2023年6月21日

DelPrete:在低收費代理經紀公司效率低嗎?雙重假設低收費券商不是可持續的,和他們的代理人生產力,是錯誤的,邁克DelPrete寫道:本文Inman連接是共享的許可,邁克DelPrete曼為英特爾,曼的數據和研究機構提供深刻見解和市場情報的商業住宅房地產和proptech。今天訂閱。常見的回應我之前分析代理人薪酬在美國券商經紀公司支付最代理無法盈利或可持續的——但是,也許相反,事實卻並非如此。為什麼它重要的:在一個不斷變化的市場,低收費經紀模型結構設計蓬勃發展,操作比傳統券商更有利可圖。回顧一下,低收費模型支付更高比例的收入比遺留證券公司代理。相同的低收費券商也盈利或接近盈利能力:eXp物業,曼聯,真正理解(RealtyONE拒絕與我分享這些信息)。唯一盈利的公司2023年一季度eXp物業和美國房地產、券商真的無利可圖和最大的遺產。注意:這個分析使用調整後息稅前利潤(認為這是調整後的淨收益)盈利能力的指標——它允許公司將其收益最好的光通過支持費用像股票補償,一次性法律或重組費用,和其他非現金費用。占經紀公司規模的變化,我們可以看調整後息稅前利潤/事務,收益率同樣暴露的結果。 It’s worth directly comparing the two fastest-growing models of the past five years, Compass and eXp: in Q1 2023, Compass lost $1,900 per transaction, while eXp generated a profit of $130 per transaction — quite the difference. The outlier is Douglas Elliman, which has a much smaller transaction volume (4,600 in Q1 ’23, compared to 36,000 at Compass), so its loss per transaction is much higher than its peers. The next most common response to this analysis asserts that the low-fee models don’t provide as much support to their agents. Therefore, while agents are able to “make more money,” they’re on their own and, without brokerage support, are less productive. Once again, the evidence suggests otherwise. Across the nine brokerages in this analysis, the average production was one transaction per agent in Q1 2023. The average for the legacy brokerages (Compass, Anywhere, Keller Williams and Douglas Elliman) was 1.03 transactions per agent, while the average for the low-fee brokerages (eXp, Real, RealtyONE, United and Fathom) was 0.98 transactions per agent — effectively the same. In aggregate, agents at low-fee brokerages, with “less support,” were just as productive as agents at the legacy brokerages with “lots of support.” Variability in the number of transactions per agent over time provides further evidence: between Q4 2022 and Q1 2023, the average number of transactions per agent dropped 10 percent across the same nine brokerages. Four low-fee brokerages (eXp, Real, Fathom, and RealtyONE) were at or below that average — meaning that their agents saw less of a decline in transaction volume than agents at legacy brokerages. Support or not, agents at low-fee brokerages were more resilient and saw less variability in production during a changing market. Yes, but: These are averages, and as with all averages, there will be overs, unders and outliers. Not all low-fee brokerages and legacy brokerages perform similarly. Furthermore, inside each organization, there is significant variability in individual agent performance and compensation. The bottom line: The dual hypotheses that low-fee brokerages aren’t sustainable, and that their agents are less productive due to less support, are false. Low-fee brokerages are, in fact, more profitable than the legacy brokerages, even after paying out a significantly higher proportion of their revenue to agents. This is classic Innovator’s Dilemma: While the legacy brokerages are racing to cut costs, the low-fee models — built from the ground up with a lower-cost operating model — are taking market share and competing where they can win. Mike DelPrete is a strategic adviser and global expert in real estate tech, including Zavvie, an iBuyer offer aggregator. Connect with him on LinkedIn . Show CommentsHide Comments