But you are assuming the broker IS NOT being paid a fee or commission for finding the desired boat. If the broker is getting paid his "fair wage" for the transaction by the buyer, why would he not present an offer by the buyer? And why would he expect the seller to also pay a fee? That makes no fiscal sense.
As for looking out for one's own interests - yes, I ultimatley look out for my own. However, I would not want the additional burden that the broker is working AGAINST me.
Yeah, a buyer's broker is not the norm. It is a relatively recent concept in real estate in many states but they can/do exist in other types of transactions. In real estate the buyer's broker is going to get their commission from the sale of a listed property. That's the easiest way because the dollars are a function of volume, not maximum take on the commission. But, the buyer's broker is going to try to get the buyer the lowest price at the best terms for the buyer while the seller's broker is going to try to get the highest price and the best terms for the seller. It should be painfully obvious that the broker can not work for (and, thus, get paid by) two masters. Anyone who would accept that situation can't be too bright. So, one MUST assume that a broker who has a client interested in your property is, in no uncertain terms, NOT working for you AND getting paid by the buyer as their agent. To then pay that person as the seller makes no logical sense. I would be better served contracting with another broker at another company.
As for example #4 - conceptually it is the same as the original situation. As the seller, I shouldn't care if the person in front of me is the buyer or the buyer's broker. The broker just happens to be facilitating the BUYER'S desire to buy something. The broker is doing the work that the buyer would have done if the buyer had the time/inclination/desire. The only "work" the broker has done for the seller is transmit the message that there is a buyer for his boat - that's, what, five seconds of speech? To the seller, the broker and the buyer are (and could actually be) one in the same. So, I'm going to pay the broker a good chunk of change for all the work he did FOR THE BUYER? I should pay him for work I didn't ask him to do? Again, if I wanted to pay a broker to sell my boat, I would have contracted to do that in the first place and not place a "for sale by owner" sign on my boat. Wasn't that the premise behind the "for sale by owner," not to have to pay a commission? If not, what's the point in selling it yourself?
