Issue 108 - To Use a (Buyer’s) Broker or Not to Use a Broker — That is the Question

450 East 52nd Street 11FLDP

1001 Fifth Avenue 110C

260 Park Avenue South 10I

155 West 68th Street 1203

536 2nd Street GARDEN

53 West 53rd Street 24D

53 West 53rd Street #38C

53 West 53rd Street #PH78

320 East 42nd St 2403

1593 Deerfield Road

136 East 56th Street 8H

51 Crosby Street 3

445 Lafayette 110C

53 West 53rd Street #30B

53 West 53rd Street #66

53 West 53rd Street #72B

53 West 53rd Street #21A

53 West 53rd Street #53A

53 West 53rd Street #17B

53 W 53rd St #PH76

53 West 53rd Street #71

53 West 53rd Street #20B

53 West 53rd Street #16F

Issue 108 – To Use a (Buyer’s) Broker or Not to Use a Broker — That is the Question

April 1, 2025

Becoming a buyer in NYC is a process in which you learn what you are made of. Creating something valuable, enjoyable, and worthwhile requires fortitude, guts, and a little imagination. Not only is the endeavor highly emotional, but it is also nuanced and can be expensive if mismanaged. It requires having the right supporting players in place, from your mortgage broker to a fantastic attorney as well as a broker who truly serves your best interests. Someone who says what they think, not what you want to hear, differentiates a salesperson from a trustworthy advisor.

The right team is vital in helping you deal with potentially rigid co-op boards and the legal intricacies of financing, negotiation, and comparative market analysis. An experienced broker will also know how to structure your bid to stand out amongst a sea of others.

Adding to the confusion is a new variable regarding which party pays the commission on a real estate transaction. What once was a seller’s responsibility has now become an open forum for discussion and negotiation. But pushing the commission onto buyers, who already bear significant friction costs associated with purchasing, has serious repercussions. That additional ‘hit’ can prevent them from meeting the price a seller will agree to — especially given the continuation of higher interest rates, which further diminishes the buyer’s purchase power.

Based on that fact pattern, we see that everything is status quo: sellers are still paying the commission because they recognize it’s the smartest thing to do. Because they are vested in getting the highest price possible and protecting the building’s value, sellers have essentially boycotted the idea of reallocating the commission.

According to a report by The New York Times last spring, 85 to 90 percent of home buyers in New York City used a buyer’s broker. More recently, StreetEasy published a Zillow research report showing that 88 percent of buyers nationwide used a buyer’s agent the previous year.

There are so many reasons a buyer’s broker is essential. When people buy a real estate asset, they generally want to avoid buying a lemon. They typically wish to have the ‘blessing’ of a trusted residential broker to ensure what they are looking at is sound.

A broker can advise on certain things that a third-party website cannot, such as the nuances and underpinnings of the neighborhood and the building—including whether you can hear the train or subway rumble underneath the unit, whether there’s a history of water or gas leaks that hasn’t been fully disclosed in the building minutes, or whether the next-door neighbor is a heavy smoker. All these factors are material and set the tone of who your broker is and how they serve you.

Most buyers recognize the value of bringing in an advisor to provide comparable analysis, conducting proper due diligence surrounding the building’s financial history, and determining how the unit will hold value over time and what sets it apart from other properties. An expert will also be able to ascertain whether the property is in a ‘fringe’ neighborhood that will recede quickly in a soft market, or one that will take off. A qualified buyer’s broker can genuinely understand how to structure an offer properly and illicit a deep counter from the seller to get what the buyer wants, all while creating an environment that will allow both parties to feel like they have won.

A buyer’s broker understands that they aren’t just helping them obtain a home; they are helping to secure an asset that must perform well over time.

They can prepare some of the most laborious but necessary documentation, framed in a way that fully discloses the buyer’s identity to the board, the managing agent, and the seller — without their meeting the buyer.

The skill with which a broker curates that narrative is among the most critical components in the sales process, given this will determine whether buyers are granted a board interview and get approved to buy in the building.

The buyer’s broker should prepare you for a co-op board interview protocol and detail what you can and cannot say during that interview (if you are lucky enough to get to that point.)

Buyers who choose to represent themselves forfeit valuable support and assurance in how and what they present to ensure a successful transaction and the long-term protection of their purchases’ value.

My chief point is that there are some things that money can buy, and one is a level of experience and acumen, showcasing what a broker’s value truly is. Brokers who have been through many different market cycles recognize and know how to leverage those opportunities in their client’s favor. A seasoned pro can find inherent value where others may panic and mistrust the opportunity in front of them. Having an advisor guide you in going against the market’s grain is where the value proposition of a great broker lies.

Moreover, an established buyer’s broker can often ‘part the sea,’ if you will, getting their clients’ offers considered first by the seller, who can rely on the broker’s consistency and track record in seeing the deal through to the end without any issues.

Sadly, buyers often feel they cannot trust a broker based on negative prior dealings. I spend much of my time cleaning up what others have overpromised and underdelivered. It is a trust exercise in convincing the client to believe that what I say, I will do.

I also spend time clearing up falsehoods, such as that buyers believe because they don’t have a broker, they will have more leverage to offer by applying commission points to incentivize the broker to move forward with their offer– even if it’s not at the same price–or that the commission adjustment allows the seller to have more to take home.

Most people don’t realize that when a buyer doesn’t have a broker representing them, two things happen: The listing broker has no issue driving that bid up whether they have a broker or not and most likely will still increase the bid to maximize the seller’s profit. They may not always disclose transparently to the seller that the buyer has come in without representation. Therefore, they are capitalizing on the additional 1.5 or 2 percent it may have saved and allocating it to their own pocket.

While we recognize it is a conflict of interest, it is the fiduciary responsibility of both the buyer’s and seller’s broker to disclose if a dual agency has been created.

Without using a buyer’s broker, the listing agent’s fiduciary responsibility remains with the seller, not the procuring buyer, so the buyer entering the transaction is walking into a situation where they have no one advocating on their behalf.

The bottom line is that when you are putting a substantial amount of cash into an asset, it is incumbent on all parties to have a representative looking out for their needs to ensure they are getting the most value for their asset, whether on the buy or sell side.

As a real estate advisor, I am very uncomfortable ‘selling’ my value to anyone. However, I am a big believer in actions speaking louder than words. Anyone wishing to enter into a real estate transaction should look very carefully at their agent’s actions to appreciate best what they bring to the table.

Issue 124 – “The Freeze Heard Across New York”

August 1, 2026

Even those of us who spend most of our days in the world of sales rather than rentals cannot ignore the conversation dominating New York real estate this summer: the city’s newly approved two-year rent freeze on nearly one million rent-stabilized apartments. The decision, fulfilling one of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s signature campaign promises, has ignited passionate debate from tenants, landlords, developers, and economists alike.

As Time Magazine recently reported, “’Freeze the rent’ became the definitive rallying cry of Mamdani’s affordability-focused mayoral campaign for New York City, one of the most expensive cities in the world. Despite skepticism that he could actually pull it off, a board he controls made good on his pledge just six months into his term.”

In a 7-1 vote this June, the Rent Guidelines Board approved a rent freeze on one- and two-year leases on rent-stabilized apartments — which, according to the Time article, “make up about 27% of overall NYC housing stock.”

For tenants living in stabilized housing, the appeal is obvious. In a city where affordability persists as one of the defining challenges of our time, freezing rents offers immediate relief and greater certainty in an increasingly pricey environment.

Yet, as is so often the case in New York real estate, the story is more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

The New York Post presented the other side of the story, explaining that building owners are grappling with rising operating costs: insurance premiums, labor expenses, property taxes, and capital improvements have all increased substantially.

Critics argue that while the freeze protects tenants in the short term, rising expenses without corresponding rent increases may make it harder, particularly for smaller landlords, to maintain and improve aging buildings.

Rent freezes are not unprecedented. Previous freezes have provided short-term relief for tenants while renewing debates over maintenance, capital improvements, and investment in aging housing stock.

The broader issue is supply. Economists across the political spectrum generally agree that New York’s housing shortage cannot be solved through rent regulation alone. As Vox reported, demand continues to outpace inventory, making new housing production, zoning reform, and development incentives essential.

Although the freeze does not directly affect market-rate apartments, landlords with both stabilized and market-rate units may feel pressure to offset constrained revenue by increasing free-market rents where legally permissible. New York State’s 2024 Good Cause Eviction law, however, limits annual rent increases to the lesser of 10% or the local inflation index.

For buyers, particularly investors considering multifamily assets, the freeze introduces additional uncertainty around future income growth. Buildings with significant rent-stabilized components may trade at lower valuations because purchasers will have to underwrite higher operating costs against stagnant revenue.

For sellers, especially owners of mixed-use or rent-stabilized assets, the challenge becomes demonstrating long-term upside. We may see some owners delay sales, while others bring assets to market sooner out of concern that future regulation could become even more restrictive.

From a residential perspective, one unintended consequence may be increased demand for condominiums and co-ops. When rental policy becomes less predictable, many affluent New Yorkers begin to view ownership as a more stable, controllable alternative.

Foreign investors are unlikely to retreat from purchasing trophy condominiums or prime co-ops, which operate outside the stabilized system. In fact, increased regulation in the rental market could strengthen the appeal of luxury ownership as a store of wealth.

The greater consequence will be on institutional and international investors exploring multifamily acquisitions, where limits on revenue growth coupled with rising operating expenses may prompt some capital to pause, reprice risk, or seek opportunities elsewhere.

A major concern today is that the economics are more challenging than they were a decade ago. The Rent Guidelines Board’s own data shows that operating expenses continue to rise, with insurance costs increasing by more than 10% and overall operating costs rising by more than 5%. The effects will likely be felt most acutely in neighborhoods with large concentrations of rent-stabilized housing, while luxury condominium markets such as Tribeca, SoHo, and much of the West Village, where condominium and market-rate inventory dominate, will experience relatively little direct change.

New York remains one of the most desirable real estate markets in the world. The larger question is whether future housing policy can strike the right balance between protecting tenants and preserving the incentives necessary to maintain and improve the city’s housing stock. Recent reporting suggests that landlords and tenants alike are increasingly worried about the long-term sustainability of that balance.

Perhaps most interesting is what this moment reveals about New York itself. Housing has become far more than an economic issue—it has become a cultural and political one. The debate over rent stabilization reflects larger questions about who gets to stay in the city, who can afford to enter it, and what balance should exist between protecting existing residents and encouraging future investment.

As someone whose business focuses primarily on the sales market, I often remind clients that New York real estate rarely moves in straight lines. Policy shifts ripple through every corner of the market, shaping rental demand, buyer behavior, and investment strategy alike.

Yet what doesn’t change is New York’s capacity to reinvent itself. The conversation around housing will evolve, administrations will change, and policies will come and go. But the city’s enduring challenge — and opportunity — will always be finding ways to be both livable and aspirational.