Despite learning about the importance of co-broking in real estate theory, I was disappointed to discover that not all agents were equally cooperative. When I first started, I naively assumed that all agents would be responsive to inquiries. However, I quickly realized that this wasn’t always the case.

Approximately 20% of the agents I contacted either ignored my inquiries, claimed the property was already sold, or refused to show the property to my client, suggesting we handle the process ourselves. At first, I was puzzled by these inconsistencies, especially when I noticed that supposedly sold units were still listed in the market.

My senior explained that some agents were simply unwilling to co-broke and share commission with me and advised me to focus on closing deals rather than dwelling on negative experiences.

When seller agents refuse to co-broke, they undermine the principles of transparency and fairness, leading to a less trustworthy and less competitive market.

 it can have several negative consequences for buyers:

1. Limited Access to Properties: Many buyer agents rely on seller agents to provide them with listings and information about available properties. If seller agents are unwilling to share commissions, they will be less likely to share listings with buyer agents, limiting the buyer’s options.
2. Higher Costs: In some cases, buyers may end up paying higher prices for properties because they are unable to negotiate effectively without the assistance of a buyer agent. Buyer agents are familiar with the market and can often negotiate better deals on behalf of their clients, but they may be less motivated to do so if they are not receiving a commission because ultimately, agents need to earn a living for the work they do
3. Potential for Misrepresentation: In some cases, buyers may be misled or misinformed by seller agents who are not working with a buyer agent. Seller agents may be more likely to exaggerate the benefits of a property or downplay its flaws because they are not obligated to representing the buyer’s best interests.

Considering the above possible negative consequences to the buyer, the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) recently issued a best practice guideline stipulating that both buyers and sellers should be responsible for paying their respective agents’ commissions. This is designed to prevent conflicts and ensure that both buyers and sellers receive fair representation.

However, understandably the idea of buyers paying commissions was met with lukewarm reception. Agents are also afraid of poaching the subject for fear of losing the client to another in this competitive industry.

Hopefully in time to come, as clients become increasingly aware of their rights and the importance of having their interests represented, this initiative of having buyers pay commissions to their agent can empower buyers and sellers to demand fair treatment and hold agents accountable; and will not end up affecting our livelihood.

In the meantime, the real estate industry must foster a culture of cooperation and adherence to ethical guidelines to address this issue of not co-broking with fellow agents. I suppose education and training programs emphasizing the importance of fair practices can help shift attitudes and behaviours.

The reluctance of some real estate agents to co-broke presents a significant challenge to the industry’s integrity and fairness. While the CEA’s guidelines are a step in the right direction, it will take a concerted effort from all stakeholders to change entrenched practices. By promoting transparency, cooperation, and ethical behavior, the real estate market can become a more equitable space for all participants.