2/21    Since I started the thread awhile ago, I felt I should post some info.
        There's a misconception in real estate that the seller pays the 6%.
        Take a house, for sale by owner, for example.  The Seller with an
        agent can sell a house for 400k, and give 24k to the two agents,
        pocketing 276k before closing costs.  A for sale by owner can sell
        for 280k, make 4k more than if he were to sell thru an agent, and
        the buyer also saves 20k.  Where does the 6% come from?  The selling
        price.  Who pays the selling price?  The Buyer. The 6% is a markup
        for agents paid by the buyer.  In actuality, it does come closer to
        3%, since sellers will insist on splitting commissions.  Of course,
        in hot housing markets, throw this out the window.  -nivra
        \_ You meant a $300k house not $400k, right?
        \_ [motd mathd was here]
        \_ That's because the seller is paying the 6%. All houses are
           priced with that 6% in mind. The reality with FSBO is that
           buyers and sellers split the savings, but it's much harder to
           sell the house. The seller is benefitting from the service more
           than the buyer. Also, someone must pay for the buyer's agent if
           there is one. All that really matters is the net. Is that what
           you are saying in a roundabout way? If so, duh. --dim
           \_ the agent is of no use to the buyer whatsoever unless they are
              clueless.  to buy a house you need a lawyer, and that's it.
              this is in direct contradiction to certain advice given
              by loudmouth idiots on the motd.
              \_ *Which* agent? A buyer's agent certainly is useful. An
                 attorney, while beneficial, is not required either in
                 California. Do you have a point? --dim
              \_ Who is going to show you houses without a buyer's agent?
                 The online/public MLS doesn't show addresses and if I was
                 selling my house and a non-agent random fuck called or showed
                 at my door, they're *not* getting a tour.  And there's no one
                 to even let you in if the house is vacant.  You're a fool.
                 You're not getting a discount off the house without an agent.
                 With 2 agents, they split the fee, with 1 agent they take the
                 whole fee.
                 \_ FWIW, the only friends I know to buy a house for <$400 in
                    Berkeley in the past two years found the house on their own
                    while riding around on their bikes and did all the
                    preliminary talking directly to the seller.  Their agent
                    (i.e., the buyer's agent) only helped them shuffle the
                    papers for the sale, though that was non-trivial.
                    \_ I'm having a hard time replying to this.  I'm honestly
                       not sure why you're telling us this.  What does this
                       have to do with anything?
                 \_ IIRC, a lot of the time, a single-agent (who's
                    acting as both buying and selling agent) deal
                    will only net the agent 4.5%; there are sticky legal
                    ramifications of being both, though...
                    \_ If you're the buyer and they have an agent, then the
                       seller's agent also becomes the buyer's agent.  You are
                       going to get screwed.  Beware when they ask to get your
                       OK to run an approval on you, then they know exactly
                       how much they can soak you for.  There's nothing
                       anywhere that I've ever heard of that says 4.5% for a
                       single agent.
                \_ Y'all realize that if the agent works for a brokerage
                house (ie: coldwell) then they split some of their 3% with
                the broker. So a buyer or seller's agent may get as little
                as 1.5% on the transaction.
                \_ Sure sure but that wasn't the point.  The idea was how much
                   it costs the buyer/seller to have an agent, not the final
                   destination for that fee.