Real estate professionals continue deploying "I have a buyer for your home" marketing despite evidence the tactic frequently results in sellers leaving substantial value on the table. The approach offers immediate execution and reduced commission, creating the perception of a favorable outcome while potentially costing hundreds of thousands in foregone bidding competition.
Scott Spelker, who heads up The Spelker Team in Madison, New Jersey, walks sellers through a specific scenario that illustrates how the math works against their interests. An agent contacts a homeowner about a property Zillow estimates at $989,000. The agent suggests listing at that price and mentions they have a buyer ready to purchase. "I bring that buyer in to see your house, and I tell the buyer, 'Listen, it's not even going to hit the market, but you really should offer over asking. So instead of 9.89, come in at a million 30,'" Spelker explained.
The agent then tells the seller their buyer loves the house and will commit at $1.03 million, and to sweeten the arrangement, they'll cut the commission by one percentage point. On a $1.03 million sale, that one-point reduction saves the seller approximately $10,300. "They'll be telling people at cocktail parties, 'Oh, this agent was so good. They got me 50 grand over asking. They saved me on the commission,'" Spelker said.
The issue emerges when comparing the limited-exposure scenario against full market exposure. If the property generates four offers in a highest-and-best situation, the top bid might reach $1.2 million. The difference between the private transaction at $1.03 million and competitive bidding at $1.2 million: $170,000. "You would have left like $170,000 on the table," Spelker said. "There's nothing illegal about it, and they're bringing you a buyer for your home. They're bringing you a number that's more than you thought you were going to get based on whatever the Zillow estimate was. They cut the commission."
The seller perceives winning on multiple dimensions: above-estimate price, reduced commission, and quick execution without the disruption of showings and market exposure. The reality: they captured a fraction of the potential value that competitive bidding might have generated.
Several factors make limited-exposure tactics effective despite the financial disadvantage. First, the certainty of immediate execution appeals to sellers, particularly those facing time pressure from relocation, financial stress, or estate settlement requirements. A definite buyer today feels more valuable than the possibility of higher offers through a longer process. Second, the "over-asking" framing creates anchoring effects. When a seller hears they're receiving $41,000 above the Zillow estimate, that feels like a victory. The comparison point becomes the estimate rather than what the property might command with proper exposure.
Third, avoiding the showing process appeals to homeowners who want minimal disruption. Opening the home to multiple showings, maintaining a showing-ready condition, and handling feedback from various potential buyers requires effort that some sellers want to avoid. Fourth, the commission reduction provides a tangible, easily calculated benefit that sellers can point to as evidence that they negotiated effectively. Saving $10,000 in commission feels concrete, while the hypothetical higher price through competitive bidding remains speculative.
The private transaction scenario creates alignment problems between the agent's and the seller's interests. The agent with both sides of the transaction earns double commission (minus the one-point reduction offered to the seller). On a $1.03 million sale with a 5% total commission reduced by one point to 4%, the agent earns approximately $41,200. If the property went to market and sold for $1.2 million with a standard commission split, the listing agent's share would be approximately $30,000 (assuming a 2.5% split on a 5% total). The agent earns an additional $11,200 by controlling both sides of a lower-priced transaction, compared to just representing the seller in a higher-priced, competitive scenario.
Meanwhile, the seller receives $170,000 less in sale proceeds while the agent makes $11,200 more. The math works for the agent but against the seller's interests. Spelker's approach involves explaining to sellers that proper representation means maximizing market exposure regardless of whether the agent has a potential buyer. "You're trusting that we're not going to play games. We're going to try to get you the most money for your house. Period. End of story."
If an agent has a buyer interested in a property, the standard should be to list the property publicly while making the buyer aware of the listing. The buyer can submit an offer alongside any other interested parties, and the seller benefits from competitive dynamics rather than artificial scarcity. The question for sellers receiving "I have a buyer" solicitations: whether accepting immediate certainty and small commission concessions justifies potentially leaving six figures on the table through limited competition.
