With that said, the quick answer to the question, "Should I be using a buyer's agent?", is yes – if you like saving money. And the best thing about it is contracting with a buyer's agent doesn't cost you a thing*. But don't take our word for it. Here are what some other people have to say on the subject:
Look for an exclusive buyer agent, if possible, who will have your interests at heart and can help you with strategies during the bidding process.
Always remember that a real estate broker does not work for you, but for the seller. If you want an agent on your side, contract with a buyer’s agent.
Buyer's Agents work only for consumers and can save them money - and they don't cost more to hire.
Many people don't realize that, unless specifically stated otherwise, brokers are legal representatives of sellers. A buyer's broker, representing only the buyer, may be able to secure a better price and better terms.
So far, I would say the quotes above are pretty convincing. But the following study reported by Carla A. Fried of Money Magazine says it all.
If you ever doubted the value of real estate agents who work solely for home buyers (as opposed to traditional agents who report to sellers), consider this: A recent study by U.S. Sprint found that 232 relocating Sprint employees who hired buyer's brokers paid an average of 91% of a home's list price. People who use traditional agents typically pay about 96%.
That's a difference of 5%. On the purchase of a $500,000 home, contracting with a buyer's broker could save you about $25,000. Hmmm...is there any one out there that could stand to keep an extra $25,000 in their pocket? My hand is raised.
*Rare exceptions may occur when there is a For Sale By Owner (FSBO) or a Discount Broker offering in which case compensation for the Buyer’s Agent is usually negotiated in the purchase contract and may be paid by the buyer, the seller or both parties.