Agreeing to a buyer's demand for a certain concession amount to correct a
defect is one thing. Telling the buyer that he should ask for a greater
concession is much different.

It doesn't help the deal go through, it doesn't affect the broker's
commission, it just impacts the seller. If anything, it jeapordizes the
deal.


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan Goodish wrote:

In article ,
Roy Smith wrote:
"Stan Prevost" wrote:
The amount of money was minor, and the broker wound up paying it.
But
it certainly cast doubt on how zealously he had represented me during
the entire process.

What on Earth makes you think a broker (any broker) is representing any
interests other than his own? His only job is to make sure the deal
goes
through, so he gets his commission.

If I hire someone to represent me and sell my airplane (or house, etc.)
I expect them to represent MY best interests, because that's what
they're being paid to do. This usually works out fine for everyone,
because the broker gets a percentage of the sale, so he has incentive to
get the highest possible sale price. However, this is tempered by the
broker's desire to get the sale done quickly and move on to the next
deal. In either case, I'm not sure how advising a potential buyer to
extend negotiations and possibly drive down the sale price (or put the
deal at greater risk) accomplishes either goal for the broker.

Well, let's say you agree to sell me your airplane for $X. I have it
inspected and get presented with a list of squawks. If you get hard-nosed
about it, I might walk away from the deal. Your broker's best chance of
getting his commission fast is to convince me to go ahead with the deal.
And the best chance of doing that is to extract from concessions on the
price. If that means working both sides of the street, so be it.

The only thing about the broker that makes him *yours* is that *you* get
to
write the check for his fee.