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

100 Barclay Street #11F

32 West 18th Street 11B

75 Grand Street 4W

641 Fifth Avenue #33/34EF

101 Leonard Street 5/D

500 Park Ave Penthouse-39

450 East 52nd St #10

1001 Fifth Avenue 110C

22 Central Park South Unit 3

508 Canal Street #TH3

115 Morton Street #5B

501 Third Avenue #6E

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

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 126 – Who Owns the Listing?

October 1, 2026

New York real estate is quietly becoming a battle for access, and most consumers don’t even realize the rules are changing.

The most important battle may no longer be who gets the listing — it may be who gets to see it. For most of my career, a listing broker’s job has been straightforward: create demand, tell the property’s story, expose it to the right buyers, negotiate expertly, and ultimately get the best possible outcome for the seller. Now a fundamental element of that role is shifting — access itself.

That does not mean private listings are inherently problematic, or even new. I’ve sold properties quietly myself. Sometimes discretion is necessary—for privacy reasons, security concerns, divorce proceedings, an occupied home, or to test a pricing strategy.

But what was once the exception is becoming more the norm.

As of August 12, Marketproof identified 440 Manhattan properties being offered as ‘Participant Only’ listings, representing approximately $1.94 billion in asking volume. Of this total, 47 new Participant Only listings were added in June, 144 in July, and 153 in just the first 12 days of August.

This isn’t just a trophy-market phenomenon. Marketproof found that nearly 30% of those listings were asking under $1 million. And The Real Deal’s recent analysis points in the same direction, reporting a 30% increase in off-market residential sales volume across Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens in 2025.

Put those numbers together, and it becomes difficult to dismiss private real estate as merely the world of whisper listings and ultra-high-net-worth sellers. Private marketing is becoming mainstream, which deserves a closer look. We need to ascertain who benefits.

So, who owns the listing? Legally, the answer is obvious — the seller owns the property. In practice, the picture is more nuanced. Listings have become valuable currency: they attract buyers, who generate data and relationships. And those relationships lead to transactions that create market share and leverage.

Perhaps we should be asking a different question: When did exclusivity stop meaning the right to represent a property and start meaning the right to restrict who sees it?

The seller wants the best possible combination of price, privacy, certainty, and timing. The broker wants to represent the seller successfully, protect the relationship, and complete the transaction. The brokerage or platform has another economic interest: inventory. Listings attract consumers, engagement, data, and future business. None of these interests is inherently improper. But when they diverge, we need to be very clear about whose interest comes first.

For me, the seller has to be the North Star. That is where the debate becomes complicated.

StreetEasy has argued that the growth of private listings creates artificial scarcity and gatekeeping. Supporters of private marketing argue that sellers should have the right to decide how — and how publicly — their homes are marketed.

I understand both arguments. But I keep coming back to one question: Does restricting exposure actually create a better outcome for the seller? If it does, show me.

The early data is fascinating, partly because it doesn’t give us a definitive answer. Marketproof found that 78% of the Participant Only listings it analyzed had previously been publicly marketed. Of those Participant Only listings that came off the market without selling, roughly one-third subsequently returned to the public market. Additionally, those relistings came back at a median asking price 6.4% below their Participant Only asking price, according to Marketproof. While interesting, it doesn’t prove that private marketing is ineffective.

There aren’t enough matched transactions yet to determine whether comparable privately marketed properties ultimately sell for more or less than publicly marketed ones. That’s precisely why I think the industry should be careful about declaring victory on either side.

Real estate value is established through imperfect but important information: comparable transactions, current competition, buyer behavior, and ultimately what someone is willing to pay. Exposure is part of that price-discovery mechanism, but it doesn’t mean maximum exposure always produces maximum price.

Scarcity can create urgency. A sophisticated broker may know exactly which handful of buyers are right for a particular property. However, we need to be careful not to confuse controlled exposure with manufactured scarcity.

Another reason this conversation matters now: Consolidation is changing the brokerage business. Large firms can offer extraordinary advantages — technology, referral networks, data, marketing resources, and access to enormous numbers of agents and consumers. Scale itself isn’t the problem, But when scale is combined with proprietary inventory, the competitive equation changes.

For years, technology moved residential real estate toward greater transparency. Consumers gained access to listings, price histories, comparable sales, building information, and market data that once largely resided with brokers. That disrupted our industry, but I think it made good brokers more valuable — not less. A great broker shouldn’t be afraid of this transparency.

Our value is actually understanding the information. It’s knowing why one apartment deserves $2,000 per square foot while another in the same building doesn’t. It’s knowing when to walk away from a bidding war, how to position an unusual property, how to navigate a board, how to structure a complicated deal — and how to tell a seller something they may not want to hear.

None of this means every property should automatically be marketed publicly. But as a broker, my responsibility is making sure the seller understands the nuance.

Whenever an industry undergoes structural change, I find it useful to ask one simple question: Who benefits? And I always circle back to the ultimate one: What will produce the best outcome for my client?

Before New York embraces a fundamentally different marketplace, we should demand enough transparency to know, because the future of residential brokerage shouldn’t be decided solely by which company has the largest network or which website has the largest audience.

None of us should confuse access to the listing with ownership of the client’s interests.

So, if private marketing creates greater value for sellers, let’s prove it. If an open marketplace creates greater value, let’s prove that too. If the answer depends upon the particular seller and property, let’s have the sophistication to say so.

Because ultimately, the most important question isn’t whether a listing is public or private; it’s whether restricting access creates value for the seller — or just value for the company controlling the access. Those are not the same thing.

And right now, New York real estate needs to understand the difference.