In a Residential real estate sale transaction usually participate three "players" - a Seller, a Buyer and a Mediator.
Let us examine what are the consumers desires from a brokerage real-estate:
Seller – wants the broker to find buyers who can afford to pay for the property above the market price (usually much above the market price).
Buyer – wants the broker to find assets that cost less than the market price (usually much less than the market price).
So the broker, which represents these two sides in the deal, which one of them is he supposed to please?
If he does not find a buyer who can/wants to pay over the market price, he will harm the seller's interests..
And if he doesn't find for the buyer an asset for a price which is less than the market price,, he will harm the buyer's interests.
Therefore, no matter what the middleman will do, at least one of the parties he represents will not be satisfied/will be disappointed from the broker's service , and in most cases, both clients will not be satisfied.
So we are left with the middleman – is he at least the one which enjoy the declaration "the apartment was sold"?
So it's not, even the realtor didn't win, because either the seller, or the buyer, or both of them would be angry at him (even though the deal was signed), because the broker promised them false promises, as the broker acted as the representative of both desires instead the one of the seller or the one of the buyer.
Later on: If that's the case, is it possible to act differently?