To put it simply, commission sharing is only allowed for real estate transactions where only one party receives a commission. For example, when selling a property where only the seller`s agent receives a commission from his client, the buyer`s agent may receive a co-commission from the seller`s agent, since the buyer has not paid a commission. If the buyer`s agent already receives a commission from his client, he cannot charge a co-brokerage fee from the seller`s agent. However, in accordance with clause 1.8.3 of the Professional Service Manual, an agent may not collect a commission from his client and another co-broke commission from the agent representing the other party in the same transaction. Then, successful brokers share the commission. These groups have less incentive to participate in co-brokerage: independent brokers, types of commissions at 100% of the trades (broker keeps 100 percent of the commission, but pay some kind of rent and perhaps other expenses to his office) and non-REBNY members. Since they don`t need to “part with the house,” they can reduce their commissions to get an exclusive offer, but then they have little to offer outside brokers. Hiring one of them is for me an expensive way for a seller to save money: since most people don`t work in real estate, they may not receive the exposure they would otherwise get through robust co-brokerage and heavily funded marketing capability (which the individual or small operator might not have access to). However, if, as an owner, you have a really solid reason to think that you are not benefiting from the marketing punch provided by co-brokerage, then go for a broker who will give you the lowest possible price. I can`t find too many examples where it would make sense.