Many responses come from the perspective of a one-off experience with real estate agents. And if you’re only transacting once, sure—it makes sense that you might want to save on agent fees. But remember: a real estate agent exists to protect the interests of both the buyer and seller, serving as a neutral buffer if either party decides to pull out midway through the deal.

Most people only consider the best-case scenario—how much they can save. Rarely do they plan for the worst-case: what happens when things go wrong? Who steps in to safeguard your interests then? Before deciding to proceed without an agent, go look up a few real-life property deals gone bad and ask yourself—can you handle that kind of stress if things fall apart?

Secondly, a good agent isn’t just a transactional middleman—they’re a long-term strategic leverage. It’s surprising how many people overlook this. How do you leverage them? Simple: build a win-win relationship. Let the agent earn what they deserve, and in the future, when they come across a great opportunity or kan tao, who do you think they’ll call first? The cheapskate who counted every cent—or the owner who treated them with fairness?

You already know the answer.

Anchor tenants—like banks, popular F&B chains, or currency exchange networks—are often scooped up fast. But when agents can’t place all of them, who do they call next? The owner who was easy to work with. The one they trust. And the value doesn’t stop at one deal—it continues through insider access, good tenants, and deals that don’t hit the open market.

Of course, this is just my view. If you believe handling everything without an agent benefits you more, by all means—go ahead. Just remember: there are always two sides to every decision. Make sure you're prepared to live with the risks that come with going without professional representation.