You have 0 free articles left this month.
Register for a free account to access unlimited free content.
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo
Home of the REB Top 100 Agents
Advertisement

When ‘buyer’s services’ serve the seller, Australians pay the price

By Liam Garman
19 August 2025 | 7 minute read
liam garman podcast reb mwgbor

Opinion: Property ownership is touted as the most reliable wealth-building tool for Australians. But when new buyer’s services companies are incentivised by commissions from the seller, the buyer won’t be the one benefiting, writes REB editor Liam Garman.

Buyer’s agents have emerged to give investors and home buyers an edge. For investors, they identify suburbs on the cusp of growth. For owner-occupiers, they offer intimate local knowledge to separate a gem from the rubble. Their goal is simple: work solely for the buyer.

That clarity is now under threat. A new breed of buyer’s “services” has entered the market, often paid by the very sellers with whom they are meant to negotiate.

 
 

It is a shift that sounds small but carries profound consequences.

Make no mistake. A buyer’s agent paid by a seller is not a buyer’s agent at all – legally and ethically. It is a structural conflict of interest dressed up as advocacy, where the buyer’s financial future is secondary to the seller’s profit margin.

On paper, the model can sound appealing. Large agencies roll out glossy brochures, talk up their data analytics, and promise access to supposedly exclusive stock.

In practice, they are only showing buyers the properties where a commission has been offered. Whole swathes of the market are never considered.

The economic logic is straightforward. If a property is genuinely well-priced and in demand, it will sell quickly through normal market processes. It does not need a commission-driven spruiker to push it. Commissions exist to shift stock that otherwise struggles to move.

I was reminded of this recently when a major national group announced the launch of a new buyer’s services division. At first glance, the offer looked compelling. The company held vast amounts of data and promised buyers a leg-up. But dig deeper and the truth emerged: the service was funded by developer commissions, not the buyer’s fee.

Instead of scouring the market, they present whatever a developer is willing to pay them for. Buyers are left believing they are receiving tailored advice, when in reality they are simply being funnelled into pre-packaged sales pipelines.

And the consequences for investors are real. According to CM Lawyers, in Sydney, the value of off-the-plan properties in some suburbs have dropped by 20 per cent between sale and settlement.

Moreover, roughly 30 per cent of off-the-plan buyers sold at a loss within two years. Commission-driven recommendations played no small role in funnelling investors into those deals.

Contrast that with a true independent buyer’s agent. They are paid by the buyer and accountable only to the buyer. Their recommendations are not limited by developer kickbacks or stock lists. Their reputation depends entirely on delivering results.

Australians are already contending with high interest rates, soaring rents, and a stubbornly expensive property market. The last thing they need is to be sold compromised advice under the guise of independence.

The lesson is simple. If you are receiving advice, make sure it is genuine. True representation means hiring someone whose only loyalty is to your financial outcome. Anything else is just marketing spin, and the cost could be your future.

Liam Garman is the editor of Real Estate Business and Smart Property Investment. To connect, you can email him on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or reach out on socials: LinkedIn or Instagram.

You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!
Do you have an industry update?