The listing agent has a far greater liability than the buyer's agent, has far more expenses both in marketing the home and looking for sellers, and in general is more responsible for getting the home sold.

The commission paid to the brokerages at closings is a matter of negotiation with the listing brokerage and the seller. Good agents discuss the benefits of paying commission to the selling agent at a rate that will garner showings. But how commissions are split is really between the listing side and the seller;  the buyer's agent can always negotiate commission with their buyer directly.

Buyer agents who refuse to show a property based on that, are being highly unethical, putting themselves in front of clients.

Yep!

I earned the listing not you. Want it to be 50/50-go get the listing!

Are you serving your buyer by worrying about the commission vs. the best property for them?

If buyer agents did not show their clients a home because of the cobroke fee, the buyer agent is the one thinking about the split and less money in his/her pocket.... the client was not in that agent's thoughts....

I don’t split 50-50.  I let my seller know this up front.  it cost more to market a listing.  And my brokerage does not have 50-50 split agreements with other offices.  

I am not sure your point.  I have heard other agents comment they will not show a listing if the offer of compensation listed in our mls is too low.  That’s their problem.  

There's no rule that says you have to split it evenly. There are models that have it the opposite way.  Your entitled to what's on MLS, period.

Strange situation. 

We always share 50/50. 

How many of the listing agents do not ccoperate with showings and hunting for their buyers?! That is common in our area...

Interesting. 

In our MLS you won't see commissions to the listing agent, only to the buyer's agent. 

Situations differ.  In California, the residential listing agreement states how the commission compensation will be shared.  It is signed by the broker and the seller.  

As a listing agent, I know the first imperative is to get the house sold. I do not erect barriers to achieving that goal.

As a buyers' agent, I show the houses that my buyer wants to see regardless of commission...just like all agent should do. It may be possible to negotiate a more desirable commission before showing the house but failure to do so will not stop me from showing the property.

The broker should decide if the situation you presented serves the client.

I can see there are differences in how the co-broke is split in various areas of the country. In our area it's very rare to see the split at 50/50.  Wow!  I don't discuss actual percentages in an open platform but in my 20+ years of doing real estate that has not been the standard.

We always split 50/50 

Many policies seem to breach that Fiduciary duty, and most of them are sanctioned by the same state and Realtor assoc that claim to protect the public.  As to this situation, I really cannot say since I know little of the amount offered or what is expected in your area.

I've never heard of that in my MLS John Mosier in fact it's usually just the opposite.

It is a disservice that gets overlooked by the seller all the time. I do not think it is fair but lots of things in life aren't fair.

They disadvantage their seller in the market. When you look at the closing statement you can see that the seller was not at fault right? 

I split 50/50!

I don't think it's ethical to prioritize properties one shows a buyer on the basis of commission.

We always co-broke 50-50   

I have always shared 50/50

The listing agent must make sure the deal is protected & directed no matter what is the directive of fiduciary. You may push the envelope but not break it

We always split 50/50. A

I'm a 50/50 guy as I feel that both hats (listing agent & buyer's agent) are equally challenging. There are exceptionally difficult clients on both sides and there are easy clients on both sides. So in my opinion, 50/50 is the appropriate way to keep the public's best interest at heart rather than the listing agents pocket book. There are excpetions - when a listing agent is fronting the cost for repairs, staging. I don't agree that spending money on "marketing" constitutes a reason for a higher listing side split as that "marketing" is more about the agent getting more biz than getting the property sold.  In support of that statement is not all the "marketing in the world" will sell an overpriced listing but it will often get the phone to ring.

The NWMLS going "public" in the SOC in the name of transparency, if they're really want to be transparent, may as well go public with both sides of the commish. That would really show who's acting in their clients best interest and who isn't and then the public can really "see" who's up to what and decide what's best for them.

I don't care what listing agents make and they should not care what I make. ( but they sure do care...)

Anyone that thinks I MUST take whatever is in MLS has never read the interpretation of the code of ethics...I can have the buyer ask the seller to pay my commission either part or whole or more than is offered...done many times.  That is no different than asking the seller for closing costs, or repairs.

While I do think that listing agents have more expenses, a BA has the bulk of the liability...the seller just dumped the property, the buyer just bought a property, probably with some things undisclosed. Statistics show that buyers sue their agent more often then sellers sue.

If you look at the stale listings...most are paying a measly commission.

I think that if listing agents want to sell faster and look good, they should split 50-50 with the BA.  Savvy listing agents already do that.

Eve

We split 50/50 

Funny you should bring this up . I’ve seen UNHAPPY Buyer Agents who were upset getting only 50% of a Reduced Commission !

It sure can hurt the sale by keeping away buyer agents. No worse than the discout agent listing offering even less than that. The key for me is what i offer is in my listing contract and signed by seller, I do have sellers who question it and i do also bring it up when i am on a listing appoinment where there are many other agents competing for the listing. 

our listing agreement require the commission splits be signed off by the seller. I wish every listing agent would use the 60/40 split as it makes so easy to take listings from them.

I don't discuss commissions and commission splits in a public forum.

We have always split it evenly. I wass on the receiving end of a short commission years ago and vowed to never again have a transaction with that agent. The uneven split was not disclosed until at the closing table. VERY BAD!

John, you mention the selling side/listing side split, but you did not mention if the MLS offer of compensation was a fair offer.

As stated in several of the answers, we don't know what, if anything, the listing agent may have done to market the property that cost a bit more than the norm.

You say you know the seller and you had offered to list the property offering more to the selling agent than to yourself.  Yet the seller listed with someone else.  I hope your question isn't just an expression of frustration in not getting the listing.

Buyer agents are the higher paid side here for many years. They most get 2-3X more than listing agent. Top USA producing broker, esquire by WSJ source comes on a private plane needs to take less than buyer agent.  Many offices if both sides are produced in the same office swallowed less commission regardless what the signed contract says. With colisting agent or co-buyer agents there are 4 agents on the contract. More interesting. Many co-agent does nothing other than collect a 50-50 commission not earned.

I'm not even going there. It is what it is. 

Where I used to live, many listing agents did 66%/33% in their favor. And if a listing agent referred a buyer to a buyer agent who brought the buyer for that listing, they got another 25%. So it was more like 75%/25%.  Often, these listing agents did little work and the buyer agent did the work of both agents. In those cases, I thought it was a ridiculous process.

That being said, the commission to be provided to a co-op agent is up to the seller.  And if they only want 25% or 33% to go to the buyer agent, and the buyer agent wants more, the buyer agent needs to discuss with their buyer.

I don't see where the commission split is an issue.  All that matters is what is offered in the MLS to the buyers agent.  I won't take a listing that isn't in line with what other buyer's agents have been paid.  And yes, that is something we look at in comps.  Is it less than what I work for?  Sometimes.  Depends on the situation.

I have never in my several decades of business, ever offered a 50/50 split.  I am a Listing Agent and what I negotiate with my Sellers is between the Seller and me (my brokerage)  We have privacy laws in Canada and my negotiations are never divulged.  Rarely do I work with Buyers but, when I do, there is ALWAYS a Buyers Representation Agreement which outlines exactly what I expect to be paid, prior to any homes being shown so I don't know why these BAgents are getting their knickers in a knot.  You will be paid what you are worth.

My commission is based upon what is agreed upon in my Contract between me and my buyer clients or my seller clients. I share 50/50 but, I will tell you, as Nina mentioned here in the past, in Charlotte, all agents do not do this.

It's their right but, I sadly agree with you that many agents base which homes they will show upon the commission offered by the LAs. YES, it's wrong but, I would totally agree the split is why the home you mentioned didn't sell, John. 

Are you saying that had you gotten the listing you would have also had a buyer and sold it sooner for more money? I have no reason to balk at uneven splits, it's my buyer who decides what they want to purchase in spite of my compensation which is already known at the onset.     

Have not had any problems.

Sorry, I do not discuss commissions here.