A Response to “A Critical Assessment of the Traditional Residential Real Estate Broker Commission Rate Structure” (abridged) by Mark S. Nadel
Editor’s Note: Last year’s edition of the Cornell Real Estate Review featured an article by Mark Nadel presenting a criticism of the traditional real estate broker fee structure, the perceived value of brokers’ services, and alternative compensation methods that, from the author’s point of view, would better serve the public (“A Critical Assessment of the Traditional Residential Real Estate Broker Commission Rate Structure” Cornell Real Estate Review, Vol. 5, pages 26-46). Following the article’s publication, Barbara Nichols, a seasoned residential broker in Los Angeles and Cornell alumna, submitted a rebuttal to Mr. Nadel’s stance. If a scholastic journal’s aim is to provide a platform for staging new ideas relevant to its trade, so should a journal encourage germane issues to be concurrently or sequentially debated. Thus, in the spirit of thought provoking debate accompanying an academic journal, the Cornell Real Estate Review presents Ms. Nichols’ defense of the residential brokerage industry.
Cornell Real Estate Review
Volume & Issue:
cost-value; rebuttal; brokerage commission; liability; agents; capitalism; dual agency; flat fee; rate; National Association of Realtors; brokerage; fiduciary duty; quick sale; incremental value; multiple listing service; realtor
Required Publisher Statement: © Cornell University. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.