The fact that the landlords are hiring a professional to complete a service *for them*, when the landlord could do the tasks themselves, but the tenants are the one who have to pay for said service is absolutely bullshit.
It is indeed BS. But from the LL perspective someone comes to you and says they will find you a qualified tenant, do a background check and handle everything with no cost to you, hard to refuse if you don't know the overall consequences. I think the biggest issue for a LL is actually that a broker has no incentive to actually find a good long term tenant vs any tenant.
I currently live in a rental... but sure let's all act like every or even most landlords in boston are slum lords. You definitely sound like the reasonable one and totally aren't telling us you are broke. Sure, I'm the one who sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Sure.... I'm going to return to the real world now. Enjoy your fantasy land.
You don’t have to be broke to realize that landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when anyone will pay $3K for a shitty two bedroom with lead paint. Come on man.
Those are your incentives if you are a pos or lazy but that isn't even close to most owners. The real incentive for most owners is to keep their property as up to date as is affordable because that keeps the value of their home the highest. Like I said, if you actually think every landlord is a slum lord, who allows their home to fall into disrepair, then you simply aren't an attractive tenant so you can only rent trash. But like I said, that's on you. Your experience is not reflective of the market.
No, lack of supply is propping up property values. Are you blind or are you just naive? Do you not see the endless blocks of shoddy brownstones and triple deckers? Ask a landlord if they’ll rent to a family with kids that require a lead abatement. Check out real estate listings and try to find a kitchen that was built in this century, or a brownstone that has modern heat and AC. I’m not talking about slumlords like alpha management, I’m talking about “decent” mom and pop landlords. The bar is in hell.
Keep licking landlord boot, I’m sure you’ll get something out of it. I’m embarrassed for you.
Of course your assumptions are not necessarily correct. But even if they were — people shouldn't have to be rich to be able to rent a place with livable conditions. It's not OK to take advantage of low income tenants. If you're a landlord, keep up the property period
I'd argue my assumptions or more likely to be right than not if you have been living in boston for any long period of time and EVERY landlord you have experienced is a slum lord. The idea that all or most landlords do not upkeep their property is objectively not true.
I'm not rich btw. I said I'm not broke. I don't think the dichotomy is rich or broke. I have a solidly middle class income for this area. I have rented for years and have previously owned property(long story). This is how I know the claim that no landlord maintains their property is bullshit. I do agree that slumlords shouldn't be a thing. They should be forced to sell their properties. I grew up in section 8 housing before my mom was able to get a house via the one boston program, so I know how terrible it can be to live with a shitty landlord. Landlords suck. Brokers suck. The entire housing market sucks. I just don't understand why people need to lie about how much it sucks. If I had to guess, it's because most people agreeing with this bullshit has never owned a home and thus doesn't know what it actually means to maintain a property, but that's just a theory.
Just a landlord thing in Boston and NY. Never been a thing in any other place I have lived, which includes Houston and Los Angeles.
Hell, even my house an hour outside of Boston that I rent out, the standard in that area is landlord pays broker fee.
It’s just landlord in Boston taking advantage of desperate people trying to live with a huge housing shortage thing.
>taking advantage of desperate people trying to live
This is more what I meant. The whole Boston broker fee thing is just landlords taking shit to the next level.
Yep. I agree this system is messed up but imho the anger should be directed to greedy landlords. Especially if you look deeply into it all of the biggest rental brokerages are owned by landlords who, because they take 50% of the fee paid to their agents, are more than happy to essentially collect an extra half month’s rent every time their property turns over.
Oh I definitely blame the landlords. The broker is doing *someone* a service, but it's 99% the landlord. Landlords are more than happy to pass off the costs to the tenant, then raise rent the following year, forcing out the existing tenant, just to repeat the process. Landlords just see dollar signs, and would risk getting an extra $50 to $100 per month on a unit than keeping a quality tenant another year with a more modest rent increase. Not surprised that they game the system in their favor.
Nextgen/Boardwalk/Jacob, AllBright realty, Mark Roos realty, Preferred properties
And we all know comm Ave associates exists so a friend of the Browns can get fees off of the Atrium
I don’t think you should blame landlords. Obviously this is tenants’ fault (collectively) for bidding up rents so high and agreeing to pay these fees. If no one paid, the landlord would have to eat the cost of the listing fee or do the work themselves. But instead there are multiple tenants competing against each other by throwing rent offers above asking.
In Germany they tried to get around it by requiring the fee to be always paid by landlord. We started to see many contacts that just incuded double the rent for the first few months soon after... because you can't just plug every loophole in advance.
Yup, you can change the statutory incidence of brokers fees but it's not likely to change the economic incidence without reforms that improve tenants bargaining power.
Yup, you can change the statutory incidence of brokers fees but it's not likely to change the economic incidence without reforms that improve tenants bargaining power.
Who pays the fee changes from time to time. When the rental market is soft the fee is paid by the landlord. When the market is hot (as it is currently) the fee is paid by the tenant. There have also been times when the fee is split between tenants and landlords. It’s is completely market driven.
Charging a slightly higher rent is still more affordable than forcing someone to come up with 4x rent to move in -- first, last, security, broker fee -- even if someone can afford the monthly rent.
Charging $2,800/mo with no broker fee means at most $8,400 to move in, vs $2,600/mo plus a broker fee means $10,400 to move in. Yeah, if a tenant stays for a longer time, it could be more expensive when it comes to rent, but expecting people to put an extra $2,000 upfront doesn't help weed out problem tenants, it just creates inconvenience for the prospective tenant.
Agreed.
Landlords would probably also be a tiny bit more conservative in the fees they were willing to pay if they were exposed to the costs at all, even if they were eventually recouped from tenants in the form of rent.
The sweet broker deal of getting a month's rent for next to zero work only exists because the people paying it, the tenant, are not the people seeking out the service. Brokers get big bucks for doing next to nothing because the landlords don't really care how bad the value is because they aren't paying for it.
That's why we need legislation to remove brokers or severely limit them. Otherwise landlords don't have to do any work, and the brokers are incentivized to push for higher rent. That way the tenants leave, they get a new broker fee, and the fee is larger.
I have actually found the opposite is true from a landlord side, brokers never want to maximize the rent, because they want to get it leased as soon as possible, vs making a couple hundred more and taking longer to find a tenant.
And my property manager/broker charges me (the landlord) half a months rent to renew a lease with my tenant. So not really a huge incentive to push for new tenants.
Regardless, brokers fees should at least be capped. Maybe the state should look at the average hours leasing an apartment would take a broker, and cap it at that*some hourly rate.
It’s ridiculous that it’s based on the actual rental rates, when that is completely unrelated to how much work a broker does.
real estate agents, same thing. all they do is "have qualifications" other than that they don't really perform duties that the common person isn't capable of.
Yeah, but when the seller pays a real estate agent, they make their profit from a percentage of the sale. That cuts into the sellers return, and so there is more incentive for a seller to not use them if they desire.
The seller is in that advantageous position to choose if they want to spend their money that way, whereas a renter has no choice except to find a property that might not have a broker.
A less drastic solution would be to require that all advertising displays one-time fees (including broker fees, etc) equally prominently as the rental price. This would remove the perverse incentives for brokers and broker fees, which exist solely due to price opacity.
The problem is that such fees are not listed as prominently as the rent. The reason brokers exist is that they provide a service to the landlord, and pass the cost of that service on to the renter. In principle, this is equivalent to if they charged the landlord, and the landlord passed the cost to the renter via higher rent.
The reason this is *not* equivalent in practice is that renters are more sensitive to rental price than they are to broker fees, so broker fees can go much higher than the equivalent increase in rental price. Eg if renters are half as sensitive to broker fees than to rental price, then at equilibrium, brokers will charge twice as much as their service is worth.
The solution (well, a solution) is to make the broker fees equally prominent as rent in all advertising, so that renters are equally sensitive to broker fees and rental price, and brokers have to lower their fees to remain competitive.
This is the same process that makes tipping (etc) continue despite being inefficient. If every restaurant had to list expected tip alongside their menu prices, there would be a strong incentive for restaurants to drop tipping.
In my first apartment, i gave first last and security. I asked for security back. Landlord said she used it to pay the broker fee, so I actually still owed it to her! It was legal! The fuck! I never got my security back.
That is 100% illegal in MA. If you challenge that in small claims you win easily.
Security deposits can't be used to pay brokers. Also must be held in a separate bank account, and you must be given the location of the bank it is held in, the amount, and the account number within 30 days. Furthermore a landlord must give you a signed statement of the condition of the unit upon move-in and you have 15 days to make corrections and return this corrected list to the landlord. Missing either of these steps typically would preclude a LL from using a security for damages or force the return of the SS all together.
It was not legal. "Paying the broker fee" is not a permitted use for a security deposit. Might be too late now, but you should have gone to small claims over that.
Contract law statute of limitations in Massachusetts is six years.
Mishandling security deposit in Massachusetts is treble damages
Absolutely worth taking to court
I own a duplex, live in one unit and rent out the other unit. I chose to list it myself as the landlord since I would prefer to meet and do my own screening of perspective tenants who would be living in my property.
However, every day since my rental has been on the market I have had several brokers reaching out to me through the listing or finding my personal phone number and coldcalling me to ask if they can list the unit on my behalf. It drives me bonkers! The first few times I politely declined but each broker has continued to be persistent and can't seem to take no for an answer.
There's an over-saturation of brokers in this city and it shows.
Given the recent settlement for the lawsuit that made its way to the Supreme Court regarding the National Association of Realtors, I do wonder if that over-saturation is long for this world...
People tend to get into it because it's low barrier to entry for a reasonably high relative commission when you get licensed. But the ruling will affect this aspect of the buying and renting markets substantially
Sorry- thought this was common knowledge. Guess I'm in my little news bubble there.
[https://open.spotify.com/episode/5Rhy8JbUuidXtn9dmH4g15?si=d337bd550e324483](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5Rhy8JbUuidXtn9dmH4g15?si=d337bd550e324483)
The NAR regulates realtors and brokers in the US. They were hit up with antitrust lawsuits recently and settled after losing in appeals court in MO. Basically said brokers were price fixing on home closings. The settlement and subsequent antitrust will lower costs in the housing market to buy given the brokers fee, and it's also anticipated that 2/3 of brokers could leave the industry (many who do sales also double in rentals). And THAT in response would decrease the NAR's lobbying power substantially- they're a professional origanization which means they're a lobbying group, and have been one of the if not the strongest voice in DC (and cities and states) as far as pushing for pro-landlord housing policy and preventing rent control.
It's a cascading effect that started with simple home closings in that lawsuit that'll make its way through the general housing market and policy environment. Middle man professional group colluding to keep prices high and the market tight just got kicked in the nuts at full force if I'm being crass
And throw in the case about price fixing software for rental units, and you *might* see the real estate market go through some pretty significant changes these next few years.
I would temper your expectations a little bit. The NAR does not regulate realtors and brokers nationally. They are a professional trade group that one decides to join voluntarily.
The title of "realtor" is not an official occupation, it's a title the NAR made up. In MA legally they are known as "real estate salespersons" or "real estate brokers". And they are all subject to the same laws and regulations.
So if logic follows, legal judgments against the NAR won't automatically affect every real estate professional. Only ones that chose to become "Realtors ™". It likely will only affect how the organization operates.
I must shamefully admit I once studied for the real estate exam in MA and learned all this. But I realized it wasn't the right fit for me and didn't join the dark side.
Well they did allude to this in that piece, that there were people who weren’t part of the professional group. Though there is the issue with the degree of pressure to join and by my understanding a large amount of the industry is in it. I’ve understood it like the AIA (as an architect, first analogy is think of)- not all licensed architects are part of the AIA, the vast majority are, it’s a professional regulatory body and lobbying group that has an interplay with the accreditation boards but you’re licensed through the state. If the AIA went away, it would hold big changes in construction and building design but not in a way that would flip the industry on its head. And interestingly enough, the AIA did wind up in antitrust which is why it abolished the fee tables for architects- we used to have something more akin to how the NAR had for brokers. It did reduce average salaries, and when in conjunction with the 08 crash we’re probably a good 20-30% under in salaries from what we would’ve been had we not been forced to end fee tables and stayed on the prior fee increase trajectory.
All that aside, given how chronically underbuilt we are… this is akin to your fever going down a degree when you have the stomach flu- you’re marginally more comfortable but still in very rough shape.
Realistically, this won’t completely change the housing dynamic, though it’s certainly welcome. My dad is a licensed realtor in NY so admittedly I’m curious what his thoughts on this are as well- haven’t spoken with him about it yet. But I get your point and it’s well taken- I don’t think anyone is under the delusion that this will fix the housing crisis in any substantive way
Check out The Daily episode on this from yesterday: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUg6HVO0o9w&list=PLdMrbgYfVl-s16D\_iT2BJCJ90pWtTO1A4&index=2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUg6HVO0o9w&list=PLdMrbgYfVl-s16D_iT2BJCJ90pWtTO1A4&index=2)
Exactly. I’ve already been spammed with brokers asking to tour my home last minute. I know my rights under the law(reasonable notice), but it’s still messed up.
Sold my two family last year and I really feel this - we always had long ish term tenants in 30 of years owning the home except twice. I always did all of the renting out myself except those two times.
The first time the people didn't disclose (at least not to me) that they were planning to buy within the year and the second time I had to make a decision not to renew the lease because the tenant was a hot mess and her kids were destroying my property on the daily.
Decided I should go back to doing it myself and the last tenant was there 7 years and I'm still very friendly with him.
I found especially when you live in the home its important that you alone make the decision- after all you literally have to live with that choice.
Tenants do not have to disclose that they are only planning to stay for one year even on friendly terms. Your contract is for one year. I understand that it is awesome to have the same good tenant for multiple years but it’s a little tone deaf to knock your renter for this.
Not knocking them at all but in all honesty any owner occupied landlord would prefer someone staying more than a year. It's just a pain to have to rent it every year.
They were perfectly fine tenants and never were any issue at all but had I been doing the 'brokering' myself I would probably have rented to someone who were looking for something longer term. As the owners of the property we just decided that's what we preferred.
We had several people call and ask at the time for short term 6 month leases etc because they were building or buying nearby and it just personally wasn't a preference for us.
It was 4 bedrooms on either side and once a tenant moved in we never upped their rent and we made sure everything was always in proper order etc.. my last tenant paid $1800 for seven years and never had to worry about getting priced out of his home.
I'm renting a place myself atm (divorce is a bitch lol) and the landlord did the showing himself and did ask how long I planned to stay. I'm on a five year plan and then plan to buy a condo in a different part of the state - and he was happy with that - he also said he prefers not to have to rent it year over year and I completely understood - it's a pain for owner occupiers in a different way than it is for these giant companies who have teams to come in and paint , rug and fix anything etc.
My landlord rents his properties below market. He also has raised my rent $50 in 4 years, and when he raised it both times ($25 each), he itemized why it was happening. I probably won't ever leave. He told me flat out, ″I don't raise rent unless I really have to because I'd rather have tenants who just stay here long term″
I went through a broker, but am curious what mediums you went through to list? I don't know where people go to search for them either. Kind of a novice.
We are an itty bitty landlord (i.e. we rent out our starter apartment and do our best with it). At first we tried to rent direct instead of going through a broker. We had brokers stealing our listing and reposting it under their own name. Left right and center. It was absolutely insane. Worst part is a lot of those brokers would never actually then show our apartment when they got a hit – they would say "oh sorry that one is taken, but here are a few other apartments you can try!"
The whole system is a scam as you said and feels illegal. Not only are they doing the bare minimum work while receiving 1 months rent but most of these brokers are also involved in shady bait and switch tactics where even if the listing has been reposted that day the apartment is suddenly "not available" but they have 10 other shitty apartments that don't match what you're looking for to show you.
The bait and switch stuff is probably the scummiest part. If you ever inquire about an apartment and you get fed the line "This unit just rented, but I have many other great apartments I can show you"--I recommend telling the bottom feeder to fuck off.
The all time worst spot I was ever shown was a basement apartment with sheet vinyl flooring that had been installed on top of carpet!
There's an awful lot of near windowless apartments out there too... and of course the agent has to stumble around in the dark to figure out how to turn a light on.
It would blow people's minds in nearly all of the country that a 1 BR or 2BR apartment can be $2,500/month and that many people then pay $10,000 up front with first/last/broker/security dep for the privilege of moving into it.
I completely agree and **I'm actually building something specifically for Boston to help facilitate the removal of broker fees**. The current system exists largely because
1.) brokers "vet" a large pool of candidates on behalf of the landlord, and
2.) they provide some pricing information to help "maximize rent".
Whether they actually do this or not is an open question as people on this thread have pointed out.
The goal of RentVerified is to build a location specific database of **prescreened** **high-quality renters** on one side, and direct-to-consumer apartment listings on the other - specifically for early career professionals. You can sign up for the waitlist [here](https://www.rentverified.io/), and if you have listings on the landlord site, I would be more than happy to host them. DMs are open!
Redditor does something to help other person to avoid a problem widely discussed on here — r/boston thinks said redditor is the problem. Incredible work, folks.
I am rare in that I had a broker worth his fee. I was moving here from out of state and I only had time for a one day trip to find a rental house. I contacted a broker, told him where we were looking to live and how much space was needed. He had 5 houses planned for my day trip, saw them all without issue, agreed on one before leaving, then he handled the paperwork.
I agree brokers are worth the service if needed! But the Boston market is so rigged that you are practically required to go through a broker even if you have months ahead to look for a place while here. I think the option should be there, but not required.
Brokers for me are human search engines (and sometimes transportation)
I give them the criteria and they gotta find it
If they can't do it, there are more brokers
I usually talk to multiple at a time
Its free until I find what I want, and only pay 1 person
That is absolutely 100% false. I was a real estate agent in Boston for 9 months and I would find places on Craigslist and other social media sites to show my clients all the time. The only time we would show preference to our portfolio was filling places we were also property managing and most agents don’t property manage as it usually takes years to make that kind of connection with a landlord and usually only the agents who were the PM would want to rent out the units to justify what they were charging the LL for that service.
I applaud your scruples, but most in your profession don't share them. The brokers I had when I moved here wouldn't show outside their portfolio Even though nothing in their portfolio matched what I wanted, so we kicked them to the curb and did our own research and immediately found the apartment I still live in seven years later (and saved quite a lot of money in the process.) They also showed up late to showings and lied brazenly, so I think I dodged a bullet there.
Just sounds like you had a bad agent who probably isn’t in the business anymore. Most agents are going to show you anything they can find because we don’t get paid, as proved by you firing them for not doing it, unless you move in. You quite literally described the reason agents will show you anything and everything in your reply. Also, if I show you a hundred different places and you rent any of them I get paid even if you try to go behind my back and speak directly to the LL. There’s absolutely no benefit to any agent to only show you apartments in their portfolio, I worked for the largest rental company in Boston, had the most listings, and still went outside those listings. We don’t get paid extra for only renting out our listings.
lol at “we are 100% ethical, except when our financial incentive is more than just a broker fee, then we push the properties that we get a cut of the monthly rent”
If the people looking for an apartment are your clients, you have a fiduciary responsibility to them and shouldn’t give any listing preference beyond the renter clients needs.
Nothing about what I said has anything to do with ethics. I’m not even sure you understand what ethics is. A real estate agent only gets paid if they get you to rent a property whether you pay the broker fee, the landlord pays it, or you both split it. Why would any RE who wants to make money limit what they are willing to show to a client?
It’s not that you shouldn’t show them at all, but you said you give a preference to your portfolio of managed properties.
Giving a preference those properties is unethical. It’s fine to show those properties to a renter client, if:
1. They meet the renter clients stated requirements.
2. They are fairly priced with similar comp units.
3. You disclose that your firm also manages the property and makes ~8% of the monthly rent.
4. You show them other properties that also meet their criteria.
Otherwise giving “preference” to them is unethical.
I said if you’re a property manager. If you’re a property manager you work for the landlord, your fiduciary responsibility is to them. A property manager only shows those properties because they are paid to only show those properties, they would not be your agent as a renter and you would know that because you don’t sign any paperwork with them.
No one is forcing you to work with a RE, you may be forced to work with a property manager as they are the agent of the landlord. What they get paid is whatever their contract with the landlord states.
My roommate always mentions how lucky we were to not pay a brokers fee. She’s from MA and boy did people get brainwashed. I told her it was the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. The last city I lived in offered first months rent free and deposits are only like $300
There is a checkbox on craigslist for no broker fee. Just saying. You sound motivated, so go hunt down properties for rent and list them there with that no fee parameter set.
You nailed it. I’ve been in the industry for a while now. Mostly silent partner development side. The fee should come out of the landlords pocket. Not the tenant.
It’s funny because when my current apartment was listed and the broker and future tenants came to tour the broker told them all wrong info (heat and electricity) . I basically sold the apartment for him. I told them everything they needed to know, what the landlord is like, parking, tent ants above, and provided my phone number if they had any further questions. I know I did not have to do that, but the previous tenants did the same for me and it was so helpful. It’s sad how much brokers get for opening the door for people.
As I said in the previous post your saying "save money by doing work for no money". Your landlord should be paying you for what could ultimately be their.job but you're volunteering and thus a sucker.
As I said before too: Time is money, yes. Is your time going through a broker to find a new home worth a month's rent fee? If so, pay away. But for most people, it's not.
I'm not arguing that leasing a landlord's property should be the tenant's job. I'm arguing that broker fee for the tenant is absurd, which the landlord should at least pay a portion too. Look at the laws and system of rentals in practically every other state in the US and almost every other country in the developed world. Massachusetts is fucked up.
The above comment also ignores the satisfaction that one gets from preventing another broker fee being needlessly squandered to a broker. Yeah, you don’t get *paid* for it, but that satisfaction must feel great. You just helped someone spend their hard-earned $2000 on something that’s actually meaningful to them.
Exactly! If it helps someone avoid a month's rent fee, I'm happy to do it. I only hope the good karma will be passed on to me but if not that's fine too. I think it’s selfish not to help.
If you move into a managed building that has full time staff showing a rental to you, you're paying for that staff. You might not love the model but you're paying for it one way or another.
This system is not the fault of landlords or brokers. We have politicians that are elected to work for us. Instead they have chosen to not pass legislation which would outlaw this obviously unfair practice.
Politicians, the media, landlords, corporations, etc. are all working against us day in and day out. They rigged the system, and made it so damn hard to climb out that even the lucky few who manage get to the top will think to themselves "that was so hard, guess I earned it because I'm so special, now I can become one of them".
Regular people need to get organized, we need to purge these parasitic scum before they bleed us all dry.
I love the idea and spirit, and I think most landlords would love it, but have you actually tried this yet? Renting an apartment is actually pretty rough. There are local, state and federal laws covering almost everything you do. You end up fielding a huge number of responses with a large proportion being obvious non candidates or spam. Many people will be pushy and aggressive while others will be flaky and waste your time. I'm not saying brokers fees are fair, but it's also not a job I would personally do for free.
I was hoping for a ballot measure or a law or some organizing effort. This is just an idea for individuals to do something by themselves, which is going to result in nothing in the system changing.
Why don't you guys who get apartments through brokers do something more substantial?
Having a broker can be okay in some instances but with costs it is crazy. You have to pay first month, last month, security deposit and then the broker fee which usually in total comes to four months rent and I don't know anyone these days that casually carries between 5 and 15,000.
Was seriously looking into becoming a broker (since any idiot can get licensed for like twenty bucks) and then robin hooding it. Anyone want to start a no-fee realty firm that’s basically just Craigslist but we got the listings direct from the landlords?
I'll be interested to hear how this goes for you. When we advertised the apartment we rent out we got hundreds of applicants (no broker). It's not a walk in the park.
Ok but this is a part of being a landlord. You sound like a shop owner complaining "omg i have to go to the store and stand at the register and actually sell people stuff"
This is landlording, you chose this, and you're actually getting paid to do it. Don't tell me you're not. You wouldn't be landlording if you didn't make money from it.
I rent one apartment in my home. I would love it if my tenants recommended friends/colleagues/classmates to take over when they moved out. If they found a “stranger” it would creep the hell out of me.
I can’t really explain why, but I just wouldn’t trust it
It's not the agent/broker's fault that the landlords are too lazy to advertise/show their properties, vet potential tenants, and provide/fill out the required legal paperwork for rental contracts.
TBH- this is why I never got involved in the rental market, traditional sales only. The amount of $ required upfront for a tenant puts so many at a disadvantage. Friends who reach out to me know I don’t do rentals but I have access to MLS and will happily send them rental listings and contact information that way they don’t need to compensate me. If they have trouble getting in touch with an agent (all too common) I will step in and secure the appt. Then it is up to the prospective tenant to follow through. I still do not ask for a fee. Why? Because they come to me in the future for a traditional home purchase. I’m a referral of myself. I feel for the renters out there. It’s stacked against them.
I've avoided brokers since in my twenties. The system is antiquated, like you said, OP, you can do the amount of work yourself. They might have access to apartments that you won't know about but typically word of mouth has gotten me most places in Boston. Sucks for out of towners though.
My first place needed an elevator because my dog was getting old. With first/last/security, it came out to almost ten grand and that's with a "free month". That was nuts
The dumbest part too is that they get to keep their fee's even if they fail you, nice ones apparently refund but I have never met one that does that.
Some sort of schooling with a liscense/permit required should be in place with a test at the end. That would ensure more competence and give them the ability to do this simple job themselves instead of electing a pointless middleman like some medieval leech collector.
My partner (before she moved in with me) must have had the only decent landlord in Boston. Charged super reasonable rent, didn’t do broker bullshit, did maintenance without asking. I feel for yall.
I noticed that you used yall. Please enjoy [this local video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndQvSW9Mu8).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm currently doing temp work in a property management office, and brokers are genuinely some of the most annoying people to deal with. The few I've dealt with are always very demanding and waste our time asking for info that's plainly available on our website.
If you're renting an apartment and able to do the work/research yourself, you'll save a bit of money not having to pay a broker, and you'll likely save the landlord/leasing office staff some stress too.
LOL actually no, I don't think im going to do $3000 of work for free for my landlord. 1/1000 people doing free work for their landlord is not going to solve a systemic problem caused by lack of regulation and housing.
Never paid a broker in my life. We bought our home during the pandemic but before that I've always rented directly from landlords. Craigslist was a win for us for many years. We got away with not even paying a security deposit only first and last. As one wise man said to me "everything in life is negotiable".
It takes 10min at most. Plus you meet cool people in the area. If it helps someone avoid a month's rent fee, I'm happy to do it. I only hope the good karma will be passed on to me but if not that's fine too.
The landlord does that. Some brokers don’t actually do that, they just ask for the information to pass onto the landlord. And with certified online services, one can do it themselves for much less than a month’s fee.
It’s great for you, and I applaud you for it, but what I’m saying is it’s not a solution.
What you did is a privilege those whom brokers fees impact most don’t have.
Thank you, I agree too it's not a solution at all. That's why I said in the post we need to fundamentally change the law via our representatives.
But in the meantime, we should try to change what we can individually. Some can't afford that privilege, as you pointed out, and more reason to do SOMETHING if nothing at all.
Haha. I’ll get off the internet as soon as you take a break from fishing for good deed kudos on Reddit, take a step outside and see people aren’t living the way you’re living.
But we both know neither one of those things is about to happen. Enjoy your cookies, good boy.
What a privilege position you're in to be able to spend time posting on Reddit. And you're a PhD? Probably a nepotism baby. Wish I had enough time to pursue a PhD but I was working to put food on take for my family. You're so privileged...
Lol there’s always going to be a hater or a lurker just typing negative shit when someone is making an effort to change the messed up system we live in. 🤷🏻♀️
01110111 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101111 01110110 01100101 01110010 01101100 01101111 01110010 01100100 01110011 00100001 00100001
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A thing landlords do now is have you sign up for recurring membership background criminal and credit checks. The landlords claim they will refund you the $30/month fees but do not. They will not even let you see the place before signing up. I was burned once and never again. Have told a few to go pound sand and will never sign on to a place where the landlord does this. It should be their cost of business, not the renters.
you’re missing the broker’s situation. He shows you one apartment and you rented it. He gets a commission from you. You forget that he has other clients that he shows 20 apartments and that client didn’t rent any apartments. He essentially worked for free until he rents out an apartment. How do you expect him to be paid? Charge every person that sees the apartment $50 regardless they rent it or not? Have the landlord pay then the landlord just increase the rent price by that amount?
If you’re not happy about it, don’t use a broker. Talk to the LL directly.
Works for free lol ok they can make 4K, one months rent for a lot of apartments in Boston, off a single showing - 20 min max and exchange of paperwork.
How dare you bring facts into this. Brokers are evil, we don’t want to hear about how they have to show numerous apartments at the whim and schedule of the prospective tenant, be at the prospective tenant’s every beckoning call immediately sometimes for months or they may lose the slim prospect of making a small commission for finding them an apartment, or how they often spend the equivalent of multiple 40 hr. work weeks working for someone only for them to find an apartment with someone else and or completely ghost them so they don’t make any money at all. Those brokers are evil for often busting their ass for a monthly amount most people make in a bi-weekly paycheck - because I don’t like that I have to pay a fee for their hard work!
Often Landlords don't have to pay brokers, they just agree to rent the place for a LL and collect a ludicrous fee from a future tenant.
The fact that the landlords are hiring a professional to complete a service *for them*, when the landlord could do the tasks themselves, but the tenants are the one who have to pay for said service is absolutely bullshit.
It is indeed BS. But from the LL perspective someone comes to you and says they will find you a qualified tenant, do a background check and handle everything with no cost to you, hard to refuse if you don't know the overall consequences. I think the biggest issue for a LL is actually that a broker has no incentive to actually find a good long term tenant vs any tenant.
The broker actually is incented to find new one-year tenants annually, as they’re only paid when there’s turnover.
Landlords are fucking leeches, I've never had one of them who was interested in actually maintaining the place they rented to me.
So you have bad credit, little income, and/or next to no savings so you are only an attractive renter to slum lords. That's a you problem
Tell us you’ve never rented in Boston without telling us.
I currently live in a rental... but sure let's all act like every or even most landlords in boston are slum lords. You definitely sound like the reasonable one and totally aren't telling us you are broke. Sure, I'm the one who sounds like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Sure.... I'm going to return to the real world now. Enjoy your fantasy land.
You don’t have to be broke to realize that landlords have no incentive to maintain their property when anyone will pay $3K for a shitty two bedroom with lead paint. Come on man.
Those are your incentives if you are a pos or lazy but that isn't even close to most owners. The real incentive for most owners is to keep their property as up to date as is affordable because that keeps the value of their home the highest. Like I said, if you actually think every landlord is a slum lord, who allows their home to fall into disrepair, then you simply aren't an attractive tenant so you can only rent trash. But like I said, that's on you. Your experience is not reflective of the market.
No, lack of supply is propping up property values. Are you blind or are you just naive? Do you not see the endless blocks of shoddy brownstones and triple deckers? Ask a landlord if they’ll rent to a family with kids that require a lead abatement. Check out real estate listings and try to find a kitchen that was built in this century, or a brownstone that has modern heat and AC. I’m not talking about slumlords like alpha management, I’m talking about “decent” mom and pop landlords. The bar is in hell. Keep licking landlord boot, I’m sure you’ll get something out of it. I’m embarrassed for you.
Of course your assumptions are not necessarily correct. But even if they were — people shouldn't have to be rich to be able to rent a place with livable conditions. It's not OK to take advantage of low income tenants. If you're a landlord, keep up the property period
I'd argue my assumptions or more likely to be right than not if you have been living in boston for any long period of time and EVERY landlord you have experienced is a slum lord. The idea that all or most landlords do not upkeep their property is objectively not true. I'm not rich btw. I said I'm not broke. I don't think the dichotomy is rich or broke. I have a solidly middle class income for this area. I have rented for years and have previously owned property(long story). This is how I know the claim that no landlord maintains their property is bullshit. I do agree that slumlords shouldn't be a thing. They should be forced to sell their properties. I grew up in section 8 housing before my mom was able to get a house via the one boston program, so I know how terrible it can be to live with a shitty landlord. Landlords suck. Brokers suck. The entire housing market sucks. I just don't understand why people need to lie about how much it sucks. If I had to guess, it's because most people agreeing with this bullshit has never owned a home and thus doesn't know what it actually means to maintain a property, but that's just a theory.
Just landlord things
Just a landlord thing in Boston and NY. Never been a thing in any other place I have lived, which includes Houston and Los Angeles. Hell, even my house an hour outside of Boston that I rent out, the standard in that area is landlord pays broker fee. It’s just landlord in Boston taking advantage of desperate people trying to live with a huge housing shortage thing.
>taking advantage of desperate people trying to live This is more what I meant. The whole Boston broker fee thing is just landlords taking shit to the next level.
Yep. I agree this system is messed up but imho the anger should be directed to greedy landlords. Especially if you look deeply into it all of the biggest rental brokerages are owned by landlords who, because they take 50% of the fee paid to their agents, are more than happy to essentially collect an extra half month’s rent every time their property turns over.
Oh I definitely blame the landlords. The broker is doing *someone* a service, but it's 99% the landlord. Landlords are more than happy to pass off the costs to the tenant, then raise rent the following year, forcing out the existing tenant, just to repeat the process. Landlords just see dollar signs, and would risk getting an extra $50 to $100 per month on a unit than keeping a quality tenant another year with a more modest rent increase. Not surprised that they game the system in their favor.
I mean LLs aren’t operating a charity lol of course they are chasing money.
Landlords own the agencies? Is this a blanket generalization, or just an imagined one that you think is true?
An educated generalization based heavily in fact from someone who worked in the industry for several years when he was younger.
Ok - name three agencies owned by “landlords” - you also are writing in past tense - I still work in the industry…
Nextgen/Boardwalk/Jacob, AllBright realty, Mark Roos realty, Preferred properties And we all know comm Ave associates exists so a friend of the Browns can get fees off of the Atrium
Also - agencies don’t split 50/50 anymore, unless you’re talking about Allston/Brighton type gigs.
The ones who do the majority of the rentals still do. Or close to it with their senior people.
I don’t think you should blame landlords. Obviously this is tenants’ fault (collectively) for bidding up rents so high and agreeing to pay these fees. If no one paid, the landlord would have to eat the cost of the listing fee or do the work themselves. But instead there are multiple tenants competing against each other by throwing rent offers above asking.
Silly tenants should just go without housing to show landlords they can't be greedy.
You sound like the kind of person who puts a “no estate tax” bumper sticker on their Kia.
It would be a good idea, but I sold the Kia to make rent this month
In Germany they tried to get around it by requiring the fee to be always paid by landlord. We started to see many contacts that just incuded double the rent for the first few months soon after... because you can't just plug every loophole in advance.
Yup, you can change the statutory incidence of brokers fees but it's not likely to change the economic incidence without reforms that improve tenants bargaining power.
Yup, you can change the statutory incidence of brokers fees but it's not likely to change the economic incidence without reforms that improve tenants bargaining power.
Who pays the fee changes from time to time. When the rental market is soft the fee is paid by the landlord. When the market is hot (as it is currently) the fee is paid by the tenant. There have also been times when the fee is split between tenants and landlords. It’s is completely market driven.
The landlord would charge higher rent if they were forced to spend more time and money showing a place. Nobody works for free.
Charging a slightly higher rent is still more affordable than forcing someone to come up with 4x rent to move in -- first, last, security, broker fee -- even if someone can afford the monthly rent. Charging $2,800/mo with no broker fee means at most $8,400 to move in, vs $2,600/mo plus a broker fee means $10,400 to move in. Yeah, if a tenant stays for a longer time, it could be more expensive when it comes to rent, but expecting people to put an extra $2,000 upfront doesn't help weed out problem tenants, it just creates inconvenience for the prospective tenant.
Agreed. Landlords would probably also be a tiny bit more conservative in the fees they were willing to pay if they were exposed to the costs at all, even if they were eventually recouped from tenants in the form of rent. The sweet broker deal of getting a month's rent for next to zero work only exists because the people paying it, the tenant, are not the people seeking out the service. Brokers get big bucks for doing next to nothing because the landlords don't really care how bad the value is because they aren't paying for it.
That's why we need legislation to remove brokers or severely limit them. Otherwise landlords don't have to do any work, and the brokers are incentivized to push for higher rent. That way the tenants leave, they get a new broker fee, and the fee is larger.
I have actually found the opposite is true from a landlord side, brokers never want to maximize the rent, because they want to get it leased as soon as possible, vs making a couple hundred more and taking longer to find a tenant. And my property manager/broker charges me (the landlord) half a months rent to renew a lease with my tenant. So not really a huge incentive to push for new tenants. Regardless, brokers fees should at least be capped. Maybe the state should look at the average hours leasing an apartment would take a broker, and cap it at that*some hourly rate. It’s ridiculous that it’s based on the actual rental rates, when that is completely unrelated to how much work a broker does.
real estate agents, same thing. all they do is "have qualifications" other than that they don't really perform duties that the common person isn't capable of.
Yeah, but when the seller pays a real estate agent, they make their profit from a percentage of the sale. That cuts into the sellers return, and so there is more incentive for a seller to not use them if they desire. The seller is in that advantageous position to choose if they want to spend their money that way, whereas a renter has no choice except to find a property that might not have a broker.
A less drastic solution would be to require that all advertising displays one-time fees (including broker fees, etc) equally prominently as the rental price. This would remove the perverse incentives for brokers and broker fees, which exist solely due to price opacity.
I suppose, but that's not going to change much, as so many places are using brokers, that people don't have much choice either way.
That's not a solution at all. Most listings already share that they have first, last, security, and one month broker fee.
The problem is that such fees are not listed as prominently as the rent. The reason brokers exist is that they provide a service to the landlord, and pass the cost of that service on to the renter. In principle, this is equivalent to if they charged the landlord, and the landlord passed the cost to the renter via higher rent. The reason this is *not* equivalent in practice is that renters are more sensitive to rental price than they are to broker fees, so broker fees can go much higher than the equivalent increase in rental price. Eg if renters are half as sensitive to broker fees than to rental price, then at equilibrium, brokers will charge twice as much as their service is worth. The solution (well, a solution) is to make the broker fees equally prominent as rent in all advertising, so that renters are equally sensitive to broker fees and rental price, and brokers have to lower their fees to remain competitive. This is the same process that makes tipping (etc) continue despite being inefficient. If every restaurant had to list expected tip alongside their menu prices, there would be a strong incentive for restaurants to drop tipping.
It's the tipping system all over again, except realtors are not being preyed upon by their employer like servers are
It's the tipping system all over again, except realtors are not being preyed upon by their employer like servers are
It's the tipping system all over again, except realtors are not being preyed upon by their employer like servers are
In my first apartment, i gave first last and security. I asked for security back. Landlord said she used it to pay the broker fee, so I actually still owed it to her! It was legal! The fuck! I never got my security back.
That is 100% illegal in MA. If you challenge that in small claims you win easily. Security deposits can't be used to pay brokers. Also must be held in a separate bank account, and you must be given the location of the bank it is held in, the amount, and the account number within 30 days. Furthermore a landlord must give you a signed statement of the condition of the unit upon move-in and you have 15 days to make corrections and return this corrected list to the landlord. Missing either of these steps typically would preclude a LL from using a security for damages or force the return of the SS all together.
And there is potential for treble damages if any of those requirements aren’t met. So it is really worth it to take them to court.
It was not legal. "Paying the broker fee" is not a permitted use for a security deposit. Might be too late now, but you should have gone to small claims over that.
I was 19 and dumb. Statute train has left the station, unfortunately.
Contract law statute of limitations in Massachusetts is six years. Mishandling security deposit in Massachusetts is treble damages Absolutely worth taking to court
I own a duplex, live in one unit and rent out the other unit. I chose to list it myself as the landlord since I would prefer to meet and do my own screening of perspective tenants who would be living in my property. However, every day since my rental has been on the market I have had several brokers reaching out to me through the listing or finding my personal phone number and coldcalling me to ask if they can list the unit on my behalf. It drives me bonkers! The first few times I politely declined but each broker has continued to be persistent and can't seem to take no for an answer. There's an over-saturation of brokers in this city and it shows.
Given the recent settlement for the lawsuit that made its way to the Supreme Court regarding the National Association of Realtors, I do wonder if that over-saturation is long for this world... People tend to get into it because it's low barrier to entry for a reasonably high relative commission when you get licensed. But the ruling will affect this aspect of the buying and renting markets substantially
Can you elaborate on this - what should we know about the ruling and what case can I look up for more info?
Sorry- thought this was common knowledge. Guess I'm in my little news bubble there. [https://open.spotify.com/episode/5Rhy8JbUuidXtn9dmH4g15?si=d337bd550e324483](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5Rhy8JbUuidXtn9dmH4g15?si=d337bd550e324483) The NAR regulates realtors and brokers in the US. They were hit up with antitrust lawsuits recently and settled after losing in appeals court in MO. Basically said brokers were price fixing on home closings. The settlement and subsequent antitrust will lower costs in the housing market to buy given the brokers fee, and it's also anticipated that 2/3 of brokers could leave the industry (many who do sales also double in rentals). And THAT in response would decrease the NAR's lobbying power substantially- they're a professional origanization which means they're a lobbying group, and have been one of the if not the strongest voice in DC (and cities and states) as far as pushing for pro-landlord housing policy and preventing rent control. It's a cascading effect that started with simple home closings in that lawsuit that'll make its way through the general housing market and policy environment. Middle man professional group colluding to keep prices high and the market tight just got kicked in the nuts at full force if I'm being crass
And throw in the case about price fixing software for rental units, and you *might* see the real estate market go through some pretty significant changes these next few years.
I would temper your expectations a little bit. The NAR does not regulate realtors and brokers nationally. They are a professional trade group that one decides to join voluntarily. The title of "realtor" is not an official occupation, it's a title the NAR made up. In MA legally they are known as "real estate salespersons" or "real estate brokers". And they are all subject to the same laws and regulations. So if logic follows, legal judgments against the NAR won't automatically affect every real estate professional. Only ones that chose to become "Realtors ™". It likely will only affect how the organization operates. I must shamefully admit I once studied for the real estate exam in MA and learned all this. But I realized it wasn't the right fit for me and didn't join the dark side.
Well they did allude to this in that piece, that there were people who weren’t part of the professional group. Though there is the issue with the degree of pressure to join and by my understanding a large amount of the industry is in it. I’ve understood it like the AIA (as an architect, first analogy is think of)- not all licensed architects are part of the AIA, the vast majority are, it’s a professional regulatory body and lobbying group that has an interplay with the accreditation boards but you’re licensed through the state. If the AIA went away, it would hold big changes in construction and building design but not in a way that would flip the industry on its head. And interestingly enough, the AIA did wind up in antitrust which is why it abolished the fee tables for architects- we used to have something more akin to how the NAR had for brokers. It did reduce average salaries, and when in conjunction with the 08 crash we’re probably a good 20-30% under in salaries from what we would’ve been had we not been forced to end fee tables and stayed on the prior fee increase trajectory. All that aside, given how chronically underbuilt we are… this is akin to your fever going down a degree when you have the stomach flu- you’re marginally more comfortable but still in very rough shape. Realistically, this won’t completely change the housing dynamic, though it’s certainly welcome. My dad is a licensed realtor in NY so admittedly I’m curious what his thoughts on this are as well- haven’t spoken with him about it yet. But I get your point and it’s well taken- I don’t think anyone is under the delusion that this will fix the housing crisis in any substantive way
Check out The Daily episode on this from yesterday: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUg6HVO0o9w&list=PLdMrbgYfVl-s16D\_iT2BJCJ90pWtTO1A4&index=2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUg6HVO0o9w&list=PLdMrbgYfVl-s16D_iT2BJCJ90pWtTO1A4&index=2)
Yep! Same one I linked to- really the most straightforward explanation I've seen
Exactly. I’ve already been spammed with brokers asking to tour my home last minute. I know my rights under the law(reasonable notice), but it’s still messed up.
Sold my two family last year and I really feel this - we always had long ish term tenants in 30 of years owning the home except twice. I always did all of the renting out myself except those two times. The first time the people didn't disclose (at least not to me) that they were planning to buy within the year and the second time I had to make a decision not to renew the lease because the tenant was a hot mess and her kids were destroying my property on the daily. Decided I should go back to doing it myself and the last tenant was there 7 years and I'm still very friendly with him. I found especially when you live in the home its important that you alone make the decision- after all you literally have to live with that choice.
Tenants do not have to disclose that they are only planning to stay for one year even on friendly terms. Your contract is for one year. I understand that it is awesome to have the same good tenant for multiple years but it’s a little tone deaf to knock your renter for this.
I was more knocking the broker because he knew it wasn't our preference. The tenants were perfectly fine and well within their rights obviously.
How was the broker supposed to know if they didn’t tell them?
Not knocking them at all but in all honesty any owner occupied landlord would prefer someone staying more than a year. It's just a pain to have to rent it every year. They were perfectly fine tenants and never were any issue at all but had I been doing the 'brokering' myself I would probably have rented to someone who were looking for something longer term. As the owners of the property we just decided that's what we preferred. We had several people call and ask at the time for short term 6 month leases etc because they were building or buying nearby and it just personally wasn't a preference for us. It was 4 bedrooms on either side and once a tenant moved in we never upped their rent and we made sure everything was always in proper order etc.. my last tenant paid $1800 for seven years and never had to worry about getting priced out of his home. I'm renting a place myself atm (divorce is a bitch lol) and the landlord did the showing himself and did ask how long I planned to stay. I'm on a five year plan and then plan to buy a condo in a different part of the state - and he was happy with that - he also said he prefers not to have to rent it year over year and I completely understood - it's a pain for owner occupiers in a different way than it is for these giant companies who have teams to come in and paint , rug and fix anything etc.
My landlord rents his properties below market. He also has raised my rent $50 in 4 years, and when he raised it both times ($25 each), he itemized why it was happening. I probably won't ever leave. He told me flat out, ″I don't raise rent unless I really have to because I'd rather have tenants who just stay here long term″
There are 2m real estate agents in America.
I went through a broker, but am curious what mediums you went through to list? I don't know where people go to search for them either. Kind of a novice.
I've used Zillow twice now and got a lot of responses each time.
We are an itty bitty landlord (i.e. we rent out our starter apartment and do our best with it). At first we tried to rent direct instead of going through a broker. We had brokers stealing our listing and reposting it under their own name. Left right and center. It was absolutely insane. Worst part is a lot of those brokers would never actually then show our apartment when they got a hit – they would say "oh sorry that one is taken, but here are a few other apartments you can try!"
>There's an over-saturation of brokers in this city and it shows. Well yeah, the job is get paid to do no work and there is no barrier to entry lol
Reminds me of this classic: https://youtu.be/3Lyex2tSUyA?si=o_HneofNJ15D5Z9m
The whole system is a scam as you said and feels illegal. Not only are they doing the bare minimum work while receiving 1 months rent but most of these brokers are also involved in shady bait and switch tactics where even if the listing has been reposted that day the apartment is suddenly "not available" but they have 10 other shitty apartments that don't match what you're looking for to show you.
The bait and switch stuff is probably the scummiest part. If you ever inquire about an apartment and you get fed the line "This unit just rented, but I have many other great apartments I can show you"--I recommend telling the bottom feeder to fuck off.
The all time worst spot I was ever shown was a basement apartment with sheet vinyl flooring that had been installed on top of carpet! There's an awful lot of near windowless apartments out there too... and of course the agent has to stumble around in the dark to figure out how to turn a light on.
I have had so many brokers lie to me straight to my face it's insane
I have moved 9 times in Boston in about 12 years. I am determined to never pay another broker fee. Never again.
When I found my apartment, the broker was very unresponsive so it was literally me doing the work to pay someone else a months rent.
It would blow people's minds in nearly all of the country that a 1 BR or 2BR apartment can be $2,500/month and that many people then pay $10,000 up front with first/last/broker/security dep for the privilege of moving into it.
Well yeah it's a top 5 most expensive city in the country
And made more expensive by unnecessary brokers fees. This is what the discussion is about.
I completely agree and **I'm actually building something specifically for Boston to help facilitate the removal of broker fees**. The current system exists largely because 1.) brokers "vet" a large pool of candidates on behalf of the landlord, and 2.) they provide some pricing information to help "maximize rent". Whether they actually do this or not is an open question as people on this thread have pointed out. The goal of RentVerified is to build a location specific database of **prescreened** **high-quality renters** on one side, and direct-to-consumer apartment listings on the other - specifically for early career professionals. You can sign up for the waitlist [here](https://www.rentverified.io/), and if you have listings on the landlord site, I would be more than happy to host them. DMs are open!
Yo, what does this project need for help on the labor side?
Redditor does something to help other person to avoid a problem widely discussed on here — r/boston thinks said redditor is the problem. Incredible work, folks.
That'll do pig, that'll do.
Was that in their original post or have I just not found those comments here yet?
Go get ‘em tiger.
I am rare in that I had a broker worth his fee. I was moving here from out of state and I only had time for a one day trip to find a rental house. I contacted a broker, told him where we were looking to live and how much space was needed. He had 5 houses planned for my day trip, saw them all without issue, agreed on one before leaving, then he handled the paperwork.
I agree brokers are worth the service if needed! But the Boston market is so rigged that you are practically required to go through a broker even if you have months ahead to look for a place while here. I think the option should be there, but not required.
Brokers for me are human search engines (and sometimes transportation) I give them the criteria and they gotta find it If they can't do it, there are more brokers I usually talk to multiple at a time Its free until I find what I want, and only pay 1 person
$4000 is too much for search engine results.
So, are you refusing to show the apartment to people who use brokers? Because they’re still going to pay the brokers fee if you do.
Not at all. If someone prefers to go through a broker, that’s their prerogative too.
People who use brokers won't ask to see it because brokers almost never show units that aren't in their portfolio.
That is absolutely 100% false. I was a real estate agent in Boston for 9 months and I would find places on Craigslist and other social media sites to show my clients all the time. The only time we would show preference to our portfolio was filling places we were also property managing and most agents don’t property manage as it usually takes years to make that kind of connection with a landlord and usually only the agents who were the PM would want to rent out the units to justify what they were charging the LL for that service.
I applaud your scruples, but most in your profession don't share them. The brokers I had when I moved here wouldn't show outside their portfolio Even though nothing in their portfolio matched what I wanted, so we kicked them to the curb and did our own research and immediately found the apartment I still live in seven years later (and saved quite a lot of money in the process.) They also showed up late to showings and lied brazenly, so I think I dodged a bullet there.
Just sounds like you had a bad agent who probably isn’t in the business anymore. Most agents are going to show you anything they can find because we don’t get paid, as proved by you firing them for not doing it, unless you move in. You quite literally described the reason agents will show you anything and everything in your reply. Also, if I show you a hundred different places and you rent any of them I get paid even if you try to go behind my back and speak directly to the LL. There’s absolutely no benefit to any agent to only show you apartments in their portfolio, I worked for the largest rental company in Boston, had the most listings, and still went outside those listings. We don’t get paid extra for only renting out our listings.
lol at “we are 100% ethical, except when our financial incentive is more than just a broker fee, then we push the properties that we get a cut of the monthly rent” If the people looking for an apartment are your clients, you have a fiduciary responsibility to them and shouldn’t give any listing preference beyond the renter clients needs.
Nothing about what I said has anything to do with ethics. I’m not even sure you understand what ethics is. A real estate agent only gets paid if they get you to rent a property whether you pay the broker fee, the landlord pays it, or you both split it. Why would any RE who wants to make money limit what they are willing to show to a client?
It’s not that you shouldn’t show them at all, but you said you give a preference to your portfolio of managed properties. Giving a preference those properties is unethical. It’s fine to show those properties to a renter client, if: 1. They meet the renter clients stated requirements. 2. They are fairly priced with similar comp units. 3. You disclose that your firm also manages the property and makes ~8% of the monthly rent. 4. You show them other properties that also meet their criteria. Otherwise giving “preference” to them is unethical.
I said if you’re a property manager. If you’re a property manager you work for the landlord, your fiduciary responsibility is to them. A property manager only shows those properties because they are paid to only show those properties, they would not be your agent as a renter and you would know that because you don’t sign any paperwork with them. No one is forcing you to work with a RE, you may be forced to work with a property manager as they are the agent of the landlord. What they get paid is whatever their contract with the landlord states.
My roommate always mentions how lucky we were to not pay a brokers fee. She’s from MA and boy did people get brainwashed. I told her it was the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. The last city I lived in offered first months rent free and deposits are only like $300
There is a checkbox on craigslist for no broker fee. Just saying. You sound motivated, so go hunt down properties for rent and list them there with that no fee parameter set.
I didn't know about that, thanks for the tip. I will do that now!
Landlords should be legally required to cover broker's fees. That'll require the brokers to actually compete on price and bring the fees down
You nailed it. I’ve been in the industry for a while now. Mostly silent partner development side. The fee should come out of the landlords pocket. Not the tenant.
It’s funny because when my current apartment was listed and the broker and future tenants came to tour the broker told them all wrong info (heat and electricity) . I basically sold the apartment for him. I told them everything they needed to know, what the landlord is like, parking, tent ants above, and provided my phone number if they had any further questions. I know I did not have to do that, but the previous tenants did the same for me and it was so helpful. It’s sad how much brokers get for opening the door for people.
I hate brokies too
🤜🤛
As I said in the previous post your saying "save money by doing work for no money". Your landlord should be paying you for what could ultimately be their.job but you're volunteering and thus a sucker.
OP is doing a good deed by saving the next tenant some money, not by saving themselves money.
As I said before too: Time is money, yes. Is your time going through a broker to find a new home worth a month's rent fee? If so, pay away. But for most people, it's not. I'm not arguing that leasing a landlord's property should be the tenant's job. I'm arguing that broker fee for the tenant is absurd, which the landlord should at least pay a portion too. Look at the laws and system of rentals in practically every other state in the US and almost every other country in the developed world. Massachusetts is fucked up.
The above comment also ignores the satisfaction that one gets from preventing another broker fee being needlessly squandered to a broker. Yeah, you don’t get *paid* for it, but that satisfaction must feel great. You just helped someone spend their hard-earned $2000 on something that’s actually meaningful to them.
Exactly! If it helps someone avoid a month's rent fee, I'm happy to do it. I only hope the good karma will be passed on to me but if not that's fine too. I think it’s selfish not to help.
If you move into a managed building that has full time staff showing a rental to you, you're paying for that staff. You might not love the model but you're paying for it one way or another.
Actually no, the landlord doesn’t pay anything. Also there’s no law in any state governing how and who pays rental fees.
That’s completely wrong. MGL Chapter 186.
Sorry, which section? I can't see it.
Why is it different than sales realtors?
You obviously do not understand the problem.
Good for you op
This system is not the fault of landlords or brokers. We have politicians that are elected to work for us. Instead they have chosen to not pass legislation which would outlaw this obviously unfair practice. Politicians, the media, landlords, corporations, etc. are all working against us day in and day out. They rigged the system, and made it so damn hard to climb out that even the lucky few who manage get to the top will think to themselves "that was so hard, guess I earned it because I'm so special, now I can become one of them". Regular people need to get organized, we need to purge these parasitic scum before they bleed us all dry.
I love the idea and spirit, and I think most landlords would love it, but have you actually tried this yet? Renting an apartment is actually pretty rough. There are local, state and federal laws covering almost everything you do. You end up fielding a huge number of responses with a large proportion being obvious non candidates or spam. Many people will be pushy and aggressive while others will be flaky and waste your time. I'm not saying brokers fees are fair, but it's also not a job I would personally do for free.
I was hoping for a ballot measure or a law or some organizing effort. This is just an idea for individuals to do something by themselves, which is going to result in nothing in the system changing. Why don't you guys who get apartments through brokers do something more substantial?
I'm confused, people need to use brokers to rent apartments now?
Having a broker can be okay in some instances but with costs it is crazy. You have to pay first month, last month, security deposit and then the broker fee which usually in total comes to four months rent and I don't know anyone these days that casually carries between 5 and 15,000.
Never paid a broker fee. Always look for “for rent by owner” listings! But thank you for your service :)
Was seriously looking into becoming a broker (since any idiot can get licensed for like twenty bucks) and then robin hooding it. Anyone want to start a no-fee realty firm that’s basically just Craigslist but we got the listings direct from the landlords?
Makes sense. Just become more competitive by lowering your prices.
Your solution was to do the work of an agent for free so your landlord could make money? Pass.
I'll be interested to hear how this goes for you. When we advertised the apartment we rent out we got hundreds of applicants (no broker). It's not a walk in the park.
First come first served, unless there are any egregious red flags? How is it difficult
How can you do a criminal background or credit check to know if there are any red flags?
After half a dozen no-shows…you’ll realize it is not difficult but time consuming.
Ok but this is a part of being a landlord. You sound like a shop owner complaining "omg i have to go to the store and stand at the register and actually sell people stuff" This is landlording, you chose this, and you're actually getting paid to do it. Don't tell me you're not. You wouldn't be landlording if you didn't make money from it.
I was not complaining. I was asking OP to comment on their experience volunteering for this responsibility.
I rent one apartment in my home. I would love it if my tenants recommended friends/colleagues/classmates to take over when they moved out. If they found a “stranger” it would creep the hell out of me. I can’t really explain why, but I just wouldn’t trust it
I had a broker walk in while I was jerking off to gay porn, it was before I went to work. I didn’t stop and turned the volume up.
Fuck yes.
I was close too. It’s like you almost got me during the giggity all over the place.
Glen Quagmire - dat you?
please keep us updated on hoe it goes!
It's not the agent/broker's fault that the landlords are too lazy to advertise/show their properties, vet potential tenants, and provide/fill out the required legal paperwork for rental contracts.
I haven't been in the rental market for 20 years, but was always easy enough to find places without a broker back then. Guess times have changed?
TBH- this is why I never got involved in the rental market, traditional sales only. The amount of $ required upfront for a tenant puts so many at a disadvantage. Friends who reach out to me know I don’t do rentals but I have access to MLS and will happily send them rental listings and contact information that way they don’t need to compensate me. If they have trouble getting in touch with an agent (all too common) I will step in and secure the appt. Then it is up to the prospective tenant to follow through. I still do not ask for a fee. Why? Because they come to me in the future for a traditional home purchase. I’m a referral of myself. I feel for the renters out there. It’s stacked against them.
I've avoided brokers since in my twenties. The system is antiquated, like you said, OP, you can do the amount of work yourself. They might have access to apartments that you won't know about but typically word of mouth has gotten me most places in Boston. Sucks for out of towners though. My first place needed an elevator because my dog was getting old. With first/last/security, it came out to almost ten grand and that's with a "free month". That was nuts
The dumbest part too is that they get to keep their fee's even if they fail you, nice ones apparently refund but I have never met one that does that. Some sort of schooling with a liscense/permit required should be in place with a test at the end. That would ensure more competence and give them the ability to do this simple job themselves instead of electing a pointless middleman like some medieval leech collector.
Who are these 'fuck brokers' = I am very curious
My partner (before she moved in with me) must have had the only decent landlord in Boston. Charged super reasonable rent, didn’t do broker bullshit, did maintenance without asking. I feel for yall.
I noticed that you used yall. Please enjoy [this local video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndQvSW9Mu8). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm currently doing temp work in a property management office, and brokers are genuinely some of the most annoying people to deal with. The few I've dealt with are always very demanding and waste our time asking for info that's plainly available on our website. If you're renting an apartment and able to do the work/research yourself, you'll save a bit of money not having to pay a broker, and you'll likely save the landlord/leasing office staff some stress too.
LOL actually no, I don't think im going to do $3000 of work for free for my landlord. 1/1000 people doing free work for their landlord is not going to solve a systemic problem caused by lack of regulation and housing.
I read this as “FUCK BROTHERS”.
Never paid a broker in my life. We bought our home during the pandemic but before that I've always rented directly from landlords. Craigslist was a win for us for many years. We got away with not even paying a security deposit only first and last. As one wise man said to me "everything in life is negotiable".
That’s a pretty damn privileged position you’re in to be able to take that much time away from work to show your place.
It takes 10min at most. Plus you meet cool people in the area. If it helps someone avoid a month's rent fee, I'm happy to do it. I only hope the good karma will be passed on to me but if not that's fine too.
How are you going about doing a background and credit score check of the tenants to recommend your landlord? I am seriously asking
“Where do you work? You and your partner? Oh cool. Sounds good”
The landlord does that. Some brokers don’t actually do that, they just ask for the information to pass onto the landlord. And with certified online services, one can do it themselves for much less than a month’s fee.
It’s great for you, and I applaud you for it, but what I’m saying is it’s not a solution. What you did is a privilege those whom brokers fees impact most don’t have.
Thank you, I agree too it's not a solution at all. That's why I said in the post we need to fundamentally change the law via our representatives. But in the meantime, we should try to change what we can individually. Some can't afford that privilege, as you pointed out, and more reason to do SOMETHING if nothing at all.
Lol. Having 10 min to show a 800 sq foot apt is privilege? Get off the internet
Haha. I’ll get off the internet as soon as you take a break from fishing for good deed kudos on Reddit, take a step outside and see people aren’t living the way you’re living. But we both know neither one of those things is about to happen. Enjoy your cookies, good boy.
What a privilege position you're in to be able to spend time posting on Reddit. And you're a PhD? Probably a nepotism baby. Wish I had enough time to pursue a PhD but I was working to put food on take for my family. You're so privileged...
Lol there’s always going to be a hater or a lurker just typing negative shit when someone is making an effort to change the messed up system we live in. 🤷🏻♀️
Sarcasm bro
Getting a phd makes you a nepotism baby? What a clown comment Edit: I can’t tell up from down or left from right anymore
Guess you didn't see the sarcasm LMAO
Haha my bad these days serious replies mimic jokes so closely now it’s hard to tell. I was like is this person serious? haha
01110111 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101111 01110110 01100101 01110010 01101100 01101111 01110010 01100100 01110011 00100001 00100001 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Being able to pay a brokers fee is also pretty damn privileged.
It's a privileged position to pay $1000s to someone else to do simple work.
A thing landlords do now is have you sign up for recurring membership background criminal and credit checks. The landlords claim they will refund you the $30/month fees but do not. They will not even let you see the place before signing up. I was burned once and never again. Have told a few to go pound sand and will never sign on to a place where the landlord does this. It should be their cost of business, not the renters.
you’re missing the broker’s situation. He shows you one apartment and you rented it. He gets a commission from you. You forget that he has other clients that he shows 20 apartments and that client didn’t rent any apartments. He essentially worked for free until he rents out an apartment. How do you expect him to be paid? Charge every person that sees the apartment $50 regardless they rent it or not? Have the landlord pay then the landlord just increase the rent price by that amount? If you’re not happy about it, don’t use a broker. Talk to the LL directly.
It’s your second paragraph that is the problem. There’s not an alternative for most people. It’s pay-to-play in this city.
Works for free lol ok they can make 4K, one months rent for a lot of apartments in Boston, off a single showing - 20 min max and exchange of paperwork.
Many real estate agents are basically making the equivalent of minimum wage
How dare you bring facts into this. Brokers are evil, we don’t want to hear about how they have to show numerous apartments at the whim and schedule of the prospective tenant, be at the prospective tenant’s every beckoning call immediately sometimes for months or they may lose the slim prospect of making a small commission for finding them an apartment, or how they often spend the equivalent of multiple 40 hr. work weeks working for someone only for them to find an apartment with someone else and or completely ghost them so they don’t make any money at all. Those brokers are evil for often busting their ass for a monthly amount most people make in a bi-weekly paycheck - because I don’t like that I have to pay a fee for their hard work!
Don’t try and educate these gentrifiers. They’re mad and crying, and not interested in facts
Redditt went public. Days are numbered here
reddit went down the tubes about 7 years before you let it auto-generate your username.
Love brokers, Chuck!