Broker for owners - benefits / advantages?

Yes, there are several portals, but most properties are also listed multiple times.
Of course, it may be that there are people who don’t feel like searching for whatever reasons. However, there are still many potential buyers due to the market situation who have been searching just as long or longer, and are therefore immediately willing to pay a higher purchase price.

You can talk about it as much as you want, it’s simply outrageous that the buyer should pay even a cent in commission. What is the difference for a buyer whether the broker shows him through the house or the owner?

That’s why the general commission. If the buyer is able to find the owner’s private listing, then he is welcome to buy the house privately.
But if he finds one of the many listings by the broker on the first page of a site (which all cost a lot of money), then the broker has helped him find the house that he otherwise might not have found.
The broker thus incurs costs in advance, although he does not know if he will get them back, and of course has himself paid for that.
Or should the broker place 20 listings so that everyone finds their dream house and then only establish the contact, but end up empty-handed?
And again, there are also enough people who simply commission a broker with the search.

However, if he finds a house on the very first page of the many listings from the agent (which all cost a lot of money), then the agent has helped him find a house that he might not have found otherwise.
So the agent incurs costs upfront, even though he doesn't know if he will get them back, and of course, charges for that.
Or should the agent post 20 listings so that everyone finds their dream house and then only make the contact, but end up empty-handed themselves?
And again, there are also plenty of people who simply commission an agent with the search.

What if the seller had to pay the entire commission and this was not circumvented by having the buyer sign a search contract?

That way the agent would definitely receive his commission.
Or am I missing something? Perhaps the fact that many owners would think twice about handing over that much money to an agent.

The question of why you nevertheless take money from buyers for services that you provide for the seller remains unanswered....

Well, the broker only does that indirectly. In the end, the buyer pays (missed profit).

Well, the agent only does that indirectly. In the end, the buyer pays (lost profit).

You meant "in the end the seller pays," because he supposedly missed out on a profit, right? Even if you keep presenting it that way, it still doesn't make it correct. Whether the seller would achieve the same price without an agent belongs to the realm of speculation and is therefore irrelevant. Could have, would have, chain on a bike. What matters is what actually is – so the question for you: an offer is in place somewhere for a single-family home in the amount of 400k EUR. The note says that upon signing, a broker fee of 3.5% plus VAT is due. Who pays the broker fee here? Or put differently: on which account, besides the 400k EUR, is the amount of the broker fee missing after the transaction? The buyer's or the seller's? The fact is that the buyer pays the fee, but the seller uses the agent's service. And that simply does not add up. I can't go to a restaurant, order lobster, and have the bill paid by the table next to me... Not directed at you: By the way, it also doesn't help to bring up the case that in the event of a search order, the buyer uses the agent's service. That is certainly correct and is rightly charged to the buyer. But that's not what this is about. So what are these smokescreens supposed to accomplish? Are the arguments running out?

So the question to you:
An offer is available somewhere for a single-family house amounting to 400k EUR. The note states that upon signing, a broker's fee of 3.5% plus VAT is due. Who pays the broker's fee here? Or put differently: besides the 400k EUR, from which account is the broker's fee missing after the transaction? The buyer's or the seller's?

Hello Ruppsn,
I am happy to answer your question.
And I will do so very directly without beating around the bush.

The money for the broker's fee will be missing for both parties.
Explanation: On the one hand, the seller failed to collect it (so something is missing), on the other hand, the buyer paid it (so something is missing).

Now I kindly ask you to answer a question for me as well.

Question:

An offer is available somewhere for a single-family house amounting to 414k EUR. The note states that upon signing, no broker's fee of 3.5% plus VAT is due. Who does not pay the broker's fee here? Or put differently: after the transaction, on which account are the 14k standing beside the 400k? The seller's or the broker's?

And to clarify once again; brokers have an absolute justification! Definitely!
(When I have already described several times further back.)
But certainly not nowadays for "normal" properties in reasonable locations.

Hi Farilo,

Now I politely ask you to answer a question for me.

Sure, I will

Question:

An offer is available somewhere for a single-family house at 414k EUR. The note says that upon signing, no broker fee of 3.5% plus VAT is due. Who is not paying the broker fee here? Or, put differently: on which account do the 14k end up after the transaction alongside the 400k? With the seller or the broker?

Is this a real scenario?

Okay, let’s play along: at the end of the transaction, 414k EUR are in the seller’s account, no question.

But the split into 400k and 14k is totally arbitrary in this case! Why don’t you ask, "Or, put differently: on which account do the 64k end up after the transaction alongside the 350k?" Or: "on which account do the 4k end up after the transaction alongside the 410k?"

In my opinion, you are mixing two issues that have nothing to do with each other.

And to make it clear again; brokers have an absolute justification! Absolutely!
(As I have described multiple times further back.)
But certainly not nowadays for "normal" properties in reasonable locations.

And here we agree 100%