But that's exactly the problem -- the best deals get taken on the spot. Luck, not a good broker, makes you the first one in. And in the end, finding a good apartment, and finding a good broker (with that kind of access) are equivalent problems.
In NYC last year it took me almost 3 months to find a decent apartment. I found the broker on Craiglist (of all places), he pulled a bait and switch on the apartment he'd listed, but it turned out to be a switch for the better. I was the first one who ever saw the apartment, because it wouldn't even be officially listed until the next day, but he was friends with mgmt, and I said yes on the spot. I grudgingly paid the broker's fee, despite only having spent 20 min with him. But I'd already met with probably 15 different brokers (some of them just horrible) showing 25 different apartments (most of them just horrible) before that. In the end, it's certainly not like any broker saved me any time or money. I just kept at it until I got lucky -- most apartments, esp. the good ones, just seem to come with brokers "attached" that you're required to use, and very often exclusive brokers, which means it's not like any other broker has access to them anyways.
And yes, many apartments are exclusive so you have to pay a full 15% fee (split between the broker who has the listing and your broker).
You could have the greatest collection of listings in NYC and still not solve the "rental issue" because you'll always have landlords that only work with certain brokers, exclusives and apartments that are rented on the spot (with no real-time updates). It is nearly impossible to get a real-time feed of data. I've been in the business a year now and I've seen apartments get rented as I was showing my [interested] client the gym. I've showed up to apartments with clients and, embarrassingly, found out that they've been rented between the time I called to make the appointment and the time I showed up.
The entire system is outdated, and the real fix is one that incorporates brokers to make it easiest for clients to rent.
Your argument that the 15% broker fee is to make up for a "low hit rate" is pathetic. Many people working in retail see just as many clients with low hit rates, yet they don't make exorbitant six figure salaries.
Most brokers don't make exorbitant six figure salaries, which is why the turnover in the industry is close to 80%. In fact, most make about $40k and leave the industry soon after they enter. Only the top 5% of brokers in NYC are making six figures. Brokers are certainly compensated for the low hit rate, just as bankers are as well. This may be a controversial comparison, but in both industries the professionals work on a success-based transaction fee with a very low probability of success.
Reminds me of:
http://raganwald.posterous.com/canadian-women-are-waiting-fo...
And then that kind of led me to remember this:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/01/27.html
Some of the parallels are striking.
I did find a nice apartment with good view (craigslist), but ultimately decided against it due to busy street and location. Also hated the fact I did all the searching, but I still had to go through broker and pay their fees. All the buildings managed by this particular management company used a single RE and there was no way around it.
... but most of them are a waste of your time to view
(I'm coming from a rental environment where every available apartment gets 20 applicants, no matter how bad the place looks.)
I think the root of the problem is there are too many available apartments but most of them are a waste of your time to view. A great broker previews every listing and only shows the best deals.
Similarly for the landlord, most renters who come see the apartment will not take it, so having brokers do the showings saves the landlord a lot of time and effort.