In order for that to work, everyone has to do it. It would have to become an Industry standard of practice. And it would change everything. The problem always has been: where would the buyer get the money? If buyers could budget in their broker's fee, again everything would change.

I think the risk involved in taking buyers around for a long period of time is why a lot of people prefer to be listing brokers. I know I do. My fuse is extremely short when it comes to buyers.

It's a great question and variations of it have been discussed here. You'll get some very interesting answers.

I am accustomed to traditional agency so, I'm not sure how I would really respond to the change.

My take on the end game is that for many buyers, it would be tough to pay a BA commission and a down-payment also. My fear is that, after all that we have put into place to protect buyers, this would completely un-do all of that. They will then phone the listing agents and we all know how that can go.

The way I look at it is, if you work with qualified buyers, you will always get paid at the end. I also agree with Roy Kelley and Bob Crane 

The biggest issue I have with that idea is that many buyers simply do not have the cash to pay commission or would much rather use the cash to increase their down payment. That means that buyers will simply contact the listing agent directly to avoid paying commission.  Since you cannot finance commissions, it will end buyer agency as we know it.

Essentially we will return to the pre-MLS days where listing agents sold the property directly to the buyer.

That may just be the cost of doing business. I've never taken a buyer around for months and had nothing to show for it. At the end of the day, it's our "job" to establish motivation of any prospective buyer we work with. A buyer who's out there for months and never buys probably was not a motivated buyer to begin with.

When does the pearl-clutching start?  Before, during or after the first gasp is observed/heard?

Interesting, I know in NY tenants pay commissions. 

I've always worked within the traditional framework darcy sledge  but it didn't take me long in this business to seek out builders and developers as my clients.

It is difficult to change industry practices.

Every contract is negotiable, if you are good at what you do it gets easier to set the terms.

I wish.

Sometimes I do get paid directly by buyer-clients, that's nothing new for me. Been doing it for a long time. One example, is when the listing does not pay the entire fee that I expect for my services in my buyer-broker agreement. My client has to make up the difference. Listing agents do not determine my fees and/or income per transaction.

Sometimes, I have fees up front, and the client gets a credit at close of escrow. No escrow closing, no credit.

More so for commercial transactions.

Ditto, Bob Crane and Roy Kelley 

There are for hire Buyer Agents out there. Personally, I'm not a fan of separately paid

Darcy, I've had a few buyers I wish I had charged by the hour. I do have a friend who charges $125 for each agent contact. That's a phone call, a showing, an email or text. I had one seller who constantly called, texted and emailed me for a couple months. Everything went well, but you would never know it by her consuming need for contact. I tallied what she would owe me at $125 and hour. It was a little over $19,000. I gave her the option to pay a commission or to pay by the contact. She took the commission and immediately stopped contacting me 15 times a day. Ironically, everything went smoothly without her efforts.

This will only be reasible when the lenders agree to finance the buyers commission

Most of my buyer clients wouldn't have been able to buy a home (at least not at the time they did) if they had to also pay for commission. It's just too big an add to their upfront expenses. Maybe it would be something mortgage companies might consider financing. 

I think there would be a lot of buyers who opted not to use an agent.

Darcy,

I agree with Candice A. Donofrio .  And then, comes the thought, that listing agents can lose the listing having spent time and money on marketing the property, should they be reimbursed?  A

I think listing agents and brokerages will come up with solutions because they will have to. Perhaps we'll have showing agents that work for the seller and we'll see fewer and fewer buyers with representation. 

The problem with most first time buyers is they have barely enough money for down payment and closing costs nevermnd having to pay an agent

That is going to be a hard sale.

I really like that idea so people who like to waste our time will think twice because now they have to pay for it.  I think there should be some kind of new rules in real estate. Maybe I should be on the real estate board 

I love to be paid!  Not only for my time but for my knowledge, skills, and training. The solution to working and spending time and having nothing to show for it is to harness the ideal client and learn to say ... no thank you ... to the people who are ready for whatever reason. 

I think buyers should pay their own commission.  I also think buyer agents should get paid for their time, not based on the price.  It's pure economics - the buyer agent's reward for being a good negotiator (lower price) is that he gets paid less!  That makes zero sense - and is ineffective.

Further, if you aren't paying for a service, you are the product.  For example, you don't pay for Facebook because you are Facebook's product.  The buyer is the buyer agent's product that he is selling to the selling agent (who is actually the person paying).  The selling agent, not the seller, is paying the buyer agent commission.  The seller agreed to pay a commission and the agent is the one who said, "I'll give you half of my commission if you bring me a buyer."

It makes a ton more sense for the buyer's agent to get paid a fee (not percentage) by the buyer.  I think buyers would also get better service if they paid agents for their time.

This is how it should happen.  Do I expect that it will change?  Not any time soon enough for us to worry about it.

when papers pass and the deed is recorded is when a buyer's agent should be closed.... 

should listing agents be paid upfront after the listing agreement is signed? 

both listing and buyer agents should earn their money....and if the buyer agent needs to work a buyer for a year, learn to list!!!!!!

A theory that sounds good on paper may not translate into a viable practice!

I think it would be more fair to the sellers.

Are you suggesting that agents get paid for what they actually do?

Are you suggesting that gents get pay by those for whom they actually do something.

For the agent who takes the time to understand what their clients want instead of relying on the limitation of the choices the buyer and seller have, such pay for what you use, options already exist offered by agent who took to time to ask, then listen.

Now, be aware, this would be disruptive to the river of money the existing monopoly has created. And no one what that to disappear.....except buyers and sellers.

When analyzed regarding what the agent really does, what would you propose as the median hourly rate? Even using the most optimistic of hourly rates, what such analysis reveals is agents a incredibly OVERPAID for what they do today. Be careful because raising this curtain just may give buyers and sellers what they really want.

I can imagine the buyer asking, "What did you actually accomplish during these 10 hours for which I am being billed?" Hmm, come to think about it, that would not be a bad outcome on both sides. Agents deliver value, buyers see the value itemized. It is actually a win/win.

Anyway you slice the pie as long as everyone eats....

Whether the buyers side or sellers side pays us, we got to get paid to work. I don't really see the point in changing a system that has always worked. As it is buyers ask for seller concessions to cover closing costs, subject to the property appraising at that higher price. Seems crazy to think they would need to also ask for their loan to cover their buyer's agents cost too, and expect that property to appraise out. 

Not going there as it will cause clients to micro-manage our activities and when we are dealing with multiple clients, the resulting turmoil would be overwhelming for everyone

To each their own.  It would require an industry wide shift that would need to be mandated by "on high"... which we don't have.  Right now buyers know they don't have to pay any more to work with an agent.  If they did... well it's good to be a listing agent in a state where double dipping is legal.

Some properties listed seller can pay just 1% total. A few there are no money to go around for buyer agent esp like business opportunities. A few auction site the listing agent barely gets paid and buyers are required to pay 5%. Bottom line the buyer agent is like an endangered species or dieing profession.  Not popular in west coast anymore.

It's more common in commercial sales, but buyers can pay their agent/broker if they want, although it is rarely done in residential sales since sellers usually agree to pay enough commission to split between listing and buyer agents.

I'd love to bill like an attorney hourly and then collect a flat fee for the closing. I don't care who pays me, but Daddy needs to get paid!

 There are agents across the U. S who's business model is to get paid by buyers...or so their Buyer-Broker contract says. I suspect the occasions in which the buyer actually pays is rare because the agent accepts whatever is paid by the listing agent. It has long been an interesting subject for discussion.

Now we are going to waite for the resolution of a lawsuit the see if our way of doing business is in for a major change.

I think I have a buyers brokerage agreement that protects me.

I still think it will be a long time before this changes.

I know of some agents that do that, I am not a fan of it.