I sort of suspect that the broker may be paying kickbacks to the landlord in these cases.
Many building in New York are rent-controlled such that the allowed rent is far below market. Everyone wants one, but there are not enough for everyone to have one. And there will never be enough by definition because the rent is below market. So the market steps in to correct this imbalance.
Tenants are willing and able to pay a (large!) one-time fee to access those below-market rents… like buying an annuity. Landlords on the other hand are only too willing to accept an upfront cash payment which offsets part of the below-market rent (and could be used to buy an actual annuity to supplement rent).
In this case I believe the broker is simply playing the boogieman (like how Ticketmaster “resells” tickets far above the face value to launder high prices for musicians) to give the landlord and tenant both plausible deniability about what is actually going on.
Many building in New York are rent-controlled such that the allowed rent is far below market. Everyone wants one, but there are not enough for everyone to have one. And there will never be enough by definition because the rent is below market. So the market steps in to correct this imbalance.
Tenants are willing and able to pay a (large!) one-time fee to access those below-market rents… like buying an annuity. Landlords on the other hand are only too willing to accept an upfront cash payment which offsets part of the below-market rent (and could be used to buy an actual annuity to supplement rent).
In this case I believe the broker is simply playing the boogieman (like how Ticketmaster “resells” tickets far above the face value to launder high prices for musicians) to give the landlord and tenant both plausible deniability about what is actually going on.