5 ms·
Yes, but the landlord can find cheaper brokers, or do it themselves to save money. There's now an efficient market. When the burden is paid by the renter, ther
by ipqk 5y ago
Yes, but the landlord can find cheaper brokers, or do it themselves to save money. There's now an efficient market.
When the burden is paid by the renter, there's no efficient market because renter has no choice in the broker and the owner doesn't care.
- koolba 5y agoEither way the renter is paying the cost and the landlord is losing a chunk of the spread. It’s no different than the ridiculous notion that “the seller pays broker’s commission”. It’s baked into the price and the buyer is still paying it, otherwise a home would cost X% less.
- kangaroozach 5y agoEXACTLY! How is this lost on so many people? The buyer is the only source of funds, so any cash paid to the broker effectively came from the buyer. The National Association of Realtors is a huge political lobby that works to perpetuate the racket. Compass started as Urban Compass and wanted to distrupt the racket! But eventually decide to join in on it and become a VC backed brokerage with better “technology”. No one has yet been able to educate consumers on the insane mismatch between value and price among RE brokers.
- shadowhost 5y agois the cost passed on to the renter? yes. is it still better to do that? yes. Because i can now compare the cost of rental, fees included on a comparison site, instead of looking at the place i want and finding it out it has a hidden charge. this is why they changed the law in the uk so the landlord has to pick, becasue it means they will be incentivised to put it into the rent, and this way its STILL better for the renter because now they are able to compare the full costs.