Broker for owners - benefits / advantages?

Here are people around who I have already noticed in the forum; they do not even know the simplest customs in notary contracts, they will definitely be taken advantage of without a broker. In any case, the risk is high. And about the commission, it is like everywhere: you pay the seller's salary in the kitchen studio, at the car dealer, and also in real estate trading. Only in other industries is it not shown separately. You also pay the stockbroker in the stock business. My advice, if I am not confident in the business, always go with a broker. It should be worth it for me. Karsten

...they themselves don't even know the simplest customs in notarized contracts, they'll get ripped off without a broker. In any case, the risk is high.

Yeah, I've noticed that too, but why a broker should save the situation in matters relevant to notaries is beyond me. Do brokers even have any basic legal knowledge, I mean not self-assumed, but proven abilities to provide a legal assessment? Hardly, right? Besides, they aren't even allowed to do so under the RDG.. And by the way, it is also the job of a notary to explain the complex matters of the contract to laypeople...and I find that quite alright because at least they have a law degree. I agree with the rest, even if the attempt to draw an analogy to a car dealer etc. fails because there the third party is missing. When I buy a car from a car dealer as a customer, it's a direct transaction between buyer and seller. Where is the intermediary offering a service to the seller that the buyer is forced to pay for. But I think we're going in circles, there is no coming together, and it doesn't have to be. Finally, just for the record: no one, or at least not me, has a problem with a commission. It's just about whether it is fair that someone has to pay compulsorily for another’s benefit. Surprising to me that many find that completely normal and fine... but in the end, I don't care, the world keeps turning anyway.

Hello, I want to return to the main topic (Real estate agent for owners - benefits / advantages?). Benefits / advantages are clear.

There are many reasons to use the agent. Mrs. G. comes from Wolfenbüttel. She married here. Parents pass away. Mrs. G. and her sister, who also lives far away, inherit the parental home in W. They commission an agent to sell it. Mrs. A. dies shortly after her husband passed away. Three children live scattered across Europe. Agent. Couple A. from Hamburg wants a holiday home by the sea. They commission an agent to look here. Company K. sells a building. Agent is supposed to take care of it. Mr. S. wants to get rid of three rented apartments. Agent. Etc. Karsten

This example clearly shows who commissions the agent. And in my opinion, the client must also pay here and not the buyer. The agent does his work. Leaving this aside for now. But why should the buyer pay something he has not ordered, but has only been offered. Another example: if I want to buy a car and see an "offer" in the newspaper, then I go there and buy the car without additional fees. The provider (car dealership) advertises for himself and has to pay for it. Only with houses, in my opinion, everything is unfortunately reversed. Because the seller is only advertising his house through an agent and then the buyer is supposed to pay for it? Sorry, but I am in favor of "the one who orders the service should pay"!

Strictly speaking, the broker also provides a service to the buyer; he places the advertisements and pays a lot of money for them so that the buyer can even find the property. Otherwise, the buyer would not have the opportunity to pursue the property at all. Furthermore, a good broker should be neutral and mediate between both parties or also prevent the buyer from being taken advantage of.

Strictly speaking, the broker also provides a service to the buyer; they place the ads and pay a lot of money for it, so that the buyer can even find the property. Otherwise, the buyer wouldn't have the opportunity to pursue the property at all. Besides, a good broker should be neutral and mediate between both parties or even prevent the buyer from being taken advantage of.

Sorry, you're acting as if only brokers are allowed to advertise real estate on the common platforms. That's total nonsense. Anyone can advertise on Scout, sure it costs something, but compared to the purchase price that's negligible.

What's the difference between the ads if it's posted by the broker or the seller?

The problem is that some brokers practically push themselves on the sellers. Even if it's clearly stated in the ad that broker inquiries are not welcome, you still get thousands of calls from brokers, all eager for the commission.

Then you say politely but firmly. Thank you, but no interest in your service.