Traditional real estate commissions, based on a percentage ofrental income or sale value of a transaction, work very well whenbrokers represent landlords, sublandlords, and sellers. In those instances, their objectives and those of theirbrokers, are completely aligned. The higher the price, thehigher the commission. See...that works perfectly!

But, what about the tenant representative broker and thecorporate advisor, whose job is to protect the interests of thetenant or buyer? In this case, the primary objective of thetenant representative broker is very often to reduce occupancycosts. In most cases, tenant representative brokers are paidcommissions based on the same percentage of rent standard as brokers representing landlords and sellers...the higher the price,the higher the commission!

Does that work? Is that right? Don't traditionalcommissions based on percentages put the tenantrepresentative broker in a position of being in conflict withhis / her own client? Moreover, since most commissionsare paid by the landlord, even those payable to the tenantrepresentative broker, doesn't that pose additional conflicts forthe tenant and tenant representative broker relationship? Afterall, doesn't being the one who pays the tenant representativebroker give the landlord undue influence over the how thetenant representative broker might perform on behalf of his /her client?