←back to thread

258 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
beisner ◴[] No.42131018[source]
This is a win for price competition - the "broker fee" paid by the renter is a classic example of principal agent problems / information asymmetry.

First, the service is being provided to the landlord (listing, tours, etc.), not the client, for all listings these days (I don't know any young person who has ever used a renter's agent, except maybe if it's provided in a relocation package). The renter has no choice in which broker to use to find/transact w/ the property, so there's very little price pressure for these broker fees.

Second the information asymmetry - the terms of the fee are completely opaque in the listings, and are not disclosed basically until signing unless you press brokers earlier. So there's basically no competitive pressure pushing these fees down, since it's basically a "junk fee" from a user experience perspective tacked on at the very end (and not listed on listings), and the landlord - who IS in a position to negotiate on price - doesn't care.

I don't buy the argument that there will be some long-term price hike in rents as a result of this decision - people who rent for 1-5 years already are paying a MASSIVE "net effective" premium for having an additional month's rent tacked on up front - but also it strongly incentivizes tenant retention (e.g. by being more responsive, keeping prices lower, etc.), because the landlord does not want to have to eat a broker's fee next listing.

replies(8): >>42131597 #>>42131717 #>>42131902 #>>42132134 #>>42132652 #>>42133534 #>>42133749 #>>42134407 #
1. kazinator ◴[] No.42133749[source]
> the landlord does not want to have to eat a broker's fee next listing.

Wouldn't a landlord who doesn't want to pay a broker just not use one? Advertise the place and handle the applicants on their own?