I found myself in a social conversation with a recent buyer (not mine) of a lovely new home. He explained to me that he tried, very hard, to find a property without using a buyer's agent... eventually failing and having to use one after all.
I asked him, out of curiosity "Why did you spend all that effort trying to buy, specifically without using a buyer's agent?", knowing full-well what he thought.
He answered predictably. He expected, by dealing directly with listing agents, and not bringing a buyer's agent to the table that the listing agent would be more than willing to share a portion of the buyer's agency's fee.. and he could save a few shillings.
I tried to explain that while it was always possible that you'd find an agent who might be willing, that our commission agreement was with the seller, and we were under zero obligation to reduce our commission, and that most listing agents, unless they have a property that's been difficult to sell, are unlikely to share.
I could see the wood in his eyes, and knew I was banging my head against the proverbial dead horse... um... beating a dead brick... er... well, you get the idea.
I gave up. This was a smart, educated man... purchasing a substantial property, and not his first purchase. There are a lot of people who firmly believe that by bypassing the buyer's agent... they can save themselves the buyer's side commission. And they become convinced that they've done exactly that when they purchase the property for 97% (saving 3%) of the listed price. Not realizing that a good buyer's agent could have helped them buy the property for 92% (saving them 8%).. while still earning the buyer's side commission as well.
That poor horse... will he ever stop being beaten?