5 ms·

As much as anti-broker vitriol is popular here on HN, whether you agree with it or not, brokers do provide a service. Whether or not that service is valuable to

by cletus 11y ago

As much as anti-broker vitriol is popular here on HN, whether you agree with it or not, brokers do provide a service. Whether or not that service is valuable to you is entirely another question. When I moved to NYC I ended up using a broker. We saw like 12 apartments in 2 afternoons. I liked one and had it by the end of the week. As it happened, before it was generally advertised and while it was still being renovated. This was a HUGE time saving. And this right here is the key thing. How much is your time worth? I've lived in other cities where apartment hunting is typically direct (either to the owner or, more commonly, to the owner's management company). In certain areas and at certain times an apartment showing might have 50 people show up, 20 of whom put in an application. This is an incredible waste of everybody's time. Companies need to vet more applications (or just arbitrarily pick some to scrutinize, discarding the rest). Apartment hunters need to go to more viewings and fill out more applications. A good broker should be able to find you an apartment relatively quickly and, as it happens in NYC at least, for a good price. If not, they're not doing their job. There are also buildings in NYC that are all rental and fit the model of complexes in other cities where there is a management company that manages all of them. You can simply inquire as to availability (or even find it on a website). The problem in NYC at least is that there's a lot of pokey apartments that don't fit this model (mine was in a walkup of ~15 apartments over 5 floors). I got a good deal on my apartment and amortized over the time I was there, had I paid for the broker (I didn't), it would've been a good deal. Many services exist that allow you to trade your money for your time. Brokers are one of them.

collyw 11y ago
"provide a service", or "hoard what you are looking for"? Having done both, I saw very little value added when I went through a broker. Anecdotally, when I moved to Cambridge many years ago, I managed to see a good number of rooms in one day, so I don't really see any time saving, except for the broker organizing it for you a bit.
pdq 11y ago
The problem I have with brokers and realtors is that they should charge either a flat hourly rate or a transaction rate. Lawyers, consultants, and software developers virtually all work on that model. But brokers and realtors have conditioned the public into believing that a 3% or 10% commission on the transaction is "reasonable". Which is certainly not when you are buying a million dollar property or renting for $5k/month. Also, when realtors are making more in commissions than doctors are in salary, you can be sure the market is distorted, and ripe for innovation.
copsarebastards 11y ago
When I moved to NYC I ended up using a broker. We saw like 10 apartments in an afternoon. I ended up liking one and had it by the end of the week. As it happened, before it was generally advertised and while it was still being renovated. It turned out, the broker was working for the apartment owner, not for me. Once I had signed paperwork, I discovered that the renovations were done: the apartment was going to be as I had seen it, not as it was promised to me by the broker. No stainless steel appliances, no reflooring in the kitchen. I had read the lease carefully and thought of this possibility, but I thought, like you, that the broker was working for me. As is, the incentives don't encourage brokers to work for renters: their only incentive is to place as many people in as little time as possible. Next time I shop for an apartment I'll do so with a real estate lawyer on call. If you have to have a lawyer to make sure someone provides service properly, maybe they aren't really providing you a service.

by cletus 11y ago

collyw 11y ago

"provide a service", or "hoard what you are looking for"? Having done both, I saw very little value added when I went through a broker. Anecdotally, when I moved to Cambridge many years ago, I managed to see a good number of rooms in one day, so I don't really see any time saving, except for the broker organizing it for you a bit.

pdq 11y ago

The problem I have with brokers and realtors is that they should charge either a flat hourly rate or a transaction rate. Lawyers, consultants, and software developers virtually all work on that model. But brokers and realtors have conditioned the public into believing that a 3% or 10% commission on the transaction is "reasonable". Which is certainly not when you are buying a million dollar property or renting for $5k/month. Also, when realtors are making more in commissions than doctors are in salary, you can be sure the market is distorted, and ripe for innovation.

copsarebastards 11y ago

When I moved to NYC I ended up using a broker. We saw like 10 apartments in an afternoon. I ended up liking one and had it by the end of the week. As it happened, before it was generally advertised and while it was still being renovated. It turned out, the broker was working for the apartment owner, not for me. Once I had signed paperwork, I discovered that the renovations were done: the apartment was going to be as I had seen it, not as it was promised to me by the broker. No stainless steel appliances, no reflooring in the kitchen. I had read the lease carefully and thought of this possibility, but I thought, like you, that the broker was working for me. As is, the incentives don't encourage brokers to work for renters: their only incentive is to place as many people in as little time as possible. Next time I shop for an apartment I'll do so with a real estate lawyer on call. If you have to have a lawyer to make sure someone provides service properly, maybe they aren't really providing you a service.