Comments on: Inside the Brokerage Numbers, Part 1 (AKA, Umm… WTF?) http://www.notorious-rob.com/2008/10/15/inside-the-brokerage-numbers-part-1-aka-umm-wtf/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss On Marketing, Technology, and Real Estate Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:04:31 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Inside the Brokerage Numbers, Part 2 (AKA, Our People Are Our Most Valuable Resources. NOT!) « The Notorious R.O.B. http://www.notorious-rob.com/2008/10/15/inside-the-brokerage-numbers-part-1-aka-umm-wtf/comment-page-1/#comment-529 Inside the Brokerage Numbers, Part 2 (AKA, Our People Are Our Most Valuable Resources. NOT!) « The Notorious R.O.B. Mon, 20 Oct 2008 20:06:26 +0000 http://robhahn.wordpress.com/?p=425#comment-529 [...] a comment » In part 1 of this series, I looked at per-person productivity numbers which simply made no sense. Thankfully, [...] [...] a comment » In part 1 of this series, I looked at per-person productivity numbers which simply made no sense. Thankfully, [...]

]]> By: Russell Shaw http://www.notorious-rob.com/2008/10/15/inside-the-brokerage-numbers-part-1-aka-umm-wtf/comment-page-1/#comment-528 Russell Shaw Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:16:39 +0000 http://robhahn.wordpress.com/?p=425#comment-528 I don't have any real comparative stats to prove the point but I am convinced that the fax and the cellphone changed just about everything for our business. Later, email turbocharged those changes. We sell houses in an area that would cover well over 1,500 square miles. There was a time that to deliver an offer it took a 45 minute drive - each way. The fax machine changed that overnight. When I got my first cellphone (1985) my life was transformed. I never again had to use a pay phone to call in and check for messages (usually, I didn't have any anyway back then:) - I could find that out while I was still driving. The amount of business that a single agent could do after the cellphone and computer was just SO different. However, this did not change the amount of business most agents *would* do; but did make new highs possible for those that really wanted to reach for them. I don’t have any real comparative stats to prove the point but I am convinced that the fax and the cellphone changed just about everything for our business. Later, email turbocharged those changes. We sell houses in an area that would cover well over 1,500 square miles. There was a time that to deliver an offer it took a 45 minute drive – each way. The fax machine changed that overnight. When I got my first cellphone (1985) my life was transformed. I never again had to use a pay phone to call in and check for messages (usually, I didn’t have any anyway back then:) – I could find that out while I was still driving.

The amount of business that a single agent could do after the cellphone and computer was just SO different. However, this did not change the amount of business most agents *would* do; but did make new highs possible for those that really wanted to reach for them.

]]> By: -Rob http://www.notorious-rob.com/2008/10/15/inside-the-brokerage-numbers-part-1-aka-umm-wtf/comment-page-1/#comment-525 -Rob Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:49:09 +0000 http://robhahn.wordpress.com/?p=425#comment-525 PPP is in fact closed sides divided by number of agents, Russell. So your view is that the increase in the number of agents have outpaced any increase in number of sides/value of transactions over the past ten years? That would be a good explanation of the declining PPP. What I wonder about is whether there are companies that did not add large #'s of agents during the same period and experienced dramatic PPP growth from the productivity gains from technology. I mean, all the anecdotal evidence about how email and cellphones let agents do their thing faster and more efficienty is just that: anecdotes. I'd love to see some numbers, hard or soft, measuring productivity gain from IT on real estate. Jay -- my next piece is going to be right up your alley then. :) -rsh PPP is in fact closed sides divided by number of agents, Russell.

So your view is that the increase in the number of agents have outpaced any increase in number of sides/value of transactions over the past ten years? That would be a good explanation of the declining PPP. What I wonder about is whether there are companies that did not add large #’s of agents during the same period and experienced dramatic PPP growth from the productivity gains from technology.

I mean, all the anecdotal evidence about how email and cellphones let agents do their thing faster and more efficienty is just that: anecdotes. I’d love to see some numbers, hard or soft, measuring productivity gain from IT on real estate.

Jay — my next piece is going to be right up your alley then. :)

-rsh

]]> By: Russell Shaw http://www.notorious-rob.com/2008/10/15/inside-the-brokerage-numbers-part-1-aka-umm-wtf/comment-page-1/#comment-526 Russell Shaw Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:31:11 +0000 http://robhahn.wordpress.com/?p=425#comment-526 I haven't seen the REALTrends report but if PPP is the number of sales per agent - their research does not surprise me. Sales per agent - which is about the only thing that really determines income for agents has been down trending long term due to the huge increase in the number of agents as the market went up in units. The new agents tend to come into the market faster than they leave as the market turns down. The total number of sales in the U.S. could drop from the present level and most agents still could do quite well .... if there were about 2/3 less agents. Operations like Jay's will almost always outperform any major company - anywhere - on a PPP basis. I haven’t seen the REALTrends report but if PPP is the number of sales per agent – their research does not surprise me.

Sales per agent – which is about the only thing that really determines income for agents has been down trending long term due to the huge increase in the number of agents as the market went up in units. The new agents tend to come into the market faster than they leave as the market turns down.

The total number of sales in the U.S. could drop from the present level and most agents still could do quite well …. if there were about 2/3 less agents.

Operations like Jay’s will almost always outperform any major company – anywhere – on a PPP basis.

]]> By: Jay Thompson http://www.notorious-rob.com/2008/10/15/inside-the-brokerage-numbers-part-1-aka-umm-wtf/comment-page-1/#comment-527 Jay Thompson Thu, 16 Oct 2008 04:33:43 +0000 http://robhahn.wordpress.com/?p=425#comment-527 *Very* interesting. Very. I'm sure neither RealTrends nor any of the Top 100/ 500/whatever give a flip about a little eight agent independent "boutique" brokerage in Phoenix, AZ, but I can tell you one thing -- my productivity, profit, etc numbers **smoke** theirs on a percentage basis. I'm not an MBA but I'm guessing maybe the low overhead from having no brick & mortar presence and a policy and model of not just hiring anyone with a license and a pulse may have something to do with that. *Very* interesting. Very.

I’m sure neither RealTrends nor any of the Top 100/ 500/whatever give a flip about a little eight agent independent “boutique” brokerage in Phoenix, AZ, but I can tell you one thing — my productivity, profit, etc numbers **smoke** theirs on a percentage basis.

I’m not an MBA but I’m guessing maybe the low overhead from having no brick & mortar presence and a policy and model of not just hiring anyone with a license and a pulse may have something to do with that.

]]>