"building owners can pay brokers less if brokers pass on overhead costs to renters" could just as easily be "owners could charge $10,000/year more in rent if brokers didn't capture it".
The price charged by brokers to landlords is less than the perceived value of the labor required for the landlord to list the property, receive calls from interested renters, and show the property.
This isn't surprising because brokers charge next to nothing to the landlords because they make their money on the fees from renters.
Renters are forced to abide this situation because of the aforementioned mismatch in supply and demand.
Why does this market crop up in some cities but not others? It's hard to say, some claim it's rent control but buildings without rent control still have exorbitant broker's fees in NYC. However, this is hardly the only market niche that is cultural rather than dictated purely by market forces. Americans don't buy bidets, the Japanese still frequently prefer cash transactions to electronic payment, and San Franciscans don't charge brokers fees.
There's no way this costs $10,000 ... the equivalent of 160 hours (a full month) of highly-paid labor. In a housing-constrained city where the landlords product sells itself.
No, it's about making changes without knowing enough about what you're changing, and why it is the way it is. If we actually understand the reason for high broker's fees, there is no Chesterton's Fence. It seems like we do know the reason they're so high, and could move to address them with some confidence.
It can't go to the customers for the obvious reason that the whole point of the system is to allocate a smaller number of apartments to a larger number of customers.
Rent stabilized units are a small percentage of the NYC rental market (and change tenants much less frequently than the rest of the market)
Brokers seem to be able to capture the value just because they’re entrenched. Demand has outpaced supply, and landlords are happy to outsource the majority of the tenant search process.
Large apartment buildings with leasing offices capture the value you’re saying can’t be captured. There are tons of comparable “no fee” apartment buildings with a rent that’s 15% higher.
So — do you pay a 15% fee once, up front, and hope you don’t need to move? Or do you pay it on your rent?
Edit: ok the percentage of rent stabilized units in NYC is actually a good bit higher than I thought. But my second assertion still stands — they practically never change over. So it feels like they’re an impossibly small part of the market. You won’t find rent stabilized deals advertised.
This is the part I simply cant fathom.
I am a landlord. Why would I ever be willing to fork over 10K to save a trivial amount of work. Do the brokers take on some sort of liability for tenants?
And the landlord, for a city of predominantly 2 yr-ish-long rentals, benefits from nominal rents being as low as possible--a well-priced apartment sells fast, a poorly priced one does not. (Compare to Ticketmaster and music venues.)
Then brokers extract as much as they can. But since a broker only gets the commission a fraction of the time they do the work (say 1/3), the competitive equilibrium for brokers fees is higher (say 3x)than it ought to be, bc the marginal addtl broker who would undercut them simply left the industry instead.
The question of if the marginal broker can or cant live off of 10k per transaction is entirely sperate. my guess is that there is some city regulatory barriers to entry here, but I haven't looked into it.