New York City Council Votes to End Broker Fees Squeezing Renters

>> There was zero chance we'd have landed a house that year without her help

Of course there was zero chance. Real estate agents regularly refuse to show homes to or entertain offers from buyers that are not represented by a real estate agent (unless they’re hoping to represent the buyer too - then they get both commissions!).

“I never would have been able to do business in a monopolized market without doing business with a monopolist.”

It was the opposite. Home sellers paid both the home buyer’s agent’s commission and the seller’s agent’s commission, so buyers’ agents would not show houses they wouldn’t earn commission on, and simultaneously, buyers would choose to use an agent because they would not save any money by not using an agent.

Now, I believe since the National Association of Realtors is not allowed to require their selling agents to share their commission with buyers’ agents, that everything is up for negotiation, and home buyers can save money by not using agents.

First, as noted by lotsofpulp, this isn't accurate: seller agents were always perfectly happy to deal with lone buyers because there's no other agent to share the commission with.

Second, to the extent there is monopolistic behavior that gets in the way (and there definitely is), that's not what I'm talking about. The market that year was completely insane because of the interest rates, and there is no way we could have navigated it ourselves, real estate agent monopoly or no monopoly.

I'm very glad that they've been forced to allow competition, and most real estate agents are horrible and should be avoided. All I'm saying is that in some markets a good real estate agent is absolutely worth their commission.