Most people realize they’ll have to pay a hefty commission to sell their homes. But that’s only the half of it, according to new research.

Actually, it’s less than the half of it.

The average cost of selling a house rose to $54,616 this year, according to a Clever Real Estate survey of 1,014 people who sold their homes over the previous two years. But sales commissions paid to the sellers’ and buyers’ agents added up to $21,603 -- less than half of the seller’s total cost. The rest of the roughly $33,000 was eaten up by closing costs, repairs/improvements, concessions to the buyer, marketing, moving fees and staging costs.

The amount of the total payout, which came from the proceeds of the sale, surprised two-thirds of the respondents. And nearly 9 out of 10 said they had regrets. Had they realized the actual cost of selling their properties was going to be so high, they would have made different decisions, they told researchers.

Some of the respondents did not hire an agent to sell their houses, nailing a huge savings when it came to commissions. But those who signed on with an agent sold for roughly $34,000 more, canceling out any actual savings.

Here’s a breakdown of what sellers are paying these days:

-- The largest chunk, of course, is the commission that agents charge their clients. The rate, which is always negotiable, is typically in the 5% to 6% range, with the fee split between the listing agent and the buyer's agent.

According to the Clever study, the listing agent’s share of the median-priced house is $11,136, while the buy-side agent grosses $10,467. (The discrepancy is due to the fact that splits are not always even.)

-- Sellers spent $10,000 on improvements before and after listing their homes because today’s buyers want houses that are move-in ready. Houses are expensive enough already, so buyers don’t want to be saddled with costly renovations.

To attract buyers and hasten the sale of their properties, 3 out of 4 sellers invested in repairs and updates, knowing that a major portion of their outlay (or perhaps even all of it) would be recovered when their revamped place sold at a higher price.

Sellers were most likely to repair or improve their homes' plumbing, kitchens, electrical systems, paint and roofs.

-- Closing costs are another big number. While buyers are typically burdened with the lion’s share of the closing costs, sellers also pay a fair share -- $8,000, according to the survey. Sellers sometimes pay for title insurance, plus credit checks, document preparation and other miscellaneous items.

-- In some places, the market has turned so that sellers have to make concessions or offer incentives to land a buyer. Nearly 90% of respondents said they gave away something. Generally, that meant reducing their asking price, offering a home warranty or setting a flexible closing date. In other cases, sellers helped buyers with moving expenses, paid a part of their closing costs and allowed them to move in early.

Some concessions only require a sacrifice of ease and time. However, others are of a monetary sort: According to the survey, sellers paid a median of $7,200 in concessions to their buyers.

For what it's worth, a fourth of the respondents believe they gave away too much, and a fourth said they wouldn’t be so generous if they had to do it all over again.

-- Sellers paid more than $4,500 in marketing costs, and over $3,000 in moving costs.

To gain a quick sale at a top price, most sellers splurge for professional photography to make their places shine. Ditto for hiring professional stagers to make their place stand out. Sellers forked over $2,300 to market their houses and $2,263 more to stage them -- a total of $4,563. And when the sale closed, sellers' moving costs rang in at $3,250.

Despite all this, nearly two-thirds of the sellers queried said they made a profit when all was said and done. The median profit among respondents was $100,000 -- even though over half of them sold their homes for less than their original asking prices.

Indeed, as an indication of how much the market has turned, nearly twice as many sellers sold below their original asking prices in 2024 than in 2022, when buyers had far less power to negotiate.

Meanwhile, 1 in 4 sellers said they were sorry they did not hold out for more money, and 3 out of 10 complained they sold too quickly. Those disappointments led to other regrets, including wishing they had made more repairs and fewer concessions -- things that could have led to higher profits in the end.

The term caveat emptor, or "buyer beware," has perhaps never been more important in the housing market than it is now. That's because more and more buyers are being asked to sign contracts linking them to the real estate agents helping them find a house.

Most of these contracts are so one-sided and onerous, says the Consumer Federation of America, that buyers might be better off hiring a real estate attorney and working directly with the listing agent.

Earlier this year, the CFA examined 43 so-called buyer-broker contracts from 37 states, most of which were written by state Realtor associations, and found them wholly lacking in consumer protections. In fact, most were written to protect the agent, not the client.

One of the worst contracts was the draft from the California Association of Realtors, one of the largest and most influential groups in the country.

Law professor Tanya Monestier of the University of Buffalo Faculty of Law evaluated the document at the CFA's request, and found that the CAR draft contract was “virtually unreadable. No layperson will be able to understand and appreciate the terms they are agreeing to.” She concluded that the contract “disguises the obligation of the buyer to pay his agent” and that it "telegraphs how Realtors plan to circumvent the NAR settlement" -- referring to the class action lawsuit resolution signed by the National Association of Realtors in March.

Under that settlement, starting Aug. 17, multiple listing services will require buy-side agents to obtain clients' signatures on representation contracts. Until now, such contracts were rarely required.

Among other issues, Monestier said the CAR contract contained "problematic provisions related to dispute resolution, dual agency, commissions owed and buyer cancellation." Her recommendation: CAR should dump the whole contract and start over.

For its part, CAR says Monestier’s evaluation “was based on an outdated version” of its draft contract, and that the latest incarnation addresses many of the concerns the professor raised.

Not every buyer-broker contract is worth trashing, though. The CFA holds out one from eXp Realty as exemplary, saying it could serve as a model for other groups’ contracts.

“The contrast between the CAR and eXp contracts could not be sharper,” says Stephen Brobeck, a CFA senior fellow. “The eXp contract is written with the buyer in mind. The CAR contract is written with the interests of the Realtor in mind.”

Unfortunately, most of the other contracts the CFA reviewed left something to be desired.

“Buyer agency contracts have the potential to protect homebuyers, but the way most are written, (they) protect only agents and their brokers,” says Brobeck. If unfair provisions are not removed, he says, buyers should jettison their agents and consider hiring an attorney and working directly with the listing agent.

The unjust practices discovered by the CFA include:

-- Charging unreasonable fees, which are often not counted as commissions.

-- Limiting remedies for buyers who are dissatisfied, "including prohibiting litigation and limiting awards to the amount of the agent’s compensation."

-- Protecting agents and their brokers from uncoupled commissions, which was the basis for most of the class action lawsuits in the first place.

Brobeck described that last proviso as “the most troubling."

The term "coupled commissions" refers to the common practice of buyer-agents collecting commissions from both their clients and from sellers. The real estate industry fears that if commissions are uncoupled, consumers will be able to negotiate lower rates.

Contract provisions that protect agents from "uncoupling" essentially allow them to sidestep the new regulations and seek additional compensation from listing agents. In short, says Brobeck, "Agents and their brokers will be able to continue colluding to maintain existing commission rate levels."

If your agent asks you to sign a buyer-broker agreement, request a copy right away so you have time to read it over carefully, evaluate the provisions and negotiate the terms.

For starters, ask for a 60-day contract, not one that obligates you to work with the agent for 90 days or longer. You’ll also want to strip the agreement of any penalty clauses for early termination. “Most contracts allow agents to unilaterally withdraw from the agreement, and buyers should have the same opportunity,” says a CFA report.

Next, bargain hard on what you’ll pay your agent. Agents should be willing to take a lower cut if you are prequalified for financing, are paying cash, found the property on your own, or if the place is unduly expensive. Also, find out if your agent will be seeking additional compensation from the seller, which may tempt them to steer you to certain listings.

Consider paying your agent a retainer, which protects them in case you decide not to buy after they do a lot of work on your behalf. But if a sale does eventually go through, the agent's retainer should be credited as part of their commission.

Don’t allow the agent to abandon their fiduciary responsibilities to you by, for instance, promoting properties that their firm has listed in order to retain the entire commission. Only agree to such a scenario if you have evaluated numerous houses and truly want the one listed by your agent.

Builders are constructing their smallest houses in years, but they still may not be small enough for a significant portion of the population.

More than a third (38%) of the builders responding to a recent National Association of Home Builders poll said they built smaller houses last year, and 26% said they’re going smaller this year.

The average size of new homes built in 2023 fell to 2,411 square feet -- the smallest since 2010. And the NAHB expects the trend to continue as long as affordability remains a problem.

But another survey, this one from real estate investment company IPX 1031, indicates builders need to cut a lot more space from their models. Nearly three-quarters of the over 1,000 respondents said they would consider living in a tiny home, which is generally defined as one of 500 square feet or less.

Affordability was the main reason, of course, followed by the desire for a minimalist lifestyle and the lack of a need for a larger home.

Senior readers will no doubt remember when people bought houses right out of a Sears catalog. The old department store chain sold more than 70,000 mail order houses, many of which are still standing.

Now you can buy a tiny house off Home Depot’s website. The bestseller is a 444-square-foot, two-bedroom, one-bath cottage priced just over $26,000. A smaller studio unit with one bath goes for about $19,000.

Delivered right to your driveway, the packages include a steel frame, which you have to assemble. You must provide a concrete slab, utility connections and all finish materials, including siding, roofing materials, exterior doors and windows. Local building code approvals are necessary, too.

Who doesn’t want to live close to a park -- especially in a city, where green space is at a premium?

You’d think that residences in close proximity to a park would sell at higher prices because of the recreational and aesthetic benefits, but that's not always the case. In fact, new research published in the Journal of Housing Economics found just the opposite, at least in China, where the study focused.

The study found that, despite the positive aspects of urban parks, nearby homes sold for 2% less than in other places. Proposed explanations included crime, congestion, air pollution and traffic noise.

Whether or not the same is true in U.S. cities, the study is certainly food for thought.

Catching up on a couple of issues discussed in previous columns: Idaho is the latest state to ban so-called home equity theft, and Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana and Minnesota are the latest to pass bills protecting homeowners against unfair fee agreements being filed as liens.

Idaho joins Nebraska, Maine and South Dakota in banning home equity theft -- the term for local authorities keeping the excess proceeds from foreclosure sales -- after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled last year that the practice is unconstitutional. (Several other states already had such laws on the books prior to the SCOTUS ruling.)

Taxing authorities can still foreclose on homeowners who fail to pay their property taxes. But if the foreclosed home sells for more than the owner owes, the difference belongs to the owner, not the taxman, the Supreme Court said. “The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Meanwhile, 30 states now outlaw the practice of filing exploitative real estate fee agreements in property records. Known as Non-Title Recorded Agreements for Personal Services (NTRAPS), the documents are used to prey on homeowners, who are offered small cash gifts in exchange for decades-long contracts for the exclusive right to sell the property.

The state laws against NTRAPS are all different, but generally they make NTRAPS unenforceable; restrict, prohibit and/or penalize their recording; and provide for their removal from the property records and the recovery of damages.

Ten states (so far) have also sued MV Realty, the Florida firm that persuaded hundreds of homeowners to sign 40-year listing contracts in exchange for cash payments of up to $5,000. The company then recorded the contracts as liens so that if a property was sold using another brokerage, MV still had to be paid a commission.

MV has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 34 states, which the U.S. bankruptcy trustee office has argued is a tactic to stall state prosecutors who have filed lawsuits against the company.