Esquire Realty Ciaramella & Co.

Since the NAR settlement, I keep hearing sellers say: “I heard I don’t have to pay a buyer’s agent anymore.” Technically? Sure. But that does not automatically make it a smart strategy.

First, if your goal is to avoid buyer’s agents altogether or only work with direct buyers, you are dramatically shrinking your buyer pool. More buyers means more competition. More competition means stronger offers, better terms, and often a higher sale price. Limiting who walks through the door never helps a seller.

Second, there is real value in another professional on the deal. You have two people working toward the same goal: getting to the closing table. A buyer often feels more comfortable with the person representing them, and that agent helps keep communication moving, emotions managed, and deals together when things get stressful.Here is the part many people are missing: after the NAR settlement, compensation became more negotiable and flexible, not less strategic. Good agents understand that compensation is part of the bigger picture of structuring a deal. It creates flexibility in negotiations, helps buyers make numbers work, strengthens offers, and can even create opportunities to push pricing higher overall. A lot of agents are not thinking about it this way and are not using it to their clients’ advantage.

Lastly, let’s just do simple math.Would you rather sell your house for $950,000 and pay no buyer’s agent? Or sell it for $1,000,000 and pay someone $20,000?You are still ahead by $30,000.You do not have to be a math magician to understand that.

The goal is not paying the least. The goal is netting the most.Want to understand how this actually works in a real negotiation?