Q: I am going to buy my second house and I was advised by a broker that I should get a real estate agent.

The first house I bought was new construction and I did not have an agent or any problems with the purchase.

This second house will also be new construction and I still don’t see any need to get an agent. Why would the broker advise me to get an agent?

A: Because you’re much better off having someone advise you who knows the marketplace, knows what kind of deals developers are offering, and can assist you in the negotiation of the deal, through the closing.

There are no disadvantages to hiring an agent as a buyer, only advantages.

But home buyers sometimes mistakenly think that they will get a better deal when they buy from a seller or developer if they go it alone. That isn’t necessarily the case. You will generally get the same deal — if not a worse deal.

Why? The developer has already factored in the commission in his or her pricing and assumes you’re going to come to the table with a broker. If you don’t, that’s extra cash in his pocket, not yours.

The same thing is true with the seller of an existing home. If the home is listed with an agent, the seller and agent have already agreed on a total commission paid, whether or not you come to the table alone or with a buyer’s agent.

The seller isn’t going to cut you a deal because he or she is legally bound to pay the selling agent 5 or 6 percent in the listing agreement. That commission is typically split between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent at the closing table.

If you don’t have a buyer’s agent, the seller’s agent keeps the whole thing.

But it’s up to you to decide what to do. If you’re comfortable doing this on your own without an agent, then go ahead. No one can force you to hire an agent or attorney if you don’t want one.

Sept. 26, 2005.