steveinbsas said:
Did your agent take a cut of the buyers and seller's commissions? If so, you paid, but you were also fortunate that the total commission you paid was still within the "normal" range of 3 to 4% and you were not charged an additional 2% by your agent.
Thanks for offering to shed light. You seem to distinguish between my broker and my agent. Heretofore, I have not. Is there a need to?
I paid the "normal" buyer's commission (3.5%) presumably to the broker of the seller. Whether the seller's broker shared that commission with my broker (or my agent) is unknown to me. It matters not to me although the failure to disclose shared commissions is just one more big difference between local broker ethics and US broker ethics (where it is obligatory to disclose commission sharing).
As I indicated in a previous post, there might be an indirect cost to introducing a second (buyer's) broker into the transaction as that will reduce the seller broker's total commission. Having to share their commission to effect a sale might discourage some seller brokers from encouraging their client to accept an offer below the listed price, in the hopes a nonrepresented buyer will later show up. That is a real consideration, but no one even suggested to me that I might need to pay a supplemental fee to do the deal.
steveinbsas said:
The one buyer's agent I know of does "try" to get the buyer's commission (paid to the broker) lowered so his clients do not pay "extra" for his service, but I don't know how successful he is in doing so. The "negotiated price" might have included the necessary $ to satisfy the seller, the broker, and your agent. You may be oblivious to a "back room" deal that was struck in your absence.
I have no idea whether such a back room arrangement was made by the 2 brokers, nor do I care as it did not affect my bottom line. Without wanting to annoy you by pointing our differences between local and US ethics, such back room deals are a violation of the US broker's fiduciary duty. It is okay to share commissions and it is done all the time because most buyers use their own broker, but a US broker could lose his license for doing it and
failing to disclose it.
steveinbsas said:
As you indicated, the price you actually paid was still "high" by the meter. I seriously doubt the two brokers were willing to split your buyer's commission of 3.5%. Your agent might have been happy to get 1.75% but I don't think the seller's agent would settle for that low a figure.
If you are happy with the apartment it really doesn't matter. Even if you paid a high price at the time (3 years ago), the apartment is probably worth significantly more than that today.
The seller's broker reduced its fee in conjunction with its request not to skip doing a boleta. The secretary "seller" told me as much. I have no idea how the 3.5% I paid was divided between the brokers. Though I did not spend a lot of time selecting the apt I do not begrudge the brokers the right to earn their fees. The easy client I was compensates for the tough ones that occupy a lot of broker time and resources.
Not that it much matters, but the price I paid ($2100/sq m) was not very high given the details built into the prime located Recoleta apt, e.g. marble bathroom and kitchen counters, fancy fixtures, high tech metal doors, double pane french door windows that open from top and from the side, solid wood floors, separate air-conditioning and heating controls/splits in each room, a wind sensitive awning that closes with the push of a button or when the wind is strong, etc. As I said above I love the pad. I have no intention of ever selling it and I am not overly concerned in its increase in value - though I know things change.