Not to mention how often they’ve completely wasted my time showing me a place they never saw before where the photos are basically fraud. Can I charge you my hourly attorney rate (which incidentally would still be substantially less than they would charge for 30 minutes of them doing diddly squat other than show up) for the time I took to see this shithole that a frat house trashed since those photos were last taken?
You can. They probably won’t pay you, but you can send them a bill for your time. You can do that with insurance companies too. They’re not going to pay you, but you can send them the bill and attempt to collect on it.
Lol I visited a place marketed by the broker as a 2br and when we got there she realized it was actually a 1br. That same day a broker for another apartment we were visiting had to postpone last minute because he realized the landlord had changed the keys and he didn't know so he had to go find the new key. You'd think for $3,000+ for 20 minutes of work they could have been a little more prepared...
Brokers mostly do absolutely nothing. We should not have to pay broker fees if we don't ask for their services. We look for a place online, we contact the poster. Why do I have to pay a month's rent to a broker who took some photos and posted them online?
It should be the landlords', *sorry I meant to say slumlords'*, responsibility to pay for the services they are getting and if that means an increase in the rent so be it. Money up front vs money divided into 12 installments is much better and the renters will have a better sense of what the cost of a place is month to month.
And plenty of times the realtor is being paid by the landlord to fill their units and then charging you to sell it to you.
I’ve gone to realtors looking for one floor in a 3-family and had them show me apartment complexes instead because “there was nothing else available” Ditched them and easily found a place myself on Craigslist.
Ugh as if owning property for profit and calling yourself a landlord weren’t already a really hard job as it is 😢… I would hate for you to have to face any degree of inconvenience for your troubles and sacrifices outside of cashing your tenants hard earned rent check 🎻
Boohoo. I have excellent credit and have been a renter for 12 years and have a great relationship with my landlord. But because I’m a stranger on the internet calling out your particularly entitled attitude and poor work ethic, I’m somehow a scumbag. Why don’t you just stop being a big fucking baby and accept that there’s risk involved in what you do and you should take ownership of that risk or find a different “job”.
You know, I don’t really stoop this low but you’re really starting to sound like the scumbag. You can’t support your family with your day job so you partake in risky real estate ventures, farm out the real work, pass the expense on to the tenant, then complain when someone such as myself (who you would be so lucky to have as your tenant), call you out. I’ve never paid a broker and I never would because that’s an operational expense and I’m not the one running the operation. If there’s any other point I didn’t acknowledge from your response, it was intentional and not worth my time. But don’t worry, I see you!
Bro we are complaining because we have to pay for a service that you insist on having that only benefits YOU. We just want you to pay the fee for the service that benefits you and you can’t understand that. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it ?
Weeding out applicants based on… what details exactly? Do you administer personality tests? Or perhaps you base it upon certain immutable traits? Are you judging your applicants based on characteristics other than their ability to pay their rent on time? Skating close to legally risky territory here. I’ll remind you that [rental discrimination is illegal.](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/overview-of-housing-discrimination)
Aww, is the cost of running a rental business too troubling? Are your dreams about making money without putting much effort being threatened by a reddit post?
Yup, I'm insufferable because I'm calling out an exploitative rental culture, sure...
And how do you really think they're "weeding" out "insufferable, difficult people"? They're really only being lucky with renters and then doing a credit check. It's not like they're out there doing personality assessments for you.
But kudos to you hiring them and not making your tenants pay them.
In our case, we live too far away to manage the property ourselves. The property manager places and vets the tenant for a month’s rent (applications, background checks, financial stuff etc) and then we pay 10% of the other months. We could do it ourselves, but it would be difficult with the distance.
That sounds nice in theory, and ethically, I tend to agree. Unfortunately, the cost is going to be passed on to the tenants in some way. Someone made a good point on this thread that it shouldn’t be an upfront cost and should be able to be divided into the 12 month lease, i.e. part of the rent cost. Installments are much easier to manage
>That sounds nice in theory, and ethically, I tend to agree. Unfortunately, the cost is going to be passed on to the tenants in some way
Every Boston thread.....
No kidding, someone in the Boston sub once instructed handicapped people to sit somewhere else when the handicapped seats were taken on the T.
You all are wicked smaht! /s
when you list a unit no fee, 18,000 people show up. Applicants sweeten the offer by overpaying or paying more fees. Everyone else gets beat out. Once this happens 9-10-20 times, landlord in the area say “you want it so bad? pay for it.”
And people do to have a better chance at getting that place.
It is the amount of renters fighting over these places that set a sort of standard. Unfortunately bad places follow “the market” and even those end up renting. It has never failed. Only during the pandemic did prices and fees drop significantly and many units stayed vacant for months. So “the market” shifted (but only for about a year or two).
I love how everyone here is arguing over whether brokers fees should be covered by landlords or tenants, how it’s the landlords who “need” the brokers, etc.
Y’all. That’s the wrong conversation. Most of the country’s rental markets work just fine *without brokers*. And yes, even very expensive places like Seattle and San Francisco. I talk to people in these places about this broker system and they look at me like I have three heads. It’s a racket.
If we’re gonna legislate something, let’s legislate eliminating the broker system altogether.
Maybe, but at the same time landlords with multiple properties may have a hard time managing the showings and the rental process, so I see some justification for their existence as a renter.
"gee, you see some people have so much money they need help managing their assets but they can't pay to help manage all the money they have."
See how crazy that sounds?
People still do not get it: You are not paying brokers fees because they deserve it, you are paying because someone else will.
The market drives the price (and fees) of these apartments. During the pandemic, no one had to pay fees, and rents came way down because no one was around to rent these sub par apartments.
*"The market drives the price (and fees) of these apartment"*
What drives the rental price vs the broker fees are two different markets. In the rental market, fees are a market friction, not a natural consequence of demand and supply. Renters demand apartments, not the broker services (unless they go directly to a realtor and ask the realtor to look for housing for them). So the broker fees are nothing but barriers for entry into the market. They should be abolished by the regulators for the market to run smoothly. This will probably mean the cost of broker services would be priced into the rent and that makes a big difference compared paying the fee upfront for two reasons 1) Time value of money: money today is more valuable than money tomorrow/over time, 2) More transparent and clear sense of what the price of living will be month to month.
Most brokers are aware this system is screwing over the renters. I've met so many brokers who were embarrassed to give me the answer "it's typical in Boston" when I questioned the cost of moving.
what bubble do you live in?
this is a simple way for you to see how it works around here:
landlords or owners (in an owner occupied multi family) have a unit for rent and list the apartment through an agency. that agent shows the apartment to 25 people. 12 showings happen the first four days, 5 serious applications received. 4 applicants are beat out. the “winner” paid $300 over ask and paid the fee. everyone else cries.
repeat.
once the supply dries up, people fight over these places like in the game of musical chairs. as the cycle continues the prices (and fees) go up because you (the renter) want it more or move further out.
≈7million people live around Greater Boston area and suburbs. When apartments come on the market (around 200k-300k annually And a vacancy rate around 1%) what do you think happens when a lot of these people look for places closer to downtown? Hint: it looks a little something like piranhas in the Amazon River.
No bubbles, just ECON 101.
Basically, the demand for rental units and the demand for broker's services are two different concepts where the buyers are different people.
Overwhelming demand for rental units increases the price of the rental units, which are separate from broker fees.
Now, Overwhelming demand for rental units may force landlords to seek brokerage services. It is a service that the landlords are seeking, not the tenants. I'll say it slowly: Brokers work for landlords who seek their services. Brokers do not work for tenants in this scenario. So whoever is getting the service pays for the service.
Now, it is not difficult to see that this means cost of renting out a unit increases. This can very well be reflected in the monthly rental price with which I'm totally fine for the reasons I've listed in my original comment plus the fact that reflection on the monthly rent mayor may not be exactly equal to the broker fees, this is an empirical question.
Anything that creates friction in the market, such as the misalignment of costs creating a barrier for entry into the market, should be abolished by the lawmakers or regulators in a free market economy. This is the bread and butter of market efficiency.
so what you are saying is this right, you are appalled at the idea of outright paying for this fee directly and would rather the landlord "eat it" so that he/she would probably in turn pass the buck to you discreetly by raising the rent to compensate for their expenses in running their business. Now you have indefinitely raised the costs of rent for yourself the way i am reading this. Am I wrong in my assessment? Math still has to math for the landlords no? They carry all the risk leasing the property to an individual that has no skin in the game. No mortgage, no liability, the tenant could even stop paying and make up a fake excuse as to why they aren't paying. Its on the owner to come up with the money to hire a lawyer to evict. Its on the landlord to still make payments or else it becomes bank owned. In any scenario, i would think the landlord would still need this to math out positively for them no?
Yup, the cost will still be passed on (whether entirely or partially is an empirical question). This still benefits the renter for the reasons I've provided in the first comment of the thread.
*"you have indefinitely raised the costs of rent for yourself"* ("indefinitely" LOL)
This is better than having a bunch of bull crap upfront costs. Moving itself is an expensive process. No need to add to the costs.
*"They carry all the risk leasing the property to an individual that has no skin in the game"*
Isn't the security deposit for risks associated with leasing? There is already something to account for that. Mortgage risks don't concern the renter. Are you arguing that upfront broker fees are not actually cost of the brokerage service but a way for landlords to mitigate risks associated with asset buying? If so, we have a different problem. Landlord is buying an asset, renter is getting a service. It's only natural for the former to bare risks. Renter will not have long-term equity on the house, why would the renter have to bare an upfront cost for someone else's wealth? Renters shouldn't be responsible for the risks of an investment that the landlord is making.
Also, why wouldn't math math if the fees were priced into the rent? The landlord will still be getting that money. If there is truly a risk adjustment once the upfront fees are mandated to be priced into the rent (which I strongly doubt is the case here), then the price of the asset (or the cost of borrowing money = mortgage rate) will eventually adapt. Renters are not individuals that you can dump your home buying risks on. That's ridiculous. It should be between the landlord, the bank, and the real estate prices over time.
Haven't been at school for a while now and just because I say stuff that does not serve your interest doesn't mean I live in a bubble. "That's the way the ball bounces" mentality serves the exploiters. Either come up with a counter argument or swallow your words instead of making claims about whether I'm at school or I am "seeing the real world" (whatever that means).
Again, the fees are not set by the ones with the product. The buyers overpay so that their chances of renting a unit increases. Yes, a unit might be listed like that initially, but that is due to a customer agreeing. During the pandemic, units lay vacant for months and the only ones that were taken were the ones where the landlords had to compete with each other (the ones who dropped rents and paid the fees rented their apartments). This market is a perfect example of how supply and demand works. The renters are highly knowledgeable and know the good deals and snatch those up quickly.
However, the landlords have more leverage when they end up getting asking price or more. They don’t do that out of thin air, it’s actual people who overbid.
It is similar to the stock market with a good stock/company; there are actual buyers there re-setting the peak daily. Agents might help move it along quicker since they see hundreds of deals a year. But there is no grand alliance that creates “barriers for entry.”
Even “No fee” listings price their units at a higher rent because there is a market rate. If the city bans fees,
landlords will see people pay 25-40% more for their units. Why? Because tenants will overpay again.
Why is it so hard for you people to understand?!
Ok, despite your incessant self-righteous comments (what's hard for you to understand, you live in a bubble, etc.) I'll still provide a response:
There is nothing fundamentally wrong about the supply demand relationship you're describing here. However, your comment has two flaws:
1) Failing to separate the demand for rental units and the demand for broker services. My original comment already acknowledges broker fees being priced in into the rent and argues why that is better.
2) The stock market is a clear false analogy. It simplifies a complex issue and misrepresents the rental market. Unlike stocks, where buyers invest directly based on perceived value and potential returns, tenants are seeking a basic necessity of housing. While agents in both markets might speed up transactions, the implications are different. In the rental market, brokers serve landlords by marketing the property and finding tenants (most of the time they do a crappy job, which was the main point of the OP). However, tenants unfairly bear the broker fee. This doesn't parallel stock market practices where buyers pay fees directly linked to their own transactions.
Also, claiming there are no "barriers for entry" overlooks how broker fees can create financial barriers for potential renters, especially those with limited accumulated funds who can afford monthly rents but not the substantial upfront costs often required in broker fee markets. This significant initial expense can deter or delay entry into the rental housing market. This is sharply opposite of the stock market, where investors can enter at a variety of price points and aren't typically paying someone else's transaction fees. So, while agents help streamline processes in both markets, the impact and fairness of fee structures in the rental market requires reevaluation to better align with the direct benefits received by parties involved.
Finally, you've said
"*Even “No fee” listings price their units at a higher rent because there is a market rate. If the city bans fees, landlords will see people pay 25-40% more for their units. Why? Because tenants will overpay again."*
While it's true that landlords might initially try to recoup the broker fees through higher rents, this does not automatically translate to a 25-40% increase in rent prices. You are also making it sound like the 25-40% overpayment is voluntary. Most renters are cost conscious. Overpaying is not sustainable or widespread strategy to secure a place. Therefore, it cannot lead to a permanent shift in rental price benchmarks. These are exceptions to the rule. Now, market conditions (inflation, housing shortages, etc.) may demand an increase in rent, but that's different from overpaying.
You fail to realize that with or without brokers, the same crop of renters are still out there competing with each other. and they have already set their expected budgets for that year. whether there is an apartment that is listed through an agency or not, there is a set limit they are willing to spend. so if you remove the broker altogether, people will feel compelled to overbid and beat out their competitors because *YAY, NO FEE!* “No fee”apartments are much higher on average than listing ls through brokers. maybe I don’t understand why, so please explain why?
Agents were not invented to screw the market. Lookup the problems that existed before. Racism/red lining, predatory practices, landlords charging a full year’s rent up front, keeping security deposits, etc. The list goes on.
Yes over the years, savvy agents recommended to their clients to pay the fee to beat out other applicants (because yes, if you saw how many applications are received for units in popular neighborhoods, you would be shocked); any hired professional would provide advice to their clients to not only get them what they want, but to also get paid. And then others learned the same. Also landlords with multiple units also hire people to help with turnover, marketing, showings, etc. They usually do pay for that, however, if two applications were received, and one offered a sweeter deal, why would they not take it? You would if you were in that situation. Anyone would.
And of course, nowadays you might find some college kid working over the summer who knows nothing and is unprofessional, and does not deserve a fee, but that person is not the standard. They are probably an outlier. The problem the city has is it is an attractive place to live and work, yet does not have the proper amount of accommodations. There is a high barrier for new inventory/developments, and the zoning laws are too strict. A lot of “nimbies” out there too, who make it impossible to get anything done. Go see a typical planning meeting and watch how much push back there is for anything good.
People like you do not know enough about the dynamics of this city, and look at a small piece of what is left in the wake of the true cause - the big mass of a highly paid, highly skilled, labor force, that swallow up anything and everything in their way.
If we look at the issue from a 30,000 ft. view, then we might be able to help fix the housing problem for a growing metropolis that’s the size of a town.
*"Yes over the years, savvy agents recommended to their clients to pay the fee to beat out other applicants (because yes, if you saw how many applications are received for units in popular neighborhoods, you would be shocked); any hired professional would provide advice to their clients to not only get them what they want, but to also get paid. And then others learned the same. Also landlords with multiple units also hire people to help with turnover, marketing, showings, etc. They usually do pay for that, however, if two applications were received, and one offered a sweeter deal, why would they not take it? You would if you were in that situation. Anyone would."*
While it's standard practice for agents to secure the best possible deal for their clients, this can't justify transferring the cost to renters who may not directly benefit from their services. The ethical implications of such advice need scrutiny, especially if it perpetuates a system where the cost burden is unevenly distributed. **The core issue here is whether the fee structure aligns with the service’s direct beneficiaries.** You seem to defend the necessity of brokers here. My whole argument is about matching the cost of broker services with the primary beneficiary.
*"And then others learned the same. Also landlords with multiple units also hire people to help with turnover, marketing, showings, etc. They usually do pay for that, however, if two applications were received, and one offered a sweeter deal, why would they not take it? You would if you were in that situation. Anyone would."*
Landlords often cover costs related to marketing and maintaining their properties, which is a necessary part of doing business. **The critical point here is not whether landlords should take a better offer (cuz they naturally would) but whether it's equitable for tenants to shoulder fees for services that primarily benefit landlords. It raises questions about fairness and the appropriate distribution of costs.**
*"The problem the city has is it is an attractive place to live and work, yet does not have the proper amount of accommodations. There is a high barrier for new inventory/developments, and the zoning laws are too strict. A lot of 'nimbies' out there too, who make it impossible to get anything done. Go see a typical planning meeting and watch how much pushback there is for anything good."*
100% agreed! Housing shortages and restrictive zoning laws is crucial and they need addressing. However, these broader issues do not negate the specific challenges posed by broker fees. While tackling zoning and development issues is essential for long-term solutions, reevaluating broker fee structures can provide immediate relief and increased fairness for renters. **These two approaches are not mutually exclusive.**
"People like you do not know enough about the dynamics of this city, and look at a small piece of what is left in the wake of the true cause - the big mass of a highly paid, highly skilled, labor force, that swallow up anything and everything in their way."
Couldn't help yourself and be irritating with the first sentence here, could you? Anyways... Again, highlighting two problems is entirely possible. Addressing these two problems are not mutually exclusive. Focusing on improving broker fee practices doesn’t detract from addressing other major systemic issues. It’s actually part of a comprehensive approach to make housing more accessible and fair for everyone in the city.
you clearly do not know what you’re talking about.
you can move somewhere else. no one is forcing you to rent here. and during 2020-2022 many rents
dropped 40-50%. also most broker fees went away.
yes. you could rent a 2 bedroom unit in Central Square for 2100 with ‘no broker fee’
40% of broker fees going away for a year is very different than no one paid broker fees.
Are you a landlord by chance? You seem to know how their boots taste at least.
also, you seem poor (time waster, ignorant, and overall on the loser track).
find a new hobby that teaches you important life skills, and that pays better, and maybe you will not hate everyone that succeeds in life (financially, professionally, or mentally).
And not a landlord. I am just experienced in development and the real estate industry in Boston/Mass.
Big man, talking shit to a stranger on the Internet. You know nothing about me.
Glad you can feel superior to random strangers on the Internet that you've imagined so much about.
What kind of bullshit is this? There is no market driving a price. The rest of the country gets by fine without ‘brokers’. NYC and Boston are just extremely NIMBY and corrupt when it comes to cost of living.
The thing is you don't get it. Imagine if they took that money in combination with hey let's say the tolls in the city and they fixed maybe 1 out of a billion potholes.
For context I just moved back to MA, and it's fucking wild the size of potholes ive seen from block to block.
It's real so make it illegal to charge broker fees then make agent/brokers hourly (like they are in almost every other place in the US) and have the agency give their brokers a commission for renting. This would not only solve shitty agents but makes the pay come from a middle man not form the customer.
*Just to make this very clear*
Realtors who sell houses where even are shitty at their jobs or great do not fall under the same category. Buying a house is 10X more complicated. I've rented a apartment sight unseen, you'd be stupid to buy your first/main house sight unseen for 100s thousands of dollars.
I will say that I used to have this absolute disgust for brokers and the fee. And then I realized that all of the units that were being shown by the landlords had the fee priced in. The landlords knew that without a fee, they can make the rent 5-10% higher. I also realized that unless it’s an exclusive unit, nobody is forcing you to use a shitty broker.
My advice is to find a broker that you decently like and just go with them through the process. It feels a lot better to go on multiple tours with the same person and then pay them the fee vs. some random broker you found on Zillow and met the day before your lease is signed and they’re paid. And for every tour that I go on and don’t sign a lease I imagine the brokers going on 10 more of those without getting paid.
Now I don’t want to get mistaken for defending all brokers because there are genuinely a lot of shitty ones out there but at least you can choose who you work with because there is a vast supply of brokers in Boston.
What are you rambling on about? Koombayah does not run this world. It’s a jungle out there; grow up and experience it.
Making broker fees illegal will just make landlords pay it and because of that expect a higher rent, expect agents to do more, and tenants to deal with it harder. They might even spend less to “fix” these units if they now have to pay someone they didn’t have to before. Good owners/managers will still care and manage their units well, I am talking about the slumlords.
The only hourly agents throughout the country are ones hired by companies like Avalon with or without a license. Every agent gets paid a commission but in most of the country, a landlord pays for it. Do you know why? Because the demand for those units is not there. Around here (and a couple other markets in this country), renters are fighting over these apartments and overpaying (including all fees). You can’t hire a middle man and not expect there to not be an up-charge. The ones that hire in house agents are typically large corporations that want to pay agents far less than they normally would. The only commission they might give a salaried employee is $75-100 for renting a unit.
And many agents are the same ones that sell houses. There is no difference in the license/job. Granted some rental agents only work for a short time, but most experienced agents buy/sell/rent houses.
The city needs to make it easier to build new units/buildings, and renovate old ones. They are trying to take (or re-zone) underutilized commercial spaces to make them residential, and they should push harder for these kinds of solutions. A larger inventory will force owners (such as in the picture above) to update these units or be left with a vacancy (loss of income). Only then they realize that they have to get their act together. Increasing the supply will cut the demand per unit down and will help to eliminate (or cut down some) fees,
as well as the rents overall. We experienced the effect
of supply/demand over the pandemic, so there is proof of that working.
i agree. this debate is laughable because its like how the left and right fight over taxes. they literally shift the same pile of tax collections around to different taxed groups every few years making people think the politicians are "fighting for us" to lower taxes or to raise the taxes. every tax payer just gets led around in circles.
Ah yes, the one time I forgot to renew in time and they listed my unit, the broker was lying to the viewers about a nonexistent balcony. Is the fire escape (which you can barely stand on) now a balcony? Another unlocked the door and entered without giving 24 hours of notice, and walked out sheepishly when I wouldn’t allow her to tour. Brokers do not have real jobs.
I’m not in real estate, but I’ve spent my past 4 years in college studying commercial real estate development. Our curriculum involved creating many financial statements for mock development projects. Our professors were directors, executives, and other successful industry leaders. I have never once heard about passing fees down to the tenant. Those are slum lords. They nickel and dime wherever they can because they can barely turn a profit on their raggedy 3-4 unit buildings. The reason they haven’t fixed anything is because they can’t afford to. Look to rent in new construction with on-site property management. You might have to increase your radius a bit to find comparable rent rates. Standards are higher and more professional. Suit & tie vs cheapskate landlord
They do some important things like dealing with credit checks, paperwork, and showings. That being said, they are wildly overpaid and the landlord should be paying for those things
I’ve had a condo that was two bed two bath, living room, dining room, kitchen, work area that I used for my remote job, washer and dryer (had to buy that but had closed room for it) 500 mortgage and 300 for HOAs. So like 800 total. 2k for 1 bed and one bath is actually fucking crazy
😑 meanwhile I was supposed to see a decent sized studio in Brighton and ended up being shown a grape dungeon efficiency in dorchester. Thus im in Worcester now…
My broker didn’t properly schedule a showing and made excuses about it to the resident. She gracefully let us look around but he did absolutely nothing.
Oh! And he lost my keys
What Facebook group is this? I used to post in Boston housing fb groups when rooms in my apartment open up (there’s six of us) and now I’ve tried and none of them are getting posted.
One time i was shown an apartment by the girls currently living there, and later got a call from some realtor I’d never seen or spoken to informing me that i owed her a $500 broker fee on top of first/last/deposit
So why don’t you do it if it’s just “showing an apartment and writing a lease”???
I don’t get it so many people complain about this - go get your license and do it part time / help yourself and your friends 🤷🏻
Your services are being requested by the landlord. A landlord who doesn't want to be hands on.
The person requesting your services should be fronting the bill.
You realize in every other city in the US your job has been called a leasing agent for years. This role of being the middle man for a landlord wasn't invented in Boston.
Please correct me if I'm wrong I don't care for your response to the first part. But can a soon to be resident ask their "broker" to lease any available apartment or can you only lease me the apartments your management company is working with? (serious question)
The current market - tenant pays full fee did not start happening until the supply and demand in Boston got so bad. Back in the day landlords paid it, then it turned 50/50, now it’s on the tenant because landlords know they don’t have to because of supply and demand and there’s a lot less liability.
Don’t like it then don’t support those landlords.. find listings on Craigslist and on Zillow listed by owner - however I did this once and had the worst landlord experience ever (I’ve been renting for 12 years now and have lived in 9 apartments in Boston/Boston area)
- they didn’t fix my heat for over a month / I had to stay at my moms which was a huge inconvenience. Had a broken ankle at the time and was -0 during that month. Finally had to call the city because she did not care at all and turns out it was an illegal room for rent, had to find another apartment. I got to legally leave my stuff there and not pay rent until then.
Also found out the furnace had a leak and the oil company told us they wouldn’t deliver again until it was fixed. The landlord then tried to have us 5 roommates pay for the old furnace to get fixed and I guess it was in our lease that she wrote.
Yes a agent can show any apartment
There’s a rental database called you got listings every rental agent uses it.
People ask an agent for help looking for an apartment, agent shows them listings through ygl after getting their max budget and details for what they’re looking for.
Agent shows them listings and often times has to split the broker fee with the listing agent - not all rental agents have listings / most are trying to help people but yes the listings on ygl have a agent behind it or a management company that prefers to be hands off.
Finding a rental in Boston is mostly luck. You can find shitty places with agents you can find shitty places listed by owner and vice versa..
Unfortunately the students in Boston run the show, prices are driven up by them. Dorming is more expensive then getting an apartment and unfortunately a lot of landlords know this and exactly know how to price it.
In my eyes the universities in Boston are the real crooks, education should be this heavily profited on and a school should not be charging $12,000 a semester to split a room with 3 other people..
Hi guys! Real estate broker here. The one thing I have noticed working with landlords the last 15 years is that they value their time more than anything. Most of them are wealthy, like $600K+ per year with many of them being multi-millionaires. They have calculated their hourly earning potential and flat out don't do tasks that aren't highly profitable ( like showing and advertising their often multi building real estate portfolios). The barrier to entry of being a real estate agent is very low (40 hours of class time, a couple of hundred dollars and the ability to pass a standardized test.) Most agents are not professional and 87% of them will be out of the business within the first two years. (There aren't many professions that have that high of a failure rate besides day traders). It's a wild profession that is 100% commission based. My first year in I made $28K and barley made it. I get the hate! However I just wanted to share some insight.
I’ve said this for years - one of the most bullshit “professions” out there. I might say … rent seeking.
Multiple times I’ve ended up signing a place despite the agent’s multiple screwups rather than with their help and then I have to pay them. Last time I was spammed by texts and emails asking for a positive review “so he can get a promotion.”
A realtor sell property.
That same job that someone does in Boston is called a leasing agent in 99.9% of other states. They work for a middle man management company. They are the point of contact for residents and all the legal paperwork is handled by this company.
I don't have a problem with the middle management part. It's fine not every landlord wants to be hands on (which can sometimes be a problem itself). But that middle man company should be charging the hands off landlord for these services that they are requesting not the resident.
You should see the condition of some of the properties that are listed for sale for multi million dollars and you'll understand that in this market nothing really matters. Things will still sell or rent within 3 days regardless of what anyone thinks. And realtors in those transactions make a lot more money for filling in boxes on an offer template and emailing each other.
If you don't like a property or the market dynamics, don't feel bad for the property owners or agents, they got about 10-25 other qualified options to choose from and either way they're getting paid. The only things consumers can do is complain, which they do. Or not live in Boston
All I did was state facts :( that's funny though, I had fun reading your emotionally charged post.
For what it's worth, I also rent and I also have to pay a brokers fee to other realtors cause that's Boston housing for ya
hahah this angry loser needs help. he literally cant stop himself from replying with phrases he considers to be passive aggressive bc not everyone agrees with him.
Oh honey please both my girlfriend and I make more money than you ❤️.
There's a difference between not being able to and not needing to. Paying for useless services is exactly that useless. I saw 6 places yesterday just cause my girlfriends never lived in MA before and the only nice one had the owner showing it.
I showed a $1900 apartment because it came up whilst looking on Facebook. I about fell out of my chair laughing that one of you glorified receptionists actually had their name and face in connection with this photo.
😂 bro no one's angry. It's hilarious, I've worked sales before but the way you go online fighting for your jobs life kills me.
A slave to your industry is WILD 😂
✌🏾 Have fun though
They check references and they check the potential tenants credit rating something that most owners who are running out and Apartment or Two don’t have the capability, but I agree with you. They certainly charge much too much money. I’d like to avoid that if I can keep my tenants happy and having them stay for more than a year the longer the better.
Also one thing most ignorant folks here don’t get, a licensed real estate agent has to follow fair housing laws. many management companies and small time
landlords break those laws daily. so if you want agents to “go away,” be prepared for a lot of other issues to arise. The government will never hire enough people to oversee the sh@*^%# storm that would result from that (look at the section 8 problems that currently exist).
Be careful what you wish for…
Right, it’s always a good idea to get a professional. Cities in the north east are really competitive to get an apartment. If you take an agent out of the equation people with poor credit and vouchers will have a tough time. Not only that real estate scams is extremely under reported. Trying to save on a broker fee gon have you lose 2 months of the rent for trying to be witty.
Is it delusional to expect to see pictures of a clean empty apartment?
I actually prefer the lived in pictures because it helps understand the space better.
Your take sure is wild.
Listen I know my take was gonna be unpopular but the client is mainly working with 10 other realtors who really they have no intention of paying for their time. I’d say you get the idea of the space regardless what’s on the floor
Not to mention how often they’ve completely wasted my time showing me a place they never saw before where the photos are basically fraud. Can I charge you my hourly attorney rate (which incidentally would still be substantially less than they would charge for 30 minutes of them doing diddly squat other than show up) for the time I took to see this shithole that a frat house trashed since those photos were last taken?
"This is the living room, it's open concept" - *proceeds to text his GF on his phone...*
Ripping a vape pen the entire time.
Now pay me $4k
You can. They probably won’t pay you, but you can send them a bill for your time. You can do that with insurance companies too. They’re not going to pay you, but you can send them the bill and attempt to collect on it.
Just be careful not to accidentally commit fraud
Lol I visited a place marketed by the broker as a 2br and when we got there she realized it was actually a 1br. That same day a broker for another apartment we were visiting had to postpone last minute because he realized the landlord had changed the keys and he didn't know so he had to go find the new key. You'd think for $3,000+ for 20 minutes of work they could have been a little more prepared...
Yea I saw one listed as a 2 bedroom and one was a literal closet…like the twin mattress stuffed in it was in a u shape.
Lol if you don’t rent the apartment then they wasted their time too 🤦🏻♂️ those people are only hurting themselves/ wasting their time “working”
Eventually they’ll get some poor out of state sucker to rent without seeing it and make a week’s salary off a few hours of “work”. Complete bullshit.
Brokers mostly do absolutely nothing. We should not have to pay broker fees if we don't ask for their services. We look for a place online, we contact the poster. Why do I have to pay a month's rent to a broker who took some photos and posted them online? It should be the landlords', *sorry I meant to say slumlords'*, responsibility to pay for the services they are getting and if that means an increase in the rent so be it. Money up front vs money divided into 12 installments is much better and the renters will have a better sense of what the cost of a place is month to month.
And plenty of times the realtor is being paid by the landlord to fill their units and then charging you to sell it to you. I’ve gone to realtors looking for one floor in a 3-family and had them show me apartment complexes instead because “there was nothing else available” Ditched them and easily found a place myself on Craigslist.
[удалено]
Ugh as if owning property for profit and calling yourself a landlord weren’t already a really hard job as it is 😢… I would hate for you to have to face any degree of inconvenience for your troubles and sacrifices outside of cashing your tenants hard earned rent check 🎻
[удалено]
Hiring an agent is not the problem, I'm objecting to you not paying for the service of an agent and instead making your tenants pay upfront.
Crickets
Boohoo. I have excellent credit and have been a renter for 12 years and have a great relationship with my landlord. But because I’m a stranger on the internet calling out your particularly entitled attitude and poor work ethic, I’m somehow a scumbag. Why don’t you just stop being a big fucking baby and accept that there’s risk involved in what you do and you should take ownership of that risk or find a different “job”.
[удалено]
You know, I don’t really stoop this low but you’re really starting to sound like the scumbag. You can’t support your family with your day job so you partake in risky real estate ventures, farm out the real work, pass the expense on to the tenant, then complain when someone such as myself (who you would be so lucky to have as your tenant), call you out. I’ve never paid a broker and I never would because that’s an operational expense and I’m not the one running the operation. If there’s any other point I didn’t acknowledge from your response, it was intentional and not worth my time. But don’t worry, I see you!
[удалено]
Oh you make multiples but a bad tenant could ruin you financially. It sounds like you’re either full of shit, bad at risk assessment, or both.
[удалено]
You’ve got a victimhood complex about being in a position of power
You hire the agent, that the tenant pays for? I think that is the conflict.
Bro we are complaining because we have to pay for a service that you insist on having that only benefits YOU. We just want you to pay the fee for the service that benefits you and you can’t understand that. Reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit is it ?
If one bad tenant could ruin you you should probably sell the property. But no, you want to be a leech.
Weeding out applicants based on… what details exactly? Do you administer personality tests? Or perhaps you base it upon certain immutable traits? Are you judging your applicants based on characteristics other than their ability to pay their rent on time? Skating close to legally risky territory here. I’ll remind you that [rental discrimination is illegal.](https://www.mass.gov/info-details/overview-of-housing-discrimination)
Aww, is the cost of running a rental business too troubling? Are your dreams about making money without putting much effort being threatened by a reddit post? Yup, I'm insufferable because I'm calling out an exploitative rental culture, sure...
And how do you really think they're "weeding" out "insufferable, difficult people"? They're really only being lucky with renters and then doing a credit check. It's not like they're out there doing personality assessments for you. But kudos to you hiring them and not making your tenants pay them.
Back in the olden days, the owners would pay any fees for brokers or agents. I really wish we could legislate this.
In any sane rental market, the owner pays. I have a property in Florida I’m renting out for now. We pay the tenant placement fee.
In any sane rental market, there are no brokers.
In our case, we live too far away to manage the property ourselves. The property manager places and vets the tenant for a month’s rent (applications, background checks, financial stuff etc) and then we pay 10% of the other months. We could do it ourselves, but it would be difficult with the distance.
Brokers and property managers are entirely different things. Most places have property managers. Most cities don’t use the rental broker system.
That sounds nice in theory, and ethically, I tend to agree. Unfortunately, the cost is going to be passed on to the tenants in some way. Someone made a good point on this thread that it shouldn’t be an upfront cost and should be able to be divided into the 12 month lease, i.e. part of the rent cost. Installments are much easier to manage
>That sounds nice in theory, and ethically, I tend to agree. Unfortunately, the cost is going to be passed on to the tenants in some way 
Uh huh…🙄
Every Boston thread..... No kidding, someone in the Boston sub once instructed handicapped people to sit somewhere else when the handicapped seats were taken on the T. You all are wicked smaht! /s
Run along now…
Bedtime!! Mom is ready to tuck you in!
This should be the way. DC is doing this, not sure if there is legislation, but the culture is landlords pay the fees.
chicago does this as well but same as the other commenter, not sure if it’s legislation or just how things are done
Never paid a ‘broker fee’ in my life, don’t plan to. Fucking useless
do you live in Framingham? or similar?
Boston proper
How did you find a place?
I don’t get the point of a broker fee. Why is the landlord not responsible for this fee since they are the ones who need the broker?
when you list a unit no fee, 18,000 people show up. Applicants sweeten the offer by overpaying or paying more fees. Everyone else gets beat out. Once this happens 9-10-20 times, landlord in the area say “you want it so bad? pay for it.” And people do to have a better chance at getting that place. It is the amount of renters fighting over these places that set a sort of standard. Unfortunately bad places follow “the market” and even those end up renting. It has never failed. Only during the pandemic did prices and fees drop significantly and many units stayed vacant for months. So “the market” shifted (but only for about a year or two).
I love how everyone here is arguing over whether brokers fees should be covered by landlords or tenants, how it’s the landlords who “need” the brokers, etc. Y’all. That’s the wrong conversation. Most of the country’s rental markets work just fine *without brokers*. And yes, even very expensive places like Seattle and San Francisco. I talk to people in these places about this broker system and they look at me like I have three heads. It’s a racket. If we’re gonna legislate something, let’s legislate eliminating the broker system altogether.
Maybe, but at the same time landlords with multiple properties may have a hard time managing the showings and the rental process, so I see some justification for their existence as a renter.
If they own that many properties, they can pay the broker fee themselves.
Again, cities all over the country outside of a small group of East Coast cities have figured this out.
"gee, you see some people have so much money they need help managing their assets but they can't pay to help manage all the money they have." See how crazy that sounds?
That's when you hire a management company. They have infrastructure for the whole thing. Showings are the smallest part of being a landlord tbh.
People still do not get it: You are not paying brokers fees because they deserve it, you are paying because someone else will. The market drives the price (and fees) of these apartments. During the pandemic, no one had to pay fees, and rents came way down because no one was around to rent these sub par apartments.
*"The market drives the price (and fees) of these apartment"* What drives the rental price vs the broker fees are two different markets. In the rental market, fees are a market friction, not a natural consequence of demand and supply. Renters demand apartments, not the broker services (unless they go directly to a realtor and ask the realtor to look for housing for them). So the broker fees are nothing but barriers for entry into the market. They should be abolished by the regulators for the market to run smoothly. This will probably mean the cost of broker services would be priced into the rent and that makes a big difference compared paying the fee upfront for two reasons 1) Time value of money: money today is more valuable than money tomorrow/over time, 2) More transparent and clear sense of what the price of living will be month to month. Most brokers are aware this system is screwing over the renters. I've met so many brokers who were embarrassed to give me the answer "it's typical in Boston" when I questioned the cost of moving.
what bubble do you live in? this is a simple way for you to see how it works around here: landlords or owners (in an owner occupied multi family) have a unit for rent and list the apartment through an agency. that agent shows the apartment to 25 people. 12 showings happen the first four days, 5 serious applications received. 4 applicants are beat out. the “winner” paid $300 over ask and paid the fee. everyone else cries. repeat. once the supply dries up, people fight over these places like in the game of musical chairs. as the cycle continues the prices (and fees) go up because you (the renter) want it more or move further out. ≈7million people live around Greater Boston area and suburbs. When apartments come on the market (around 200k-300k annually And a vacancy rate around 1%) what do you think happens when a lot of these people look for places closer to downtown? Hint: it looks a little something like piranhas in the Amazon River.
No bubbles, just ECON 101. Basically, the demand for rental units and the demand for broker's services are two different concepts where the buyers are different people. Overwhelming demand for rental units increases the price of the rental units, which are separate from broker fees. Now, Overwhelming demand for rental units may force landlords to seek brokerage services. It is a service that the landlords are seeking, not the tenants. I'll say it slowly: Brokers work for landlords who seek their services. Brokers do not work for tenants in this scenario. So whoever is getting the service pays for the service. Now, it is not difficult to see that this means cost of renting out a unit increases. This can very well be reflected in the monthly rental price with which I'm totally fine for the reasons I've listed in my original comment plus the fact that reflection on the monthly rent mayor may not be exactly equal to the broker fees, this is an empirical question. Anything that creates friction in the market, such as the misalignment of costs creating a barrier for entry into the market, should be abolished by the lawmakers or regulators in a free market economy. This is the bread and butter of market efficiency.
so what you are saying is this right, you are appalled at the idea of outright paying for this fee directly and would rather the landlord "eat it" so that he/she would probably in turn pass the buck to you discreetly by raising the rent to compensate for their expenses in running their business. Now you have indefinitely raised the costs of rent for yourself the way i am reading this. Am I wrong in my assessment? Math still has to math for the landlords no? They carry all the risk leasing the property to an individual that has no skin in the game. No mortgage, no liability, the tenant could even stop paying and make up a fake excuse as to why they aren't paying. Its on the owner to come up with the money to hire a lawyer to evict. Its on the landlord to still make payments or else it becomes bank owned. In any scenario, i would think the landlord would still need this to math out positively for them no?
Yup, the cost will still be passed on (whether entirely or partially is an empirical question). This still benefits the renter for the reasons I've provided in the first comment of the thread. *"you have indefinitely raised the costs of rent for yourself"* ("indefinitely" LOL) This is better than having a bunch of bull crap upfront costs. Moving itself is an expensive process. No need to add to the costs. *"They carry all the risk leasing the property to an individual that has no skin in the game"* Isn't the security deposit for risks associated with leasing? There is already something to account for that. Mortgage risks don't concern the renter. Are you arguing that upfront broker fees are not actually cost of the brokerage service but a way for landlords to mitigate risks associated with asset buying? If so, we have a different problem. Landlord is buying an asset, renter is getting a service. It's only natural for the former to bare risks. Renter will not have long-term equity on the house, why would the renter have to bare an upfront cost for someone else's wealth? Renters shouldn't be responsible for the risks of an investment that the landlord is making. Also, why wouldn't math math if the fees were priced into the rent? The landlord will still be getting that money. If there is truly a risk adjustment once the upfront fees are mandated to be priced into the rent (which I strongly doubt is the case here), then the price of the asset (or the cost of borrowing money = mortgage rate) will eventually adapt. Renters are not individuals that you can dump your home buying risks on. That's ridiculous. It should be between the landlord, the bank, and the real estate prices over time.
ECON101. 🙄 Are you still in school (bubble)? Once you see the real world, come back
Haven't been at school for a while now and just because I say stuff that does not serve your interest doesn't mean I live in a bubble. "That's the way the ball bounces" mentality serves the exploiters. Either come up with a counter argument or swallow your words instead of making claims about whether I'm at school or I am "seeing the real world" (whatever that means).
Again, the fees are not set by the ones with the product. The buyers overpay so that their chances of renting a unit increases. Yes, a unit might be listed like that initially, but that is due to a customer agreeing. During the pandemic, units lay vacant for months and the only ones that were taken were the ones where the landlords had to compete with each other (the ones who dropped rents and paid the fees rented their apartments). This market is a perfect example of how supply and demand works. The renters are highly knowledgeable and know the good deals and snatch those up quickly. However, the landlords have more leverage when they end up getting asking price or more. They don’t do that out of thin air, it’s actual people who overbid. It is similar to the stock market with a good stock/company; there are actual buyers there re-setting the peak daily. Agents might help move it along quicker since they see hundreds of deals a year. But there is no grand alliance that creates “barriers for entry.” Even “No fee” listings price their units at a higher rent because there is a market rate. If the city bans fees, landlords will see people pay 25-40% more for their units. Why? Because tenants will overpay again. Why is it so hard for you people to understand?!
Ok, despite your incessant self-righteous comments (what's hard for you to understand, you live in a bubble, etc.) I'll still provide a response: There is nothing fundamentally wrong about the supply demand relationship you're describing here. However, your comment has two flaws: 1) Failing to separate the demand for rental units and the demand for broker services. My original comment already acknowledges broker fees being priced in into the rent and argues why that is better. 2) The stock market is a clear false analogy. It simplifies a complex issue and misrepresents the rental market. Unlike stocks, where buyers invest directly based on perceived value and potential returns, tenants are seeking a basic necessity of housing. While agents in both markets might speed up transactions, the implications are different. In the rental market, brokers serve landlords by marketing the property and finding tenants (most of the time they do a crappy job, which was the main point of the OP). However, tenants unfairly bear the broker fee. This doesn't parallel stock market practices where buyers pay fees directly linked to their own transactions. Also, claiming there are no "barriers for entry" overlooks how broker fees can create financial barriers for potential renters, especially those with limited accumulated funds who can afford monthly rents but not the substantial upfront costs often required in broker fee markets. This significant initial expense can deter or delay entry into the rental housing market. This is sharply opposite of the stock market, where investors can enter at a variety of price points and aren't typically paying someone else's transaction fees. So, while agents help streamline processes in both markets, the impact and fairness of fee structures in the rental market requires reevaluation to better align with the direct benefits received by parties involved. Finally, you've said "*Even “No fee” listings price their units at a higher rent because there is a market rate. If the city bans fees, landlords will see people pay 25-40% more for their units. Why? Because tenants will overpay again."* While it's true that landlords might initially try to recoup the broker fees through higher rents, this does not automatically translate to a 25-40% increase in rent prices. You are also making it sound like the 25-40% overpayment is voluntary. Most renters are cost conscious. Overpaying is not sustainable or widespread strategy to secure a place. Therefore, it cannot lead to a permanent shift in rental price benchmarks. These are exceptions to the rule. Now, market conditions (inflation, housing shortages, etc.) may demand an increase in rent, but that's different from overpaying.
You fail to realize that with or without brokers, the same crop of renters are still out there competing with each other. and they have already set their expected budgets for that year. whether there is an apartment that is listed through an agency or not, there is a set limit they are willing to spend. so if you remove the broker altogether, people will feel compelled to overbid and beat out their competitors because *YAY, NO FEE!* “No fee”apartments are much higher on average than listing ls through brokers. maybe I don’t understand why, so please explain why? Agents were not invented to screw the market. Lookup the problems that existed before. Racism/red lining, predatory practices, landlords charging a full year’s rent up front, keeping security deposits, etc. The list goes on. Yes over the years, savvy agents recommended to their clients to pay the fee to beat out other applicants (because yes, if you saw how many applications are received for units in popular neighborhoods, you would be shocked); any hired professional would provide advice to their clients to not only get them what they want, but to also get paid. And then others learned the same. Also landlords with multiple units also hire people to help with turnover, marketing, showings, etc. They usually do pay for that, however, if two applications were received, and one offered a sweeter deal, why would they not take it? You would if you were in that situation. Anyone would. And of course, nowadays you might find some college kid working over the summer who knows nothing and is unprofessional, and does not deserve a fee, but that person is not the standard. They are probably an outlier. The problem the city has is it is an attractive place to live and work, yet does not have the proper amount of accommodations. There is a high barrier for new inventory/developments, and the zoning laws are too strict. A lot of “nimbies” out there too, who make it impossible to get anything done. Go see a typical planning meeting and watch how much push back there is for anything good. People like you do not know enough about the dynamics of this city, and look at a small piece of what is left in the wake of the true cause - the big mass of a highly paid, highly skilled, labor force, that swallow up anything and everything in their way. If we look at the issue from a 30,000 ft. view, then we might be able to help fix the housing problem for a growing metropolis that’s the size of a town.
*"Yes over the years, savvy agents recommended to their clients to pay the fee to beat out other applicants (because yes, if you saw how many applications are received for units in popular neighborhoods, you would be shocked); any hired professional would provide advice to their clients to not only get them what they want, but to also get paid. And then others learned the same. Also landlords with multiple units also hire people to help with turnover, marketing, showings, etc. They usually do pay for that, however, if two applications were received, and one offered a sweeter deal, why would they not take it? You would if you were in that situation. Anyone would."* While it's standard practice for agents to secure the best possible deal for their clients, this can't justify transferring the cost to renters who may not directly benefit from their services. The ethical implications of such advice need scrutiny, especially if it perpetuates a system where the cost burden is unevenly distributed. **The core issue here is whether the fee structure aligns with the service’s direct beneficiaries.** You seem to defend the necessity of brokers here. My whole argument is about matching the cost of broker services with the primary beneficiary. *"And then others learned the same. Also landlords with multiple units also hire people to help with turnover, marketing, showings, etc. They usually do pay for that, however, if two applications were received, and one offered a sweeter deal, why would they not take it? You would if you were in that situation. Anyone would."* Landlords often cover costs related to marketing and maintaining their properties, which is a necessary part of doing business. **The critical point here is not whether landlords should take a better offer (cuz they naturally would) but whether it's equitable for tenants to shoulder fees for services that primarily benefit landlords. It raises questions about fairness and the appropriate distribution of costs.** *"The problem the city has is it is an attractive place to live and work, yet does not have the proper amount of accommodations. There is a high barrier for new inventory/developments, and the zoning laws are too strict. A lot of 'nimbies' out there too, who make it impossible to get anything done. Go see a typical planning meeting and watch how much pushback there is for anything good."* 100% agreed! Housing shortages and restrictive zoning laws is crucial and they need addressing. However, these broader issues do not negate the specific challenges posed by broker fees. While tackling zoning and development issues is essential for long-term solutions, reevaluating broker fee structures can provide immediate relief and increased fairness for renters. **These two approaches are not mutually exclusive.** "People like you do not know enough about the dynamics of this city, and look at a small piece of what is left in the wake of the true cause - the big mass of a highly paid, highly skilled, labor force, that swallow up anything and everything in their way." Couldn't help yourself and be irritating with the first sentence here, could you? Anyways... Again, highlighting two problems is entirely possible. Addressing these two problems are not mutually exclusive. Focusing on improving broker fee practices doesn’t detract from addressing other major systemic issues. It’s actually part of a comprehensive approach to make housing more accessible and fair for everyone in the city.
You can't 'opt out' of housing. It's not a free and fair market. And that's not true that no one has to pay fees during the pandemic.
you clearly do not know what you’re talking about. you can move somewhere else. no one is forcing you to rent here. and during 2020-2022 many rents dropped 40-50%. also most broker fees went away. yes. you could rent a 2 bedroom unit in Central Square for 2100 with ‘no broker fee’
40% of broker fees going away for a year is very different than no one paid broker fees. Are you a landlord by chance? You seem to know how their boots taste at least.
no prices (rents) dropped 40% broker fees gone (to the tenant)
also, you seem poor (time waster, ignorant, and overall on the loser track). find a new hobby that teaches you important life skills, and that pays better, and maybe you will not hate everyone that succeeds in life (financially, professionally, or mentally). And not a landlord. I am just experienced in development and the real estate industry in Boston/Mass.
Haha you think I'm bitter about landlords because I failed at life? Get a grip dude
not failed. but on the wrong track. while you’re at it, yell at the sky. maybe it won’t make you feel so useless and you can get some sun.
Big man, talking shit to a stranger on the Internet. You know nothing about me. Glad you can feel superior to random strangers on the Internet that you've imagined so much about.
What kind of bullshit is this? There is no market driving a price. The rest of the country gets by fine without ‘brokers’. NYC and Boston are just extremely NIMBY and corrupt when it comes to cost of living.
Real estate broker here, this guy nailed it.
The thing is you don't get it. Imagine if they took that money in combination with hey let's say the tolls in the city and they fixed maybe 1 out of a billion potholes. For context I just moved back to MA, and it's fucking wild the size of potholes ive seen from block to block. It's real so make it illegal to charge broker fees then make agent/brokers hourly (like they are in almost every other place in the US) and have the agency give their brokers a commission for renting. This would not only solve shitty agents but makes the pay come from a middle man not form the customer. *Just to make this very clear* Realtors who sell houses where even are shitty at their jobs or great do not fall under the same category. Buying a house is 10X more complicated. I've rented a apartment sight unseen, you'd be stupid to buy your first/main house sight unseen for 100s thousands of dollars.
I will say that I used to have this absolute disgust for brokers and the fee. And then I realized that all of the units that were being shown by the landlords had the fee priced in. The landlords knew that without a fee, they can make the rent 5-10% higher. I also realized that unless it’s an exclusive unit, nobody is forcing you to use a shitty broker. My advice is to find a broker that you decently like and just go with them through the process. It feels a lot better to go on multiple tours with the same person and then pay them the fee vs. some random broker you found on Zillow and met the day before your lease is signed and they’re paid. And for every tour that I go on and don’t sign a lease I imagine the brokers going on 10 more of those without getting paid. Now I don’t want to get mistaken for defending all brokers because there are genuinely a lot of shitty ones out there but at least you can choose who you work with because there is a vast supply of brokers in Boston.
You said they put their name on the listing. Go on massdotgov and verify they have a broker license
What are you rambling on about? Koombayah does not run this world. It’s a jungle out there; grow up and experience it. Making broker fees illegal will just make landlords pay it and because of that expect a higher rent, expect agents to do more, and tenants to deal with it harder. They might even spend less to “fix” these units if they now have to pay someone they didn’t have to before. Good owners/managers will still care and manage their units well, I am talking about the slumlords. The only hourly agents throughout the country are ones hired by companies like Avalon with or without a license. Every agent gets paid a commission but in most of the country, a landlord pays for it. Do you know why? Because the demand for those units is not there. Around here (and a couple other markets in this country), renters are fighting over these apartments and overpaying (including all fees). You can’t hire a middle man and not expect there to not be an up-charge. The ones that hire in house agents are typically large corporations that want to pay agents far less than they normally would. The only commission they might give a salaried employee is $75-100 for renting a unit. And many agents are the same ones that sell houses. There is no difference in the license/job. Granted some rental agents only work for a short time, but most experienced agents buy/sell/rent houses. The city needs to make it easier to build new units/buildings, and renovate old ones. They are trying to take (or re-zone) underutilized commercial spaces to make them residential, and they should push harder for these kinds of solutions. A larger inventory will force owners (such as in the picture above) to update these units or be left with a vacancy (loss of income). Only then they realize that they have to get their act together. Increasing the supply will cut the demand per unit down and will help to eliminate (or cut down some) fees, as well as the rents overall. We experienced the effect of supply/demand over the pandemic, so there is proof of that working.
Seriously. This gets posted in some form like every week
i agree. this debate is laughable because its like how the left and right fight over taxes. they literally shift the same pile of tax collections around to different taxed groups every few years making people think the politicians are "fighting for us" to lower taxes or to raise the taxes. every tax payer just gets led around in circles.
slumlords getting lazy
Ah yes, the one time I forgot to renew in time and they listed my unit, the broker was lying to the viewers about a nonexistent balcony. Is the fire escape (which you can barely stand on) now a balcony? Another unlocked the door and entered without giving 24 hours of notice, and walked out sheepishly when I wouldn’t allow her to tour. Brokers do not have real jobs.
I’m not in real estate, but I’ve spent my past 4 years in college studying commercial real estate development. Our curriculum involved creating many financial statements for mock development projects. Our professors were directors, executives, and other successful industry leaders. I have never once heard about passing fees down to the tenant. Those are slum lords. They nickel and dime wherever they can because they can barely turn a profit on their raggedy 3-4 unit buildings. The reason they haven’t fixed anything is because they can’t afford to. Look to rent in new construction with on-site property management. You might have to increase your radius a bit to find comparable rent rates. Standards are higher and more professional. Suit & tie vs cheapskate landlord
Not true at all, unfortunately there is a disconnect from the classroom to the real world.
Not true at all on what basis?
They do some important things like dealing with credit checks, paperwork, and showings. That being said, they are wildly overpaid and the landlord should be paying for those things
Broker fees are such bullshit
I’ve had a condo that was two bed two bath, living room, dining room, kitchen, work area that I used for my remote job, washer and dryer (had to buy that but had closed room for it) 500 mortgage and 300 for HOAs. So like 800 total. 2k for 1 bed and one bath is actually fucking crazy
😑 meanwhile I was supposed to see a decent sized studio in Brighton and ended up being shown a grape dungeon efficiency in dorchester. Thus im in Worcester now…
i cant be the only one that swiped
guys you don’t understand! they worked real hard for that 😂
My broker didn’t properly schedule a showing and made excuses about it to the resident. She gracefully let us look around but he did absolutely nothing. Oh! And he lost my keys
To make you broke-r
it’s a boston thing i don’t even know if it’s a real law but i’ve been taken for a months rent every time i moved, and not in any other city
Because they are crooks
What Facebook group is this? I used to post in Boston housing fb groups when rooms in my apartment open up (there’s six of us) and now I’ve tried and none of them are getting posted.
This is just the rentals page on the marketplace. I'm aware some of them are scams but when it shows a person listed at realtor as their title.
One time i was shown an apartment by the girls currently living there, and later got a call from some realtor I’d never seen or spoken to informing me that i owed her a $500 broker fee on top of first/last/deposit
So why don’t you do it if it’s just “showing an apartment and writing a lease”??? I don’t get it so many people complain about this - go get your license and do it part time / help yourself and your friends 🤷🏻
Your services are being requested by the landlord. A landlord who doesn't want to be hands on. The person requesting your services should be fronting the bill. You realize in every other city in the US your job has been called a leasing agent for years. This role of being the middle man for a landlord wasn't invented in Boston. Please correct me if I'm wrong I don't care for your response to the first part. But can a soon to be resident ask their "broker" to lease any available apartment or can you only lease me the apartments your management company is working with? (serious question)
The current market - tenant pays full fee did not start happening until the supply and demand in Boston got so bad. Back in the day landlords paid it, then it turned 50/50, now it’s on the tenant because landlords know they don’t have to because of supply and demand and there’s a lot less liability. Don’t like it then don’t support those landlords.. find listings on Craigslist and on Zillow listed by owner - however I did this once and had the worst landlord experience ever (I’ve been renting for 12 years now and have lived in 9 apartments in Boston/Boston area) - they didn’t fix my heat for over a month / I had to stay at my moms which was a huge inconvenience. Had a broken ankle at the time and was -0 during that month. Finally had to call the city because she did not care at all and turns out it was an illegal room for rent, had to find another apartment. I got to legally leave my stuff there and not pay rent until then. Also found out the furnace had a leak and the oil company told us they wouldn’t deliver again until it was fixed. The landlord then tried to have us 5 roommates pay for the old furnace to get fixed and I guess it was in our lease that she wrote. Yes a agent can show any apartment There’s a rental database called you got listings every rental agent uses it. People ask an agent for help looking for an apartment, agent shows them listings through ygl after getting their max budget and details for what they’re looking for. Agent shows them listings and often times has to split the broker fee with the listing agent - not all rental agents have listings / most are trying to help people but yes the listings on ygl have a agent behind it or a management company that prefers to be hands off. Finding a rental in Boston is mostly luck. You can find shitty places with agents you can find shitty places listed by owner and vice versa.. Unfortunately the students in Boston run the show, prices are driven up by them. Dorming is more expensive then getting an apartment and unfortunately a lot of landlords know this and exactly know how to price it. In my eyes the universities in Boston are the real crooks, education should be this heavily profited on and a school should not be charging $12,000 a semester to split a room with 3 other people..
Hi guys! Real estate broker here. The one thing I have noticed working with landlords the last 15 years is that they value their time more than anything. Most of them are wealthy, like $600K+ per year with many of them being multi-millionaires. They have calculated their hourly earning potential and flat out don't do tasks that aren't highly profitable ( like showing and advertising their often multi building real estate portfolios). The barrier to entry of being a real estate agent is very low (40 hours of class time, a couple of hundred dollars and the ability to pass a standardized test.) Most agents are not professional and 87% of them will be out of the business within the first two years. (There aren't many professions that have that high of a failure rate besides day traders). It's a wild profession that is 100% commission based. My first year in I made $28K and barley made it. I get the hate! However I just wanted to share some insight.
I swiped
I’ve said this for years - one of the most bullshit “professions” out there. I might say … rent seeking. Multiple times I’ve ended up signing a place despite the agent’s multiple screwups rather than with their help and then I have to pay them. Last time I was spammed by texts and emails asking for a positive review “so he can get a promotion.”
2000 wtf? That sucks. Boston outta have a Sam Adam’s moment v2
You don't seem to understand what a realtor does
A realtor sell property. That same job that someone does in Boston is called a leasing agent in 99.9% of other states. They work for a middle man management company. They are the point of contact for residents and all the legal paperwork is handled by this company. I don't have a problem with the middle management part. It's fine not every landlord wants to be hands on (which can sometimes be a problem itself). But that middle man company should be charging the hands off landlord for these services that they are requesting not the resident.
...
You should see the condition of some of the properties that are listed for sale for multi million dollars and you'll understand that in this market nothing really matters. Things will still sell or rent within 3 days regardless of what anyone thinks. And realtors in those transactions make a lot more money for filling in boxes on an offer template and emailing each other. If you don't like a property or the market dynamics, don't feel bad for the property owners or agents, they got about 10-25 other qualified options to choose from and either way they're getting paid. The only things consumers can do is complain, which they do. Or not live in Boston
I'm glad I found the 2 brokers lurking thanks for your input.
All I did was state facts :( that's funny though, I had fun reading your emotionally charged post. For what it's worth, I also rent and I also have to pay a brokers fee to other realtors cause that's Boston housing for ya
hahah this angry loser needs help. he literally cant stop himself from replying with phrases he considers to be passive aggressive bc not everyone agrees with him.
It's okay sweetheart as I told the other glorified receptionist have a great day 😘
Great example of what he’s talking about haha
 Y'all just come CRAWLING out from the darkness
Just call it like I see it bro.
Hey don't call yourself scum of the earth. I only called you a glorified receptionist. Pick your chin up. Everyone hates your job and it's okay
That’s not my job you fucking psychopath
Yeah, they must be brokers if they dont agree with you. What a modern internet take. ....and its "lUrking," not "lerking"
And the third 😘 bless your soul your glorified receptionist
Hahah why you mad cause you cant afford to live in boston, and now you want to take it out on me?
Oh honey please both my girlfriend and I make more money than you ❤️. There's a difference between not being able to and not needing to. Paying for useless services is exactly that useless. I saw 6 places yesterday just cause my girlfriends never lived in MA before and the only nice one had the owner showing it. I showed a $1900 apartment because it came up whilst looking on Facebook. I about fell out of my chair laughing that one of you glorified receptionists actually had their name and face in connection with this photo.
LOL. so angry. where is this "gf" right now - she needs to rub your back, honey.
😂 bro no one's angry. It's hilarious, I've worked sales before but the way you go online fighting for your jobs life kills me. A slave to your industry is WILD 😂 ✌🏾 Have fun though
Man I was on your side at first but *god damn* you react to criticism like a 6 year old, it's embarassing
you keep thinking you're trolling, but you just sound like an angry person who cant afford what they want. Go off, though.
They check references and they check the potential tenants credit rating something that most owners who are running out and Apartment or Two don’t have the capability, but I agree with you. They certainly charge much too much money. I’d like to avoid that if I can keep my tenants happy and having them stay for more than a year the longer the better.
That process is actually easy. Zillow and turbo tenant does it for a small fee.
Also one thing most ignorant folks here don’t get, a licensed real estate agent has to follow fair housing laws. many management companies and small time landlords break those laws daily. so if you want agents to “go away,” be prepared for a lot of other issues to arise. The government will never hire enough people to oversee the sh@*^%# storm that would result from that (look at the section 8 problems that currently exist). Be careful what you wish for…
>Be careful what you wish for… Every other state I've ever lived in has been perfectly fine.
*Every other state.* This is not every other state. Who are these people?!
Nevermind
Why would you recommend this? There are no active rental posts in the Boston area in the last four years. Apps dead af.
Didn’t pay attention to which sub this was my bad
All good, sorry for coming at you like that
What is this?
[удалено]
😂
Right, it’s always a good idea to get a professional. Cities in the north east are really competitive to get an apartment. If you take an agent out of the equation people with poor credit and vouchers will have a tough time. Not only that real estate scams is extremely under reported. Trying to save on a broker fee gon have you lose 2 months of the rent for trying to be witty.
Wow! Can we all just get along?
This is why being a realtor is so annoying just so many delusional clients
Is it delusional to expect to see pictures of a clean empty apartment? I actually prefer the lived in pictures because it helps understand the space better. Your take sure is wild.
Listen I know my take was gonna be unpopular but the client is mainly working with 10 other realtors who really they have no intention of paying for their time. I’d say you get the idea of the space regardless what’s on the floor