Be My Own Broker?

Why not just make your offer based on the owner paying the fee? One problem with your "idea" is the owner is not going to want to rent to someone that has gone to this extent to shaft the broker.

Remember that the owner has hired this broker to represent his/her property.

As a landlord myself, I would never accept unsolicited calls from prospective tenants--I just don't need the headache. My broker is there to make the deal easier for me--vetting potential tenants and handling paperwork. These days I might be willing to cover her fee for the tenant, but I certainly wouldn't do a deal behind her back.

Besides, if you've been to the openhouse, you will have been asked to sign in. Brokers are very careful about this. Once your name/number are on that sign-in sheet, you are stuck with doing business with the broker if you want to move on the apartment. Sure you could pull a John Doe and put a false number. But seriously, do you really want to be such a blatant cheat? I wouldn't. And I certainly wouldn't want to rent my place to someone so underhanded.

webpro, why?

the problem with the current system is that it stick the bill for marketing an apartment, to the renter who takes it, rather than the landlord. So the broker shows the apartment to 25 people, and get his money from the chump that makes the offer.

Landlords are loathed to pay broker fees, because they havn't had to in the past, and they would rather like to keep moving costs high for existing tenants (keeps them in longer).

The way around this is to demand 4-8 weeks free rent, in exchange for paying the broker.

webpro,

don't listen to these goons..in these times, you're seeing 1-2 months free..unit owners (such as i) don't want to pay tenant's broker fee on top of that.

i'm 25, in grad school, have loans, not a millionaire, so i can afford the quarter of a day off to host an open house and grill my tenants..it's incredibly easy to get proof of employment, bank statements, references, and confirmations. save yourself one month's rent & time - there are other owners out there willing to help you (ourselves).

>>Landlords are loathed to pay broker fees<<

Huh? Why would anyone loathe a landlord for paying broker fees?? Or did you intend to say 'loath'?

>>i'm 25, in grad school, have loans, not a millionaire, so i can afford the quarter of a day off to host an open house and grill my tenants..it's incredibly easy to get proof of employment, bank statements, references, and confirmations. save yourself one month's rent & time - there are other owners out there willing to help you (ourselves).<<

That's great, hol4, but you are missing the point of webpro's post. He's not talking about do-it-yourself owners. He's talking about owners who've chosen to work with a broker. And owners who've chosen to use a broker are not interested in negotiating outside the broker. Period. If, as a prospective tenant, you do not want to deal with a broker, look on Craig's list and the like for non-brokered properties.

no, and no...markets change.

average days on market is 159..brokers aren't pricing your apt right and are out for commission (i don't blame them)..if you get a legit offer and the guys is willing to move into your apartment next day and you can verify his employment, tax returns, bank statements in less than half the day for mediocre effort (i've done it), to avoid your apartment to $it, $it, $it, until your broker does the same exact thing...

then 1) you either aren't open enough to talk to your broker to adjust any fee structure prior to contract signing when you bring someone in yourself 2) are too fucking rich to give a shit or 3) plain stupid.

With talk of "shafting" the broker and being a "blatant cheat" it is pretty clear where Squid and theburkhardtgroup get their paychecks.

I'm just wondering why 15 years after I could trade stocks on the internet with commissions at a fraction of what the full service houses were charging, we're still stuck with this system in NYC rentals. The argument about an owner choosing to work with a broker doesn't take into account the fact that there is no

With a database like streeteasy we've got inventory covered.

What's the missing link for widescale DIY rentals?

The following would go a long way to make this easier for tenants and landlords alike:

* standardized photos and floorplans
* key management
* open house/appointment scheduling
* lease origination
* easy credit checks
* ebay-like reputation for sellers and buyers to establish trust

After the lease is signed, is the broker ever involved in this relationship again?

sorry for the incomplete sentence "the fact that there is no..." should read

...the fact that there is no generally accepted, popular, branded, and trusted alternative that a non-specialist would think of first.

Are you even QUALIFIED to be a broker? Are you lazy & shiftless, with a very "flexible" stand on ethics? Do you refuse to show up anywhere before 9:30AM, and chafe when you have to meet prospective tenants after 5pm? Would you sell your mother to make a nickel? If so, YOU TOO may be qualifed to be a broker...

Dwayne_Pipe, I'm trying to avoid ad-hominem arguments. Let's focus on the real issue of what it is going to take to bring some efficiency to this marketplace.

It just seems so obvious that this particular niche is ripe for some disruptive technology. But of course it's looked that way for over a decade. I'm just wondering why this space hasn't been tackled by some aggressive Web 2.0 type company yet.

Wikipedia puts it best:

A lower-end disruptive innovation is aimed at mainstream customers for whom price is more important than quality.
Disruptive technologies are particularly threatening to the leaders of an existing market, because they are competition coming from an unexpected direction. A disruptive technology can come to dominate an existing market by either filling a role in a new market that the older technology could not fill (as cheaper, lower capacity but smaller-sized flash memory is doing for personal data storage in the 2000s) or by successively moving up-market through performance improvements until finally displacing the market incumbents (as digital photography has largely replaced film photography).

"Dwayne_Pipe, I'm trying to avoid ad-hominem arguments"

YOU can try to focus whatever YOU like: Geeky definitions from wikipedia, what ever makes YOU happy.

***I*** am trying to call a spade a spade. That's what makes ME happy.

M'kay?

I'm working on it and agree. www.theburkhardtgroup.com

>>With talk of "shafting" the broker and being a "blatant cheat" it is pretty clear where Squid and theburkhardtgroup get their paychecks.<<

I am a small-time landlord. My paychecks (for this particular venture) come from my excellent tenants who have been vetted and presented to me deloused, financially sound, and free of any unsavory criminal or litigious background by my equally excellent broker. I simply do not have to time to separate the wheat from the chaff on my own.

>>I'm just wondering why 15 years after I could trade stocks on the internet with commissions at a fraction of what the full service houses were charging, we're still stuck with this system in NYC rentals<<

How are these two things even remotely similar? Bottom line is a rental transaction involves considerably more effort than the push of a button or two. But for the sake of discussion, let's look at some of your suggestions:

>>* standardized photos and floorplans<<
Ok, great idea. How?

>>* open house/appointment scheduling<<
Right, and someone's gotta get paid to do that, no?

>>* lease origination<<
Ditto above

>>* easy credit checks<<
Already exists.

>>* ebay-like reputation for sellers and buyers to establish trust<<
This is plain ridiculous. Remember, the only time during a rental transaction that a property owner has any real control over the situation is BEFORE he hands over keys to a tenant. No way any landlord in his right mind would bypass the standard, tried-and-true protocol in a deal this important. We're not talking about buying a $25 widget on ebay here.

And I will repeat, in response to your original question, no I would NOT rent to any person who tried to cheat by circumventing the broker and contracting me directly. I don't deal with cheats, either in business or personally. You asked for thoughts on your idea and you've received some good responses. Sorry if they're not what you wanted to hear.

Squid,

You sound very passionate about maintaining the status quo. Please don't confuse people who are not happy with the status quo as cheats.

>>Bottom line is a rental transaction involves considerably more effort than the push of a button or two.<<

Stockbrokers said the same thing in the early '90's.

>>Right, and someone's gotta get paid to do that, no? <<

Absolutely. But 15% of the annual rent? Pigs do get slaughtered.

>>We're not talking about buying a $25 widget on ebay here.<<

People buy thousands of cars on eBay every day. Some of which cost much more than most annual rents.

In the end I think this problem would take the energy and ingenuity of someone like Google to get right, but the market is so small relatively speaking, and so provincial (where else do tenants pay the fee?) that we're unlikely to see real change in this system anytime soon. Current price drops/concessions are probably an anomaly.

Rent now or be priced out forever!

Who was that poster on another thread who said we should feed brokers to that rabid monkey in Connecticut? That guy had a really odd fixation on monkeys. Anyway, that's what we should do Squid - feed him to the monkey!

Squid said it all. Now I'll go off-topic into FSBO.

Remember when the NYT magazine still had RE ads? You'd occasionally see a display ad, by the owner, for a (usually hideous) house. Almost always something off about the ad, the phrasing, or the price. Same deal with FSBO line ads in the paper. Almost always, they obviously don't know what they're doing. When I was buying, I went to some FSBO open houses. Bad move, very uncomfortable. There're reasons brokers don't want sellers loitering around open houses, and those reasons are even more pronounced when it's the owner making the pitch. To sum up, in my head "FSBO == crackpot", unfair though that is to some sellers. Why would a buyer want to deal with it? It's not as if the seller were discounting the broker's percentage; they want to keep it, not give it to the buyer.

There're quite a few FSBO success stories here on SE, but I think they're the exception.

I'm no fan of brokers but what webpro is proposing in his/her original post sounds highly unethical to me. It's one thing to refuse to deal with broker; it's quite another to respond to an ad that a broker placed and then go to an open house that a broker arranged and supervised and *then* to go to the landlord behind the broker's back. You are taking advantage of that broker's work and then shafting him or her. You're not really doing your own footwork; your taking advantage of at least some of the broker's time.

I do agree that there ought to be a better way. In most other cities apartment rentals are handled much differently.

We won't see fee's, paid either by the owner or tenant falling to a few hundred dollars, but there is room for change. At the big firms the house has to simply agree to a smaller cut for starters and let the brokers keep the lion share-they earned it. All this crap about spending so much money on branding, marketing blah, blah, blah etc...is mostly bs. Through people and (nearly) free technology deals get done, period. I run a very small shop, I did 7 large rental transactions last months, some of my friends at Elliman and Citi Habitats wonder how I do it? They are sitting on there asses contemplating new careers.

I also just finished helping someone anaylise a PH in a very high-end Condo downtown that I rented them last year. He is a hedgie, smart guy thought I did a great job and is now confident about what the property is worth. I even gave him two prices, one I called the "FU" price, anticipating much further deterioration in the market, "take it or I'm happy to keep renting price". I have all the same tools as the big guys, e-mailed him a very nice looking comps report, seriously no big deal-it's called a computer program.

As I have said before there are a few people out there looking to change things up, one whom I met with is a major player. I have been at this for 17 years, through bust, boom and back to bust, I don't spend 2 months a year in Costa Rica because I don't know how to get deals done. But the big firms have you brainwashed with there "branding" and what not, there is a much more efficient, effective way to get things done; who will be brave enough to start it? Who will be brave enough to use it?

Listing goes in database, is advertised in NYT's, e-cards are blasted out to brokers via e mail,open houses are tended to, brokers access this via computer, escort client(s) to listing(s). Yes that's it.

Please don't get me started in regards to pricing an apartment. This is not rocket science. We are sales people, we are service providers.

It's simple, I signed a lease today on a $3700 dollar loft in the Village, these people also worked with Corcoran and Citi Habitats. Guess what? They found me in the same place these companies advertise their listings. No magic branding, million dollar ad budget required-just good old fashioned service.

Anyone want to be a silent partner in the next big thing in real estate? www.theburkhardtgroup.com

people are a lot more tech-savvy these days. don't fall for that broker ultimatum rhetoric. if you're broker wouldn't be open enough to talk with you in adjusting their fees for clients you bring to the plate, especially in this market, he doesn't have your best interest.

so far, we have burkhardt, corcoran, and i'm geussing citihabitats in this thread.

Miette,

I never talked about responding to an ad placed by the broker. I never talked about interacting with a broker at all. In my scenario the only possible interaction with the broker is when they open the door at the open house if they have even bothered to show up instead of delegating that task to a doorman or super.

The scenario was a thought exercise meant to get people talking about what a rental broker actually brings to the table and how the traditional fee structure relates to that. I think the lack of any response validating these fees is an indicator of how out of line they are. Also the ease with which so many brokers seem to be eliminating them shows that they are mostly gravy.

Why is a user like me who is willing to do all the legwork, "a mainstream customer for whom price is more important than quality" subject to the same fees as someone who needs months of hand holding, counseling, and specially prepared reports?

webpro,
go to craigslist and search for your apartment under "no fee by owner." case closed.

>>I never talked about responding to an ad placed by the broker. I never talked about interacting with a broker at all. In my scenario the only possible interaction with the broker is when they open the door at the open house if they have even bothered to show up instead of delegating that task to a doorman or super.<<

Lets try this again. If you show up at an open house arranged by a broker, then you are indeed 'responding to an ad placed by the broker', like it or not. Exactly how would you have known about said open house in the first place if not for advertising by the broker? Do you think open house info just shows up on Streeteasy or in the Times by magic? Of course not. By the time you've walked in the door you're already obligated to work through the listing broker, like it or not.

I'm not really sure what you mean by 'months of hand-holding' or 'specially prepared reports'. I've never heard of such things in the rental market. Perhaps you're mistaking rentals with sales. You also seem to be confused over the idea that brokers are 'eliminating' their fees. They are not. The recent trend has been for the landlord to cover broker fees instead of passing them on to the renter. But the broker still gets paid.

Either way, you are welcome to bypass brokers completely with the help of resources like CraigsList, where you will find a wealth of owner-listed rentals that are completely fee-free.

Squid, you are SUCH an obvious broker! Your attempts to portray yourself as a "small-time landlord" not withstanding, it's pretty clear where your bread is buttered: commissions that are way out of alignment with the value provided.

"By the time you've walked in the door you're already obligated to work through the listing broker, like it or not."

ABSOLUTLEY FRIGGIN' NOT! I did ***NOT*** sign up for that deal! I am ***NOT*** a principle to any contract the seller/landlord may have entered into with this broker, or any other third party. How typically greedy and lazy of a broker to try to attach me to it.

"Exactly how would you have known about said open house in the first place if not for advertising by the broker?"

So, a broker places an ad in the New York Daily News, or puts a sign on the side of a building...and my eye falls across it...I AM SUDDENLY OBLIGATED TO ONLY DO BUSINESS WITH THIS BROKER? LOL. I'll go you one better: I'll rent a plane and go sky-writing over Manhattan. Than, any inhabitant of Manhattan who sees it will be obligated to deal only with ME! I see there aren't a lot of people who dropped out of Harvard Law School to become realt-whores...

"Besides, if you've been to the openhouse, you will have been asked to sign in. Brokers are very careful about this."

LOL. Like you, they are also dumb and lazy. Guys, I recommend signing NOTHING for these leaches, but if you must sign to walk in the door, I recommend signing in as "Hugh G. Rection".

Who else thinks we should feed Squid to the Monkey? Monkey's like seafood, don't they?

>>So, a broker places an ad in the New York Daily News, or puts a sign on the side of a building...and my eye falls across it...I AM SUDDENLY OBLIGATED TO ONLY DO BUSINESS WITH THIS BROKER? LOL.<<

In a word, yes. If you choose to rent/buy the advertised building/apartment/trailer home/vacant lot/porta-potty, whatever--then yes. You are obligated to go through the seller's agent.

And if Hugh G. Rection decides to rent an apartment he's seen at an open house, then he too is obligated to deal with the listing broker. Cost of doing business, pal.

But hey, like I said before, there's always Craigslist.

>>So, a broker places an ad in the New York Daily News, or puts a sign on the side of a building...and my eye falls across it...I AM SUDDENLY OBLIGATED TO ONLY DO BUSINESS WITH THIS BROKER? LOL.<<

In a word, yes."

Any lawyers on this board want to rip him a new one?

I am not party to any agreement I did contract for, and received no consideration for. Much as you might want it to be otherwise. The issue is between the individual listing the apartment, and the broker or brokers he may have contracted with. I am not a prinicple in that transaction.

"But hey, like I said before, there's always Craigslist."

And now that unintelligent and lazy hacks (won't mention anyone in particular, SQUID) are having an increasingly hard time making a living in real estate, there is always:

- used car sales
- janitorial services
- gay porn

Let me know if you need a reference.

Dwayne, your insistence on weighing in on issues of which you clearly have no real understanding is even more embarrassing than your use of a comma in the plural form of the word monkeys.

Maybe you ought to stick with businesses you do understand--I'm assuming from your kind offer of references that your areas of expertise include used car sales, janitorial services, and gay porn.

But hey, nothing to be ashamed of--everyone's gotta make a living.

^^Apostrophe, stead comma. Guess dumb is starting to rub off on me now...

What a typical REALT-WHORE.

Do you know what I'm going to do, the next time I need to purchase or rent a place, either for myself or in helping a friend or relative?

I'm going to think of ways I can make a realt-whore do some work on the project, then shaft then out of a fee!

This never really occurred to me before, but given your absurd analogy that anyone who's [note proper use of apostrophe, dingleberry] eye falls across a broker's ad is now contractually obligated to use that broker, it seems to me that I could piss off a lot of stupid, lazy broke-whores without actually incurring a lot of risk. BTW, can you cite for me even a SINGLE legal case that bears even a family resemblance to the fact pattern you've laid out above?

Even Travis the face-eating monkey would likely spit you out...

re Dwayne_Pipe's comment "I am not party to any agreement I did contract for, and received no consideration for." Actually, you are. It's called an Implied Contract.I am not an attorney, and can't offer legal advice. But I can quote from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:

"An Implied Contract is one not created or evidenced by the exclusive agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law, as a matter of reason and justice from their acts or conduct. The circumstances surrounding the transaction make it reasonable, or even a necessary assumption, that a contract existed between them by tacit understanding."

Yes, you can fight an implied contract, and a real estate broker would be require to demonstrate certain proofs in court. You might even win. But by *responding* to the ad in the paper, on the side of a building, or trailing behind an airplane, you are indeed entering into a legally enforceable contract with the broker.

Tina
(Brooklyn broker)

It's no use, Tina. Clearly way over Dwayne's head at this point...

Oh, and Dwayne--I believe you meant 'whose'. Possessive form of who. Dingleberry.

"An Implied Contract is one not created or evidenced by the exclusive agreement of the parties, but inferred by the law, as a matter of reason and justice from their acts or conduct. The circumstances surrounding the transaction make it reasonable, or even a necessary assumption, that a contract existed between them by tacit understanding."

You google impressively well, Tina. But as someone who purports to make a living (however meager) in realt-whoring, you no doubt have learned by now that, in real estate, the written record usually prevails.

"Dwayne--I believe you meant 'whose'. Possessive form of who."

Actually, I meant "ho's" - possessive form of your sister...

Please see the latest post to the Realtor Joke thread. Upon request, I have told another side-splitting realt-whore joke. Tina and Squid were the inspiration.

Keep on swinging, there, pal. Maybe you'll get lucky and actually hit something. Then again, probably not...

I'll bet Dwayne's landlord cries a lot. Wakes up screaming.

"I'll bet Dwayne's landlord cries a lot. Wakes up screaming. "

No, but Dwayne's realtor did.

When I sold my beach house a few years ago, this realtor came in and insisted on a *SEVEN* percent commission. I of course told him that was a non-starter (there wasn't anything terribly special about the house, or the sale, that would require an extra incentive. In fact, at the time, beach houses were pretty much selling themselves). This fool went on to continue to explain why 7% was what he was worth.

At one point, I cut him off and told him - in very graphical terms - what was going to happen to him if the word "seven" came out of his mouth in my presence again...

Hey, no reason not to negotiate. That's what business is all about. Though, next time you might consider comporting yourself with a bit more dignity--losing one's cool and hurling invective like a flailing monkey generally won't get you the best deal... Stay chill, my man, and the world is yours.

"Stay chill, my man, and the world is yours."

Thank you SO much, Squid! I generally plan my life around the advice of real estate broker's who pretend to be otherwise. Indeed, I owe most of my success to that, not to hard work, god-given ability, or advanced education...

Like most brokers, you're an idiot. I like calling attention to that fact. I consider it my form of "giving back" to the community.

>>Indeed, I owe most of my success to that, not to hard work, god-given ability, or advanced education...<<

Well, that's lucky, as it's clear from your laughable syntax and uninformed, borderline moronic opinions that you're severely lacking in at least two of the three above-mentioned items...

"your laughable syntax and uninformed, borderline moronic opinions"

Yep. I guess that's why I hold two advanced professional degrees (think lawyer, CPA, etc), graduated from good schools, and still get more in a single bonus check than you'll earn all year.

But I hear the realt-whore exam is hard, too. My cleaning lady had to take it twice before she passed!

Yeah, I heard those schools that advertise in the subway are doing a brisk business these days... Best of luck to you in your various endeavors as a lawyer, a CPA, etc.

As for me, I'm outta here for now. It's been nice playing with you, Dwayne. Let's get together again real soon, ya hear?

K. Bye realtor. Sorry, I MEANT to say "Bye 'small-time landlord' who is ***NOT*** a realtor but just happens to advocate for realtors' interests not landlords' interests and gets REALLY incensed when people advocate finding ways around realtors overpriced fees".

ok, i might not agree with dwayne's methods of communication, but his point is spot on. when you start to attack someone's grammar and characteristics instead of his point, it shows you never had one to begin with. thanks for playing, squid.

Thank you, Hol4. WHich aspects of my method of communicating do you not agree with? Perhaps I will try to modulate that in the future. Probably not, though. But i'd still be interested in your views.

p.s.

I hope your first name isn't "alex". Then, instead of being A-Rod, you'd be...A-Hol?

I am an attorney (corporate - so limited knowledge on RE and basic contract law) but Dwayne is largely right and Squid and the other realtors are, well, shall we say misinformed due to their self-interest? One only needs to do a basic search to realize that a broker having you sign in at an open house does NOT constitute an exclusive contract. There are so many endless ways to legally challenge any claim otherwise I won't even bother. But good luck with that. Please point me to any NY case law of an agent/broker trying to enforce that type of contract. Please. (And Tina an implied contract still requires consideration).

And more to the point - the question: why would any landlord want to work with a tenant trying to work around a broker? Please. The question should be asked, but the other way around. In fact when you have no choice but to pay a "fee" despite the amount of work you yourself put into the search and the lack of work on behalf of the agent - well that's what I call a "blatant cheat."

Finally, all brokers and agents can only charge fees commensurate with the amount of work put into the transaction. In fact complaints are encouraged for tenants who are forced to pay exorbitant fees for some of the situations posted above. The NY agency that licenses RE agents encourages it. Look it up. Not enough people do it or know about it.

"In fact when you have no choice but to pay a "fee" despite the amount of work you yourself put into the search and the lack of work on behalf of the agent - well that's what I call a "blatant cheat."

Huh? How would you know how much work the agent has put in? How much work does the agent know the client put in?

I was only offering advice to OP based on my real life experiences. Most of the owners that ask me to handle the leasing of their property have worked with me before and value my service. If they wanted to deal directly with clients they would place an ad somewhere or hang a sign on the building.

OP is not the first person to think of this scheme. Someone tried this approach with a property I represent on West 86th street. After the client called my ad and had me come show him the unit, he walked back to the building and rang the LL's bell. She was a bit confused at first, then said well call Keith, he'll run credit, give you an application etc...So he explained his thoughts about broker fees and brokers and all he did was show up etc..Well she explained she hired me because in over 8 years she has had almost zero problems and told him to basically F-off.

Well this guy actually called me back because he really wanted the place. I am understanding, he plead his case to me that hey I'm really a nice guy, other brokers sucked blah blah, let me know he was very qualified over $500k a year(and at the time my fee was a month), great credit. So I called the LL up said hey maybe it was just a case of bad judgement, I didn't get very far she was like "are you crazy, the guys a total scumbag and I don't want him living in my building".

So when the LL sees the extent that a potential tenant would go to circumvent the broker she hired to lease out his property....no you won't be moving into that place anytime soon. If you can't understand this then no reason to try explaining.

Considering the market, make an offer contingent on the LL paying the broker fee.

No moral judgements here, just advice. If you prefer to search ACRIS or go back and knock on the owners door, go for it.

I don't need your advice and, since you are a VERY interested party, nobody else here does either. You can come up with as many anecdotes as you want, all of which I find highly dubious, but nothing you say here will change the fact that nearly all brokers charging the TENANT a 10%-15% fee for, at the most, screening work is borderline extortion. You are doing the work for the landlord - charge him/her. AND any landlord that expects the tenant to pay that fee is the "scumbag." So anything after that is fair game. As you know (or should know) they made "key" fees illegal a few years ago - you and your kind have replaced these fees and provide no real value in exchange. You are going to seriously state that the "work" you put in reflects the fees you demand? Please - just admit that there is a lot of money to be made and you want it. I would respect that more.
This is the US of A where forms of corruption (and this is corruption pure and simple) have been largely done away with. You guys are wonderful with the rationalization and the anecdotes - well I have a few for you. I have friends who were involved in your "industry." You know, the ones who gave kickbacks to the landlord to get "exclusive" listings. Oh thats right - but its the tenant that is the real scumbag by trying to circumvent a system they want no part of. I AM passing a moral judgment here - its called kettle and pot and the color is black. But its OK - with ACRIS the interweb and, I am sure, future legislation your days are numbered. But in the mean time please don't patronize us with your bullsh_t. If you want to take advantage of a poorly regulated exclusive market I would, #1. keep my head down and get while the getting is good and not make stupid posts rationalizing your highway robbery, and #2. not complain when somebody takes advantage in their own way (see kettle analogy above).
For everyone else I would highly recommend filing complaints with the NY state licensing body in charge of RE when you are charged these fees. They take your complaints seriously and agents must show that the work they do reflects the fees they charge. Look it up.

I'm genuinely puzzled about this discussion... An owner decides to hire a broker to represent an apartment, do background checks and otherwise make owner's life easier. Broker gets paid by the person who hires him/her, i.e. the owner. simple logic. That's what i see as flawed in the NYC rental market. It has never made any sense to me that a broker who works for the owner, in the best interest of the owner, should be paid by the tenant. I'm happy to see this is changing now and owners are willing to pay the people they hire rather than pushing it off to the tenant.

>>One only needs to do a basic search to realize that a broker having you sign in at an open house does NOT constitute an exclusive contract.<<

So, the dead horse is back for more flogging...

You're missing the point. If a landlord has chosen to enter into an exclusive agreement with a broker (or lawyer, for that matter) to act as his agent (representative) in a rental transaction, then any prospective tenant must go through that agent if he/she wants to rent the apartment (ie, do business with the landlord). It is the landlord's prerogative to conduct his business though the representative of his choice. So, while the prospective tenant is not bound directly by any contract between Landlord and Agent (as he is free to walk away and rent elsewhere), he IS bound by such agreement IF he chooses to rent this particular apartment from this particular landlord.

It doesn't matter whether you've signed John Doe or Ben Dover at an open house, or called the broker anonymously to inquire about the listing. If you choose to pursue a contract (lease) with a landlord who has appointed an agent (be it a broker, lawyer, whatever) to handle the transaction, then yes, you are bound to work through the landlord's agent to complete the deal.

No no no. Only the landlord is bound and even then the landlord, if he's smart or has an atty, has a variety of outs. But really, in the real world, when you see an "exclusive contract" that means an exclusive kickback. Please, just stop with the bullsh_t. Its embarrassing.

Why would the landlord need to rely on an 'out'? He's CHOSEN to conduct his business through an agent (again, that might be an attorney; not necessarily a dreaded broker). He doesn't want or need an 'out'. He doesn't want to deal directly with the great unwashed, poring through paperwork and vetting applications. Get it?? That means if you, the prospective tenant, want to rent the apartment, you are, yes, BOUND to work through the landlord's agent. Because the landlord's not gonna rent to you otherwise.

It is also unlawful for a licensed broker to collect a fee if a
tenant has found an apartment independently, and then is sent to
a broker by the landlord or superintendent. Complaints about
improper brokerage fees may also be made to the New York
Department of State.

Just shut up and go away...

Didn't want to bother with a web search because I knew I would be sucked into a time read here for your rights:
http://www.tenant.net/Rights/CTRC/ctrcf105.html

and interesting article that goes back to 1983:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02EFDE103BF933A05753C1A965948260

Do you really want to start in with an Attorney? RE brokers have nothing on lawyers....I just happen to be an honest one.

Just shut up and go away...

Didn't want to bother with a web search because I knew I would be sucked into a time warp.
Read here for your rights:
http://www.tenant.net/Rights/CTRC/ctrcf105.html

and interesting article that goes back to 1983:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02EFDE103BF933A05753C1A965948260

Do you really want to start in with an Attorney? RE brokers have nothing on lawyers....I just happen to be an honest one.

>>Just shut up and go away...<<

Great tactic. I'll remember that one if I ever have to try a case in court...

>>It is also unlawful for a licensed broker to collect a fee if a
tenant has found an apartment independently, and then is sent to
a broker by the landlord or superintendent. Complaints about
improper brokerage fees may also be made to the New York
Department of State<<

We're not discussing this scenario. We're talking about a prospective tenant responding to an ad or attending an open house and then trying to contact the landlord independently (please see original post). And for the record, I am completely in favor of landlords covering broker fees, as I've said before.

Why haven't you gone away? From your earlier posts I thought you were a small "landlord"? Have you no shame? You can rationalize all you want but there are a million ways to litigate around your "scenario." In fact no need to litigate "around" - staying within the letter of the law, that would be your problem. There are so many interpretations of the law that would render your rather weak "scenario" null and void - but keep trying. The law, especially in NY, strongly favors the CONSUMER no matter what you try and spin. Case law - thats where it all begins and ends and I have yet to see any cases cited.

"OP"= Original poster :)

Why haven't you gone away? From your earlier posts I thought you were a small "landlord"? Have you no shame? You can rationalize all you want but there are a million ways to litigate around your "scenario." In fact no need to litigate "around" - staying within the letter of the law, that would be your problem. There are so many interpretations of the law that would render your rather weak "scenario" null and void - but keep trying. The law, especially in NY, strongly favors the CONSUMER no matter what you try and spin. Case law - thats where it all begins and ends and I have yet to see any cases cited.

3rd, I don't know which "scenario" (your quotes) you are referring to in your last post. I have not painted any 'scenario'.

I have responded directly to a question posed in the original thread topic, namely, the potential effectiveness, or lack thereof, of an attempt to circumvent a landlord's agent (after seeing an advertisement or attending an open house) in order to rent directly from the landlord. I stand by my response.

So are you a landlord or a broker? Disinterested party? In any case a potential tenant has the right to do whatever he/she chooses free of the legal obligation you painted in your posts. Are you giving legal advice?

"Please - just admit that there is a lot of money to be made and you want it. I would respect that more"

You nailed it.

BTW, one way you can tell he's a broker, not "a small time landlord", is he keeps picking fights with people far more knowledgable on the topic of law, but doesn't seem to feel the need to produce a single iota of tangible evidence, not a single link or reference to a promulgated or legislated ruling on the matter. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

On the other hand, them sure are some 'musing anecdotes...

drdr,

"""An owner decides to hire a broker to represent an apartment, do background checks and otherwise make owner's life easier."""

So for 15% of the annual rent a broker:

* represents an apartment
* does background checks
* makes the owner's life easier

Is that it? Any of the brokers care to elaborate on these points or add anything else? Don't most condo/co-op boards do their own background checks before approving new tenants anyway? Does the broker's background check accomplish something that the board's does not?

Squid,

My original post was not about replying to an ad. It was about finding an apartment listing online in streeteasy and then using additional legwork to determine who the landlord was without ever coming in contact with a broker. Sorry for not making that perfectly clear in the original post. Granted, the listing never would have made it to streeteasy without the broker's marketing, but what other services does the landlord get from the broker?

Here's another way to ask this question. If demand continues to plummet and tenants continue to refuse to pay these fees, what services will brokers discontinue since they won't be getting compensated for them anymore?

I agree 15% is to much hence I started my own firm based on an alternative model.

My anecdotal advice was not based on whether this was legal or not legal. Just based on my experience with a LL that has asked me to represent their property. I thought that was your question:

"Aside from the creepy stalker aspect of the direct owner contact are there any problems with this approach?"

My suggestion was to present your offer contingent on the owner paying the fee. If they won't, there's always ACRIS.

I am also a lawyer. Please listen to 3rdMan. This is an honest analysis of what's going on here. These brokers are interested parties who spin endless bullshit to justify a flawed system that allows them, together with equally sleazy landlords, to screw tenants.

I'm not fighting for agents here- but face it...you are choosing to live in Manhattan, one of the highest rental fees in the nation. Now more than before an owner/landlord needs someone who can get you the goods (prime tenant with good financials). Wtih all the apt merchandise flooding the market and fewer buyers who can pay long term with good safe jobs its harder than ever to rent/sell on your own. Yes from a tenant perspective you can check craigs list for those who want to go on their own. Those who think that way will...but my expensive and stunning apt (with equally stunning mortgage payments) needs more than an ordinary joe to buy or rent- and it won't be the guy who wants to save himself 10 grand on an agent so if you want the good stuff you the tenant know its the cost of doing business (or you move to Queens or Podunk). There are fewer of the high end renters left but they are out there and the agent earns his living finding and vetting them for the high end Manhattan RE. If i was on my own i'd have to give away one or two months rent... I didnt have to to advertise and find this primo tenant. I had the agent who in this case definitely earned his keep.

Sad to say but from my experience with a rental in a condo i don't think condo boards do that much of a background check either...yes, they do ask for a ton of paperwork for which they charge a princely sum to the potential renter of 1,000 (maybe they figure anyone willing to shell out 10 k just to live there for a year isnt dashing off on you) but i don't see them doing much more than eyeballing the equifax report and giving what i believe is a rubber stamp approval..I'm not all trusting in condo boards made up of RE agents either. I will say this though -I know it was my agent who got me a primo tenant to begin with...never could have pulled it off selling on craigs list. If i stood to lose from it having to offer rent in exchange, im sure my agent would have worked with me to cut his commission. hes one of the good guys in my estimation.

To put it another way think mortgage housing crisis...how many of those banks actually took the time to VET those people. HA! with deregulation our local hot dog cart seller got to buy a house without income verification. We've rented dozens and dozens of apts through ads in VV, the Times, never CL with no fee but its a ton of work and we saw it as part of our own cottage business to do it ourselves. We did the footwork but that is on apts that were not too terribly high end. We've had our thankfully low share of losers but we have had them- by percentages that will happen. On High end you're talking big losses percentage wise and possibly a loss to your valuable property. Its just not worth the aggravation on the part of the owner of the quality rentals so you're not likely to see it going away all that soon and do it yourselfers will remain a small percentage in manhattan.

What are you babbling about? Then have the landlords pay your fee. The point is that people like you game the system so that even people who don't want to use you are forced to pay your fees/extortion. You just talk and talk and talk and say absolutely nothing nor do you address the the main points of the posts. If you can honestly find people who will pay your fees fine.....the point is that its isn't a voluntary relationship 95% of the time.

".....the point is that its isn't a voluntary relationship 95% of the time."

Oh yes it is; just ask Squid, our resident broker - sorry, I MEANT to say "our resident small-time landlord who is NOT a broker, even though he advocates for their interests not landlords' interests".

Yep. Squid will tell you, it IS a voluntary relationship because YOU looked at the ad...even if he was skywriting and you couldn't help but see it.

Realtors. I MEAN, "small-time landlords". Can't live with them. Can't shoot them.

Yet...

Yo, Dwayne--what up, daawg?

What up, realtor...I MEANT, what up, small-time landord...

Of course if it were that easy I could find my own buyer and we'd all save wads of money, where do you get your brilliant 95% statistic from 3rd man - Do tell where that number comes that isn't from inside your rear end because for now agencies have a lock over this city for obvious reasons - they hold a power position because of the value of high end merchandise needing 3rd party negotiation. Those who think agents are out for the buyer are sadly uninformed...they are in it for a deal and it takes TWO for any deal to happen. No guns are involved that I know of. Many sinister agencies have closed and will close due to this burst bubble. If its an overpriced out of date system it will change over time, much like book buying and electronics sales have changed because of the internet.

No body likes a lawyer till they need one...ever heard that phrase? Same could be said for RE agents- I don't think anyone actually wants to have to hire either but they do in some markets especially Manhattan, which was my major point.

Its not hard to notice here but your name calling and negative venomous posts border on cyber bullying 3rd man and you are representing yourself in print as the type of person who likes to hear themselves talk at a cocktail party with no intention of ever hearing or learning from other people. That doesn't mean a post of more than one sentence doesn't have something to illustrate to others and while they may not be as brilliant as you clearly think yours are, there are better ways of getting your point across.

As this is a public posting board with thousands of others holding opinions different to yours I await true discourse that might follow here and will ignore or just laugh at those that begin with your name as I see you have little to add other than nastiness. Be sure and identify yourself by name here so everyone here can see who NOT to hire when they want a lawyer who can 'finesse' his way to a good deal. I wouldn't hire a lawyer who spoke this way at a cocktail party as I wouldn't hire a RE agent who had your know it all attitude and no finesse to win at arguments other than name calling...they'd turn off any potential clients. If you want to hear only yourself keep up the negative name calling. and by all means, do tell us who you are. If you actually took the time to read my earlier post with understanding you'd see 30 years of purchasing and selling experience in sharing my (MY) thoughts with others who might see there's another way of looking at it.

While no one ever put a gun to my head to hire agents like Dwayne mentioned, my husband and I tried all ways to buy, sell and rent in our 30 years of buying and selling..with and without agents and from my experience the higher end market needed the help of an agent because there are so many upscale buyers who don't want to deal directly with sellers for good reason. Negotiation is a tricky thing, its unpleasant and many people are not good at it. I'd agree with many people here who say those fees are very high I detest the high fees as much as anyone, and in the end I negotiate those fees down too when I can. I make the point the business isnt going to go away because there is a need served here in Manhattan.

We own our own buildings and the turnover rate in renting is high. I wrote what seemed to work for us. The post did not try to illustrate 95% of anything but one more experienced perspective.

And why are interested in helping?

You really are bunch of them.............do it yourself, know nothing fools who hide behind their fake names.

Idiots101 said "do it yourself, know nothing fools who hide behind their fake names".

I see. Well, how are things in the Idiots101 household today? Funny, I looked that name up in the white pages, and there was no listing. I guess the Idiots household is unlisted.

Unless, of course...hey, wait a minute! OH MY GAWD OH MY GAWD!!!!!! I think Idiots101 may be a FAKE NAME!!!

Maybe you should change it to "Hypocrisy 101". Retard.

Wow - where to begin? Sloperaly - I could care less what kind of attorney you would hire - believe me, I know the law business is almost as corrupt as the "brokers" business - I am just as much against the dishonesty in my industry as yours. I just don't go one internet boards and defend my corrupt industry. And when you say, "We own our own buildings and the turnover rate in renting is high", I can see why. I would never ever rent from a shill like you and, really, who here believes you aren't anything but a broker?

As for the "name calling", etc - have you not noticed how this board works? Why not attack your FELLOW brokers? Oh thats right, because they reside on your corrupt side of the argument. Also, all your belittling of me and the legal industry - what exactly is that? So you are a liar and a hypocrite. Congrats.

And there have been a lot more nasty posts than mine - why point me out? Is it because I make salient points about you and the other shills on this board?

I repeat - you want a broker for your pretend rental buildings you pay for them. Don't force your "tenants" to pay for it. Most rentals in this city are not in the high end - and those people are FORCED into a that relationship. I would say 95% is wrong - I would say its 99.99%. Show me somebody renting a $3000 apt and is willing to fork over $3000 (at a minimum) to a broker who does nothing but list the property and open the door and I'll show you somebody as dishonest and stupid as you. Go away shill.

AND please post your name so that everyone knows who to avoid when renting...oh thats right, your buildings only exist in your mind. And you are a hypocrite.

And I am sure that there are many tenants forced into paying a "broker" fee by a landlord that would hire me to go after those brokers....too bad the truth upsets you so much but that just goes to show your true objective.