One of my buyer clients recently asked an excellent question -- whether I am really trying to get the purchase price as low as possible when I am representing a buyer in a transaction.  It's a fair question -- my compensation out of said transaction, after all, is based on the purchase price.  My client's concern was whether I would really be working hard alongside them in trying to get the price down as low as possible.  I reassured that this was the case, for two reasons:

1. I represent my clients fervently, regardless of how much compensation might be in it for me.  My clients have hired me to represent them, and do it well, and so I shall.
2. The amount of my gain for getting a buyer to buy at a higher price point isn't worth it AT ALL!

Imagine that my clients are buying a house in the low $200K's.  Perhaps the buyer only wants to go to $220K --- but I am hoping that my buyer client will go to $230K so that I will make more money on the transaction.  WAIT A MINUTE -- let's see if that makes ANY sense at all, by examining my extra compensation in manipulating my buyer client into paying $10,000 more for the house......

$10,000 increase in sales price leads to....
   $500 increase in gross commissions (based on 5%)....
      $250 increase in commission on the buyer side of the transaction....
         $125 increase in commission after broker/agent split.

As you can see here, by trying to coerce my clients into paying $10,000 more for the house they are buying, I only stand to gain $125 (approximately).  As is probably clear, I'd much rather have $125 less in my pocket and have clients who are happy about the deal we were able to find for them!