This whole discussion is so bizarre to me, since I've only been a tenant in the SF Bay Area. We don't seem to have brokers here, or at least I've never heard of them. If the landlord pays a property manager or realtor to show the place, that's, on their end and not an additional fee (in fact, non-refundable deposits are illegal in SF). Some people who are used to this broker system seem to assume it *must" be adding some value but I can attest that it doesn't.

> it *must" be adding some value but I can attest that it doesn't

And yet, landlords keep using it. A $2500/month apt in NYC will cost $34,500 the first year -- but only $30,000 goes to the landlord. Can you help explain why a landlord would freely give up $4500 (standard 15% fee) in potential revenue?

As I understand it, the difference between the broker system in NYC and the one I'm familiar with is that the tenant is obliged to pay the broker some amount directly. I've seen rental condos shown by realtors and property managers - presumably landlords pay these people although I'm not familiar with the standard rate.

Yes you are right about NYC, and the same is true in Boston - it's been explained repeatedly in this thread why the broker fee is not at all equivalent to a landlord giving up that money, but for some reason there are commenters that just keep repeating the same line about a perfectly rational market instead of engaging with the actual arguments presented.

For someone new to the market it is essentially a hidden fee you find out about at buy time. Since 90% of places do this it would be a huge hassle for a tenant to try to avoid the fee, especially with the pressures surrounding shopping for housing. It's not the same at all as changing a list price.

> Most landlords I know "write" their own listings using a standard template and reusing old photos

So, like Airbnb? Last I checked, that platform -- without a person -- also charges renters about 15% or more. And you don't even get to actually visit the place before you commit to paying the fee!

The landlords are the ones writing the listing, the agent is the one collecting the money for supposedly "connecting" someone, when AT MOST all they did was post it onto a couple websites like AirBnB. I have no problem with the fee a website collects for listings. They provided a service that allowed the listing to be spread. But the agent is now just an unnecessary middleman between the landlord and such services. 9 times out of 10 real estate agents don't meaningfully contribute to the matching of landlord/tenant in the NYC or Boston markets, yet they continue to collect a fee. And as I mentioned this happens even when it is provable that the prospective tenant found the apartment via a source 100% unrelated to the real estate agent (such as a friend in a different unit).

Before you try to argue that landlords wouldn't pay them if they didn't contribute - the landlord doesn't pay! In cities where the landlord has to pay, you will find agents are used much less often and charge cheaper prices for these sort of rental services. The problem is when the landlord chooses the agent but the tenant has to pay. Every agent just charges the max allowable fee, and the majority of landlords stick with this scheme, whether out of stubbornness, loyalty, or kickbacks I don't know - but it hurts tenants far more than landlords. Otherwise you are correct, landlords would stop using them unless their prices went down!

Let me know when a real estate agent makes their own website that gains traction across the city.