View Single Post
  #9  
Old 26.07.2019, 20:59
doropfiz doropfiz is offline
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: ZH
Posts: 5,166
Groaned at 42 Times in 33 Posts
Thanked 6,943 Times in 2,905 Posts
doropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond reputedoropfiz has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Buyer paying agent's fees - tax implications?

Quote:
View Post
In the model where the buyer pays the buyer is at a heightened disadvantage. The buyer is not the agent's client (even though the concept of fiduciary duty seems to be weak here) but rather the person who pays is person the agent is directly working against.
Oh, I see now. I had - mistakenly - understood your post to mean that there was a new type of agent around, who was specifically working FOR the buyer.

I fondly imagined such a buyer's agent providing services such as listening to the buyer's wishes, scouting around looking for potential matching properties, approaching owners suggesting a sale even if the property is not yet on the market, checking items such as zoning and planning permission, bargaining with the seller on behalf of the buyer. In other words, just the inverse of what agents now typically do, who work for the seller.

Now that is a service which I think would be great to have! And for which it would be worth a buyer's paying a fee.

On reading your subsequent post, I now think you didn't mean what I understood at all. Rather, the agent you've now heard of, is still firmly on the side of the seller, working in the seller's interests, and now suddenly on top of that, the buyer has to pay that agent. If that's the deal, then I fully agree with you that that wouldn't feel right, as a buyer, not at all.

Last edited by doropfiz; 26.07.2019 at 21:40. Reason: Adding sentence: "And for which... worth... a fee".
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank doropfiz for this useful post: