I get that the difference in population and level of competition between cities / states may alter rates (basic supply and demand, i.e. small country town with only one agent vs. a big city), but I'm struggling to understand why there's such a big difference in RE fees between two large cities, like Brisbane and Sydney for example.
I assume it's more than basic competition and it's more than just the nexus between supply and demand. Is there some sort of huge structural difference I'm unaware of? Maybe they pay more govt. fees, higher liability insurance costs, or perhaps LJ Hooker or one of the agents have a monopoly in certain states?
It seems to me if you hunt around you can get rates around 4-5% in Sydney whereas Brisbane they're hovering around 8-10% on average. I'm having trouble trying to reconcile such a large difference. If there's no structural difference, it seems to me there's an opportunity for agents to swoop in and take half the market with more competitive rates.
I assume it's more than basic competition and it's more than just the nexus between supply and demand. Is there some sort of huge structural difference I'm unaware of? Maybe they pay more govt. fees, higher liability insurance costs, or perhaps LJ Hooker or one of the agents have a monopoly in certain states?
It seems to me if you hunt around you can get rates around 4-5% in Sydney whereas Brisbane they're hovering around 8-10% on average. I'm having trouble trying to reconcile such a large difference. If there's no structural difference, it seems to me there's an opportunity for agents to swoop in and take half the market with more competitive rates.