A broker commission structure has to do two jobs at once: motivate the behaviour you actually want, and be computable without an argument at month end. Most disputes come from structures that do the first well and the second badly — a slab that nobody can apply consistently, or a rate agreed verbally that resurfaces after a booking.
The four structures, compared
| Structure | How it works | Best for | The risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flat percentage | One rate on every unit | Simple projects, small partner base | No incentive to shift slow inventory |
| Slab | Rate rises with cumulative volume | Channel partners doing repeat business | Slab boundaries create month-end gaming |
| Unit-based | Different rate by floor, size or ageing | Projects with hard-to-sell stock | Complexity; needs a published rate card |
| Milestone-linked | Paid in parts as buyer payments land | Long payment plans, high cancellation risk | Slower payout; brokers push back |
Most Bangladeshi developers end up combining two: a base percentage that varies by unit category, paid out in tranches tied to collection.
The rules that have to be written down
A commission structure is only half the agreement. These five clauses are where the money actually gets decided:
- Attribution. Who is credited when two brokers touch the same buyer, and how long a registration lasts. See broker portal lead attribution.
- Trigger. What event makes commission payable — booking, agreement signing, or a collection threshold.
- Clawback. What happens on cancellation, and whether it is recovered from future commission or invoiced back.
- Deductions. Source tax, and any advance already paid against the commission.
- Ceiling on discount. A broker who negotiates the price down is negotiating your margin down twice, unless commission is calculated on the discounted value.
A worked slab
For a channel partner on a 1,000-unit portfolio across two projects:
| Cumulative bookings in the quarter | Rate | Payment trigger |
|---|---|---|
| 1–5 units | 1.75% | 50% on down payment, 50% at 25% collection |
| 6–12 units | 2.25% | Same |
| 13+ units | 2.75%, applied retrospectively to all units in the quarter | Same |
The retrospective clause is what makes a slab motivating rather than annoying, and it is also what makes it hard to compute by hand — every additional booking in the quarter changes the amount owed on earlier ones. This is a good example of a rule that is trivial for a system and painful for a spreadsheet.
Commission and the discount problem
If a broker can influence the price, the commission base must be the net price after discount, and the discount must go through the same approval ladder as an internal sale. Otherwise the arithmetic quietly inverts: the broker earns more by giving away more of your margin. Price lists and discount control covers the approval structure that prevents it.
Paying on time is a commercial advantage
Brokers route buyers to developers who pay predictably. In a market where several projects offer similar rates, a partner who knows they will be paid within ten days of the trigger will bring you the buyer first. That means the commission ledger — accrued, due, paid, clawed back, per partner — has to be something you can produce on demand, not assemble at month end.
What to do next
Take your last quarter's commission payments and check three things for each: which agreement clause set the rate, which event triggered payment, and whether any related booking has since been cancelled. If the third answer is unknown, you are carrying commission on units you no longer own — see how attribution, slabs and clawbacks compute together.