Comparing agent fees and service scope for a small multifamily in Seoul

Z

zia_titles

Buyer
Established
One proposal is cheap but leaves several jobs with me; another costs more and promises to manage photography, buyer screening, negotiations and the closing. Neither feels easy to judge for a small Seoul multifamily expected to sell near ₩441,600,000.

What should I ask for in writing so the comparison is meaningful? I am thinking about recent similar sales, enquiry response times, how offers are documented, support if a buyer drops out, and who will run the listing after the initial pitch. I also want each agent to explain exactly when the fee is earned and disclose any relationship that could affect whose interests they represent.
 
Ask each agent to price the same written scope rather than comparing headline fees. Have them state what triggers the fee, what photography includes, where their work ends, and whether negotiation or closing coordination can create extra charges. Also request a step-by-step description of how enquiries and offers are recorded and reported to you. Specific answers matter more than a broad promise of “full service.”
 
Who is named as your day-to-day contact in each proposal? A strong presentation can become irrelevant if the person pitching hands the listing to someone else. I would ask who answers buyers, the expected response time, who qualifies them, and who has authority to discuss price or terms.
 
One caveat: recent comparable sales are useful, but a simple count could be misleading for a small multifamily if the properties were not genuinely similar. Ask each agent to explain why the examples are comparable and what they learned from any listings that failed to complete. Their reasoning may tell you more than the number.
 
I’d make a one-page comparison with rows for fee basis, photography deliverables, enquiry response target, buyer qualification, offer handling, negotiation, fall-through support, closing coordination, named contact and conflict disclosure. Leave a final row for exclusions and possible additional charges.

Then send the same sheet to all of them for confirmation. If an agent cannot describe what happens after an offer falls apart—or who contacts the next interested buyer—that is a meaningful service gap, even if the fee is lower.
 
I would not automatically pay the highest fee just because it bundles more tasks. Photography and coordination only add value if the scope is concrete. How many usable images are included, who approves them, and what does “closing coordination” actually require from the agent? Also ask how they disclose situations where they may be dealing with both sides. The exact obligations can depend on the arrangement and local rules, so get the answer in writing before choosing.
 
The comparison sheet has exposed the main difference. Two proposals use similar language, but neither clearly identifies who handles buyer questions after launch. The higher proposal names the contact and includes negotiation and fall-through support, while the cheapest remains vague about what happens once an offer is received.

I’m going back to all of them with the same questions about the fee trigger, additional charges, response expectations, offer reporting and conflict disclosure. I’ll also ask them to justify their comparable sales rather than just list them.
 
That sounds like the right next step. Before deciding, give each agent one realistic scenario: a buyer submits a conditional offer, becomes slow to respond, and then withdraws. Ask who acts, what gets reported to you, and whether that work is included. Scenario answers are harder to keep vague and should make the practical difference between the proposals much clearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top