; there was no intent to use #s that had any basis in reality. Like I said in another follow-up post, I was trying to get across some kind of penalty/bonus structure that would align the buyer's agent/broker's interest with the buyer.

Another beef that I have is with exclusivity provisions in listing/agency agreements, which serves to even further disincentivize agents. Because of these exclusivity provisions, agents simply spend their time trying to get as many clients as possible (rather than working hard for the client), knowing that the client is stuck with the agent for a period of time (usually 6 months to a year), and then rely on sheer volume of clients to get their commissions (e.g.. getting 50 clients with 10 that close with them (because they don't care if clients are dissatisfied) is better than 10 clients with 5 that close). I always try to negotiate out these provisions (always fail), or reduce the length of time (moderate success), or include provisions that I can fire the agent at any time that I believe the agent is in breach of its contractual, statutory or legal duties or is otherwise providing unsatisfactory service (moderate success).

I understand, I did think it was a good idea though. The real problem is the ease of obtaining a license and the fact that almost every agent just wants the sale rather than providing quality service...

I actually had a problem with this recently. Since I actively promote my clients property largely because I have extensive experience in sales/marketing/advertising and to me it is necessary, I basically told them I would not be able to take their listing if they didn't extend the contract term as a compromise they had me list everything I would do in terms of marketing.

So again find a good agent that knows what they are doing, it may be extremely difficult and for that exact reason I picked up a license.

[Marsden]

Visit the UK sometime. Foxtons there charges 2% all-in and their agents live quite comfortably.

Originally Posted by 1fastdoc

Farmer makes the prestigious list while Bus. Exec and Banker do not? How are they defining prestigious?? And what exactly is a scientist?

Since these are poll results, it's popular opinion. In the popular consciousness, business execs and bankers aren't exactly revered. Did you just ask what a scientist is?

I don't remember the source of the poll but I'm sure you can find it if you're motivated.

[duyh]

A lot of ill informed home buyers on this forum.

I will try to summarize this in a way that everybody understands.

1. Seller hires a listing agent.

2. Listing agent and seller negotiate on a commission amount that will be split between the listing agent and the selling agent.

3. When the house is sold, the seller will pay the listing firm the entire commission and the listing firm will than pay the selling agent their share of that commission. If there is no selling agent the listing agent will earn 100% of that commission.

As for finding a broker, find somebody you trust and feel comfortable with.

Technically you can hire the most experienced seasoned realtor or a rookie who has no idea of what to do for the same amount of money.....free. At the end of the day find somebody you think will have your best interests at hand and will work hard for you.