Maybe, but consider the case in the DC area, where there's such a demand for housing that properties sell the day they're listed. Do the selling and buying agents each deserve a legally-mandated 3% for that, or should market pressures be allowed to determine the price through competition?
And you've worked on a commission basis for how long? First, by law commissions (at least in our state) are negotiable. Market pressure from discount brokers has reduced the average commission over the past few years.
The agents portion of the earnings varies by indivual ageement with the employing broker, and probably averages out to a 50/50 split.
One company used to bill itself as the two percent commission company, but if you wanted MLS (cooperative marketing)exposure the rate was over 4%. Now they promote a 3% program with MLS participation, but there's a catch. They offer out 1% to the co-broker. The typical payout in our market is 2.5%, so agents avoid showing their listings unless there are no options, or show them last. Needless to say, a high percentage of their listings expire unsold.
Compare a Realtor at 6% to an attorney on contingency at 33% plus expenses. If either fails to perform there is no paycheck. Should we limit lawyers' charges too?
Bottom line is, most agents earn their pay by doing better for the client than theclient can do for himself.
When I sold my house in Florida I negotiated 4%. Since when is 6% legally-mandated?
A settlement atty. will ask $500 bucks, hang a sign on your house, FSBO, 750k, someone will pay you a million for it before the sun sets.
What, exactly, is the realtor for?
I wanna pay them $60k to hang the sign?