building at 139 Skillman Avenue

Thats because the listing broker is probably getting it. Everybody thinks if you don't use a buyers broker the % should come off the price but things dont work that way.

worked that way when I purchased in Manhattan.

No, you just negotiated a lower sale price. The broker still got paid.

The selling broker got paid, the buying broker did not, as there was none. The reality is the money to be paid to the buying broker was saved by the seller giving him room to discount. I am surpised this seller is unwilling to do the same.

Are you saying the selling broker gets a double comission?

Yup

if you are saying the selling broker gets double paid, then he/she should be willing to forfeit half to get the sale done.

Good luck with that, especially in Williamsburg.

Hopefully the sponsor will see that the unit still is unsold due to broker greed.

"if you are saying the selling broker gets double paid, then he/she should be willing to forfeit half to get the sale done."

The absence of a buyer's broker slashing his commission in half doesn't mean the selling broker is "paid double".

Whichever way you slice it the money that would have been paid to the buyers broker has to go somewhere. Its either retained by the sponsor( giving him a bigger sale price than anticipated), goes to the selling broker ( means he is double paid) or it could be used to give the buyer a discount ( and in this case it was refused albiet by broker or sponsor).

Whats interesting is the unit is still for sale as sales for C line in building appear slow.

Wrong.

Whatever percentage is agreed-upon by the seller and the broker (6% is customary) gets paid to the broker. If a buyer's broker is involved, the 6% is shared.

It would be highly unusual for the seller's broker to agree to being paid half commission despite the absence of a buyer's broker -- just because either the buyer or seller wanted to save some money.

In other words, from the seller's (and buyer's) point of view, one way or another, 6% is being paid to broker(s).

Nearly all sales have a buying and selling broker hence in this case the selling broker got a double commission, not wrong Matt.

Yes, wrong.

Not getting paid HALF a commission doesn't mean it's a "double" commission.

Its clear you must be a real estate broker. Only someone with such an interest would interpret the semantics in that fashion.

The large majority of transactions have both buying and selling broker, hence when there is only a selling broker he gets paid double. Were the majority of transactions only to have one broker then it would be "half", but unfortunately this is not the case and you are wrong...again.

Matt, was your Manhattan purchase a resale? Commissions can work differently on new developments. It's quite possible that the marketing firm's compensation was drawn up with the idea that most buyers would approach without a buyer's broker, so there may truly be no 3% to give you.

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Yes it was a resale. Appreciate the info Ali