Skip to main content
Log in

Real Estate Brokers and Commission: Theory and Calibrations

  • Published:
The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper has two goals: (a) To model an inherent conflict of interest between a seller of a house and the real estate broker hired by the seller. In this environment, the pressure brokers exert on sellers to reduce prices generates faster sales and hence reduces sellers’ expected profit. (b) To calibrate the brokers’ commission rates that would maximize sellers’ expected gain. The calibration results may hint whether the ongoing uniform commission rate reflects collusion among real estate agencies, or should be viewed as competitive.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Crawford and Sobel (1982) call this “strategic information transmission” because a broker may send a noisy signal to a seller who then takes an action that determines the welfare of both. This literature is surveyed in Riley (2001).

  2. Clearly, the seller has the final say on the price. However, in many cases, real estate brokers have a great deal of influence on sellers’ pricing decisions, basically by providing certain information on the market thereby leading the seller to believe that the price must be lowered. In this case, the assumption that brokers set the price is not that far from reality. Brokers often exert pressure on buyers to lower their price by telling sellers that they will not be able find buyers at the price they want.

  3. It should be mentioned that Rubinstein and Wolinsky (1987) as well as Hackett (1992, 1993) have also recognized that the way that middlemen contract with trading partners affects the distribution of gains from trade between sellers and buyers.

  4. As mentioned in the introduction, sellers in the United States generally pay 6% commission and rarely bargain with their brokers on lower rates. Thus, it makes sense to assume that the commission rate is exogenously given.

  5. I thank the referee for suggesting this extension.

References

  • Anglin, P., & Arnott, R. (1999). Are brokers’ commission rates on home sales too high? A conceptual analysis. Real Estate Economics, 27(4), 719–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, M. (1992). The principal-agent relationship in real estate brokerage services. Real Estate Economics, 20(1), 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglaiser, G. (1993). Middlemen as experts. RAND Journal of Economics, 24(2), 212–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biglaiser, G., & Friedman, J. (1994). Middlemen as guarantors of quality. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 12(4), 509–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, W. (1989). Fixed-percentage commissions and moral hazard in residential real estate brokerage. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 2,(4), 349–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Commission, Federal Trade & U.S. Department of Justice (2007). Competition in the Real Estate Brokerage Industry.

  • Crawford, V., & Sobel, J. (1982). Strategic information transmission. Econometrica, 50(6), 1431–1451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, L., & Yavas, A. (2010). A case for percentage commission contracts: The impact of a “Race” among agents. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 40(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garella, P. (1989). Adverse selection and the middleman. Economica, 56(223), 395–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Genesove, D., & Mayer, C. (2001). Loss aversion and seller behavior: Evidence from the housing market. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1233–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. (1992). A comparative analysis of merchant and broker intermediation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18(3), 299–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackett, S. (1993). Consignment contracting. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 20(2), 247–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendel, I., Nevo, A., & Ortalo-Magne, F. (2009). The relative performance of real estate marketing platforms: Mls versus fsbomadison.com. The American Economic Review, 99(5), 1878–1898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, M. (1988). Uncertainty, efficiency, and the brokerage industry. Journal of Law and Economics, 31(1), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, S., & Syverson, C. (2008). Market distortions when agents are better informed: The value of information in real estate transactions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90(4), 599–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merlo, A., Ortalo-Magné, F., & Rust, J. (2008). The home selling problem: Theory and evidence. Tech. rep., University of Maryland Working Paper.

  • Riley, J. (2001). Silver signals: Twenty-five years of screening and signaling. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 432–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A., & Wolinsky, A. (1987). Middlemen. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(3), 581–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salant, S. (1991). For sale by owner: When to use a broker and how to price the house. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 4(2), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroeter, J. (2003). Competition and value-of-service pricing in the residential real estate brokerage market. Iowa State University, Department of Economics, Staff General Research Paper.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yavas, A. (1994). Middlemen in bilateral search markets. Journal of Labor Economics, 12(3), 406–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zorn, T., & Larsen, J. (1986). The incentive effects of flat-fee and percentage commissions for real estate brokers. Real Estate Economics, 14(1), 24–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank an anonymous referee, Mary Burke and Suzanne Lorant for most valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston or the Federal Reserve System.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oz Shy.

Appendix: Derivation of Equation 6

Appendix: Derivation of Equation 6

The right side of Eq. 6 can be written as

$$ \begin{array}{rll} &&{\beta}\left\{ \left[ 1+(1-{\beta})+(1-{\beta})^2+\cdots \right] + \left[ (1-{\beta})+(1-{\beta})^2+\cdots \right] \right. \\ &&\left.\left[ (1-{\beta})^2+(1-{\beta})^3+\cdots\right] + \left[ (1-{\beta})^3+(1-{\beta})^4+\cdots\right]\right\} . \end{array} $$

Since each bracket term constitutes a converging sequence, the above equals to

$$ {\beta}\left\{ \frac{1}{1-(1-{\beta})}+ \frac{1-{\beta}}{1-(1-{\beta})}+ \frac{(1-{\beta})^2}{1-(1-{\beta}) }+\cdots \right\} =\sum_{t=0}^\infty (1-{\beta})^t =\frac{1}{{\beta}} . $$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shy, O. Real Estate Brokers and Commission: Theory and Calibrations. J Real Estate Finan Econ 45, 982–1004 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-010-9296-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-010-9296-6

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation