Skip to content

The Challenge: From 3% to 10%

December 17, 2008

In the comments of this post, I wrote that THE challenge facing real estate is how brokers move from 3% profit margins to 10% profit margins.  And I just got off a fantastic teleconference featuring the likes of Kris Berg, Marty Frame, Pam O’Connor, and other experts talking about the industry.

Then Kris, Jay Thompson, and I got into a Twitter discussion about broker profitability and the path to it.  The 140-char limit is not conducive to real discussion, so… this post.

Let’s set the stage.

I have heard from various sources who ought to know (e.g., COO of a very large brokerage in the South, president of major franchisor, etc.) that the average profit margin for real estate brokerage is about 3%.  This means that some are over 3%, but a huge portion are actually below 3%.  (Remember, average, not median.)

The average profit margin for corporate America over the last 25 years is 8.3%.

As of today, 30-year Treasuries are paying a 4.5% coupon, and yielding 2.66%.

So by taking ZERO risks with my money and investing it into 30-year Treasuries, I will make 2.66%; by taking all sorts of risks (litigation risk, business risk, etc.) and for taking on the headache of managing a whole bunch of real estate agents, I’m going to make 3%.

There is so little incentive to become a broker if this is the situation.

More facts: The average company dollar for real estate brokerage (based on the REAL Trends Brokerage Performance Report) is 26.8% — meaning that for every dollar of GCI revenue, the broker receives 26 cents.  Then out of that company dollar, the broker has to pay for all the overhead, the office space, the advertising, the websites, so on and so forth.

The Debate

So the question is, how does a broker improve his profitability?  Because if profitability is so low, then he might as well just put his money into Treasuries and earn more.

Kris Berg suggests that the answer is for the broker to stop giving agents all these ridiculous, unused, useless tools and gadgets, and to just get out of the way.  Jay Thompson echoes her thoughts and points out that he’d make more money from a really good agent at 10% split than a crappy newbie at 40% splits.

Okay.  So, the issues are:

1.  Profit ($$) vs. Profitability (%)

Profit is raw dollars; Jay probably does make more $$ from a top agent at 90/10 splits.  However, his company dollar is 10; his maximum profitability from that agent is 10%.  After taking all of the costs of having that agent into account, I suppose Jay could calculate the profit margin of that particular agent.  If it’s 2%, then I have to recommend to Jay that he fire the agent, take those dollars he would have invested in keeping that agent (e.g., overhead, utilities, whatever) and put it into Treasuries paying 2.66%.  He’d actually end up making more money.

2.  Scalability

This is something no one truly knows.  No doubt Jay’s actual profit margins are higher — he’s estimating maybe even 9% or so.  That puts his profitability in line with corporate America, trend-wise, and makes it worthwhile to keep being a broker.

But does this translate to say Crye-Leike?  No one actually knows.

And the impact of margins get outsized as the actual dollar volume increases.  Going from 9% to 7% for a small operation might mean profit decreases from $90K a year to $70K a year.  But if you’re a Big Brokerage, then going from 9% to 7% could mean going from $90M a year to $70M — those $20M dollars could have gone into things like investment in more innovation, a better website, whatever.

Conversely, if you take two large brokerages, and one makes 9% and the other 8.5%, that could still mean a $5M a year advantage for the one making 9% to reinvest into the business.  After a few short years, those millions will start to have an impact on the weaker business — whether that’s through more effective branding, better training, or better consumer website that the extra $5M a year can buy.

3.  Incentives

The key question, I think, is that of incentives.

If a broker is seeking to be a low-cost, low-value provider to the agent, what exactly is the agent’s incentive to pay the broker a larger share of GCI?

And if the answer is None, then the claim absolutely must be that for a broker to increase profitability, it must be done by cutting costs other than labor costs.  In fact, the money saved from eliminating all those ancillary tools and overhead must more than make up for the inevitable decline in company dollar.

Consider.  If today, you’re giving me $10,000 worth of tools and services, and I’m paying you 20% splits… it is entirely irrational for me to agree to keep paying you 20% splits if you drop what you’re giving me to $1,000.  So that $9K you’re saving by dropping your services to me to $1,000 had better be more than the company dollar you’re going to lose when I demand higher splits (let’s say to 95/5).  So 15% of my GCI production for that year has to be less than $9k you’re saving for this to end up improving your profitability.

Is there a scenario where this could work?  Possibly.

I just can’t imagine it.  The incentives are completely out of whack.

The Answer?

Seems to me that at the end of the day, it comes back to an issue of Productivity.  Somehow, I as the broker, have to get more productivity out of my agents without raising my labor costs significantly.

Well, since Productivity is classically defined as “Output per unit of labor” the only two ways to increase productivity is to raise output (i.e, GCI in our case) or lower per unit labor costs (i.e., agent commissions).

Raising output then means somehow, the agents you already have, without any additional assistance, tools, or services, simply have to make more deals happen.  It’s possible, of course, if the market conditions improve, or they just get better at selling homes.  But that strikes me as an exercise in “hope and faith as corporate strategy”.  Just Do It! is rarely an effective business strategy.

Lowering per unit labor costs is similarly fraught with difficulty.  If someone is making 80% of GCI on a split, what exactly is his incentive to make less, if you are giving him nothing more?

So… I come back to this: Technology.

The only proven way to improve output per unit of labor is to invest in technology.  A farmer using a horse-drawn plow can produce more grain if he’s given an International Harvester.  A shoemaker producing two shoes a day using a hammer and scissors can produce two hundred if he’s given an automated modern factory with an assembly line and modern inventory management.

It’s the only known answer we have.

So if a broker wants to improve profitability, seems to me that he has no choice but to invest in technology to make his agents more productive, while either demanding more money (since he’s giving them more) or keeping labor costs constant (since he’s giving them more).

Am I missing something here?

-rsh

Advertisements
19 Comments leave one →
  1. December 18, 2008 4:27 pm

    @Michael –

    I happen to agree with your steps, completely. 🙂 The broker has to prove value-add before he can start moving off of the 100% splits into something where he’ll make more profits.

    Which is precisely why I believe Big Brokerage, and only Big Brokerage, can take this path. You have to have some capital to pull this off. You have to have some ability to weather the short-term loss for long-term gain.

    3% profit margin is terrible, but if your annual GCI is $300M, 3% is still $9M a year. The broker has to reinvest a huge chunk of that into technology, raise productivity, and then start easing out the agents who won’t or can’t get with the new program.

    And as it happens, I know that at least ONE major brokerage (top 50 in the country) is doing precisely this over the next three years because its leader is a visionary who sees exactly what he has to do. He’s already easing out the unprofitable agents, and recruiting young, promising agents who would thrive with adequate support and technology. And he’s prepared to reinvest 100% of his profits for the next three years into technology. And believe me, that is not chump change given the company.

    So… like any capital investment, I think the steps are:

    1. Invest
    2. Deploy & Prove Value (not necessarily to the Agent, but to the Broker)
    3. Cut everyone who can’t get with the program, while replacing them with people who can, at a higher rate of productivity
    4. Dominate

    And that 4th step is important. If you’re of any size, and you’re at 8% profit margins while your competitors are sitting at 4% margins, you can outspend them every single year in every aspect of operations from marketing to recruiting, because you earn more from every company dollar than they do. If that doesn’t lead to dominance, nothing will.

    -rsh

  2. December 19, 2008 11:29 am

    r-
    All good points, but I think we are speaking from different frames of reference. You are thinking like a Fortune 500 CEO, while I am coming at this as a working girl. What makes the “low cost/low service” model work for me is that I am still an agent. In fact, I have to be. If I ever make the transition to a purely managerial role, I had better have the critical mass of warm, productive bodies to support it. To replace my working-girl income would require about twenty crack agents hitting on all cylinders. If I want to buy a home in Bill Gates’ neighborhood, that would be a different story entirely.

    So I’ll try this again from my frame of reference.

    >If you’re not giving me squat, then why do you have the right or authority to order me around? What you consider ethical might not be what I consider ethical, and since all you’re giving me (as the broker) is quarterly briefings on rules and access to a bunch of stuff I pay for out of my pocket… why exactly do I need you at all? Is a brokerage license that hard to get?

    Let’s start with the last point first. No, a brokers license is not hard to get, so get one. The reality is that a lot of agents don’t want the administrative and liability headaches that come with running a company of any size. So, 10% with a reasonable cap is a fair trade-off. I am giving you more than squat. You are compensating me for the time, costs and risks of the monkey I have taken off your back.

    Why do I have the authority to order you around? If by ordering you around you mean demanding minimum performance standards (and I am not talking about units), more brokers should have been ordering their agents around for the past decade. In what other industry is it OK for people to show up and hang out when it is clear they lack the capacity to succeed? The open door policy where one’s ability to find their way to the office with a license and a note pinned to their collar contributed to the consumer’s current confidence crisis. Further, in what other industry would the company be so willing to look the other way while the “top producers” are out stomping on the Code of Ethics just because they a bringing in buckets of company dollar? It’s an irresponsible and short-sided house of cards that had to fall.

    So back to the “What are you giving me?” question. This is a way of thinking that has to change is a sea of 1099ers. I did not walk into my first office screaming “make me successful.” Rather, it was always up to me. The broker provided an environment in which I could do business, the entity if you will, but whether I ended up with the big gold plaque or I retired an enormous personal debt center and failure was never considered my broker’s responsibility. Those who look at their business in this way will succeed; those who show up expecting to be spoon-fed success will fail. So, ideologically, I think the low cost/low service model is a healthy Darwinistic alternative.

    Stepping off my soapbox oh-so-briefly, here is a little trip down memory lane and maybe a glimpse into what went wrong. At the peak of the market, my broker was compensated over $220,000 by ME in one year, and I was not laying on the zero key there. I can pretty much guarantee my corner office and all of the administrative trappings did not cost that. Last year, it wasn’t that much, but it was “much,” trust me. In the meantime, during the glory days, the broker was stuffing their roster with as many licensed bodies as they could. Remember the game where people would don velcro suits and be hurled against a wall? (Maybe not, but it was funny. Trust me.) That was the hiring practice in a nutshell. Throw as many people up against your actuarial table wall as possible, and a few might stick. More people, more offices, expand, expand, expand. Home buyers weren’t the only ones caught up in the greed game; brokers were too. True, other models are out there — ReMax, Keller Williams — and we are starting to see more acknowledging that limits on the takings are in order. The key, though, is spending less and spending it wisely. I try not to spend money on lost causes; as a broker, it is counter intuitive to think that more is always better. More is just more, and it costs more.

    Finally (I promise), I do see a place for the higher service/higher split model. And the five steps you outline are on target. The problem is, the house-cleaning I am seeing at the big brokerages is starting at the bottom of the list. It’s a panic mentality when, in fact, there will always be a demand for high service as long as the barriers to entry remain so low, as long as anyone can be credentialed without being qualified. Big brokerages are very good at training, and newer agents will always need that place to start. And many experienced agents will find the big family to be a comfy, lower stress alternative.

    One footnote (guess I wasn’t finished after all). I understand the “invest in technology” argument, but this seems a little like running a “patio furniture and mattress” store. (We have a few of those in my town.) Or, put another way, it is the approach that Redfin took, and we see how that is turning out. Redfin has invested gazillions in their technology, and many of my clients use their site. As a technology company, they rock. As a real estate brokerage, they have had their challenges. I have more than enough technology at my disposal to meet my needs. Let the guys who do this and nothing else do it. In other words, outsource. This is efficient. Sure the broker needs to promote the brand, but they don’t need to reinvent the Internet to achieve great brand association. So, if you are talking about investing in technology simply as a way to bring value and business to the agent, that ship has sailed. I don’t need my broker for that. Maybe I just need him to be knowledgeable about my choices and point me in the right direction.

    A lot of words. Sorry.

  3. December 19, 2008 1:45 pm

    Kris –

    First of all, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to engage with me on this. 🙂 I’m well aware of the fact that you could be spending this time making money for yourself, so I salute you for your generosity.

    Now then, let’s delve into things a bit:

    >What makes the “low cost/low service” model work for me is that I am still an agent.

    True — I see the value of the “LC/LS” model for some agents who are self-sufficient, and driven.

    But even for you, let me ask you this.

    Suppose I were to offer you a suite of tools that will dramatically increase your business, or increase your profitability (maybe you go from selling $500K homes to selling $5M homes). If my tools are able to increase your revenues from $250k a year to $500K a year, wouldn’t you gladly give me a higher split? Say from 90/10 to 70/30? 70% of $500K is $350K; 90% of $250K is $225K. Even on a 50/50 split, you end up making more money, if the technology gets you more money.

    I’m thinking that you’d gladly make that deal.

    So the whole LC/LS model is the result, IMHO, of failure on the part of brokers to provide adequate value. Yard signs and newspaper ads aren’t going to do it anymore. Even having just a website isn’t going to cut it. Brokers need to provide more value, create higher productivity, or they will be replaced by those who do.

    I completely, 100% agree with you, Danilo, Jay, and all the others who point to “bad agents” as one of the biggest problems. See my latest post re: brand discipline for example. However, I’m arguing that the “bad agent” problem is a direct result of brokers failing to provide value, and failing to understand exactly what it is that they do, and deciding to take the easy way of “just let ’em do what they want, as long as they pay me a desk fee”.

    The vicious cycle is that once agents have a LC/LS model, the brokers who want to provide a ton of support, create productivity, and so on, simply do not have the revenues to support such a thing. Which is why I believe only the Big Brokers, who have billions in sales, hundreds of millions in GCI and company dollar, will be able to withstand the pain of needing to make significant investments, while the industry changes.

    >At the peak of the market, my broker was compensated over $220,000 by ME in one year, and I was not laying on the zero key there. I can pretty much guarantee my corner office and all of the administrative trappings did not cost that.

    Here’s the thing. A friend of mine works at Goldman Sachs on the equity desk. Five years ago, he made over $250 MILLION for Goldman Sachs dealing in Asian equities. He got a very nice, very fat bonus, but let me assure you that he did not take home anything even close to 50% of the revenue generated.

    Why not? Because he knew, and Goldman Sachs knew, that as talented as he might be at trading, without the MASSIVE investments made by Goldman over decades into things like trading systems, up-to-the-minute market data, a huge network of financing, legal structures, researchers, and so on and so forth, my friend wouldn’t have made $10 trading stocks, nevermind $250m.

    The trouble with brokerage is precisely that they are not Goldman Sachs. They haven’t made the investments over the years necessary to provide the kinds of systems, technology, support, research, and whatever else that agents need to generate sales and revenues. Then they wonder why productive agents want 100% splits and to be left alone.

    Finally, the crux of the issue:

    >I have more than enough technology at my disposal to meet my needs. Let the guys who do this and nothing else do it. In other words, outsource. This is efficient. Sure the broker needs to promote the brand, but they don’t need to reinvent the Internet to achieve great brand association. So, if you are talking about investing in technology simply as a way to bring value and business to the agent, that ship has sailed. I don’t need my broker for that.

    It is efficient. I mean, I work at a company to which many big brokers have outsourced data collection, cleanup, and aggregation. Where it makes sense, I say outsource away.

    The difference is when a technology (or technology system) is actually core to the value proposition. Brokers may not need to be data experts; they might not need to know how to code search algorithms. But they do need to own and build and invest in systems that are directly related to CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIPS, because that lies at the heart of their value in the entire real estate lifecycle.

    Furthermore, there’s a difference between outsourcing to a vendor and outsourcing to a customer-facing operation. If I go to Escalate and buy their ecommerce platform and implement that on my website, then I’ve outsourced development, but own my own ecommerce operation. If, on the other hand, I just go to Amazon.com and set up a Amazon Marketplace account, then I’ve ceded my entire ecommerce operation to Amazon. My products will only strengthen Amazon.com. That isn’t “outsourcing”; that’s surrendering.

    -rsh

  4. December 19, 2008 10:44 pm

    Rob –

    Kris just made me aware of this great discussion so I apologize that I’m a bit late to the game. I tried reading all of the previous “stuff” here but my head semi-exploded so I am writing this with only the remaining half.

    Obviously, a lot of thought and analysis has gone into your thesis as well as the comments. With my half-head I only wish to add a couple of thoughts:

    There is a place in the market for at least two, if not more, models. They can be and are different and not necessarily driven strictly by business school standards. For example, our model can be summed up by the business theory of JWTPTBAHSLO (Just Want To Pay The Bills And Have Some Left Over). We make a “return” on every transaction we close. For every transaction one of our agents closes the return is increased, since their cost is minimal.

    However, we are not really a low service brokerage. Why? Because while we do not provide a variety of technical tools directly to our agents at our cost, we provide the opportunity for them to use the very best technology at the moment by knowing it ourselves (well, Kris, anyway), showing them what is available and how to use it. THEY pay for and use Transaction Point, Doc U Sign, etc, etc., etc. And guess what? Next week there will be something else that is better than what we just showed them.

    This is one of the greatest challenges for the large brokerages with hundreds of agents in numerous offices. They feel like they must provide all this techno-stuff to attract agents and to promote to clients. No matter how much they invest (time and $$) in technology, by the time they have evaluated it, had management meetings to discuss it, figure out how to integrate it into their backbone infrastructure and then finally deploy it only to have to spend the next two or three months trying to teach their agents how to use it, it is already yesterday’s news. Add the revolving door nature of the big brokerage with agents constantly being hired and leaving and, well, you get the idea. Technologically speaking, Kris has always been about 12 months ahead of everything our last big brokerage deployed. That’s one of the reasons we realized we didn’t need them. And that’s why big brokerages shouldn’t even try to keep up with technology. There are at least 3 or 4 third-party sites (probably more)that are much better than the best big brokerage website. They just keep falling behind. Once they realize that, they could save a lot of money and spend more time evaluating agents and trying to attract those who understand and know how to apply technology that’s already out there and who are able to adjust quickly to the inevitable changes that are coming. Whew!!

    Just a quick comment regarding the “return” assumptions I skimmed above (remember with just half of my head), but I apologize if someone has already hit on this point – The big brokerage return, be it 3%, 5%, or whatever considers the net AFTER paying all of the overhead, including the salaries of their executive management team. Not just office managers and admin. people, but the corporate dudes including, but not limited to, the CEO, COO, President, numerous Vice Presidents, the in-house General Counsel, the Tech guy/girl (CTO?), and more. At our last big brokerage company I have to believe this nut was in the many $$millions. So, the theoretical 3% profit, or return is after paying those big boys (and girls) salaries, benefits, and bonuses. “Profit” can be eaten up quickly in this manner and unless you know each brokerage’s corporate overhead it will be difficult to make an apples to apples comparison.

    Last note (Finally, sorry) – When we left to create our own little independent brokerage Kris wrote about it on Inman. There were many positive comments, all in fact, except one. That one negative comment came from the local owner of a national franchise office in our core market whom we know. He said we didn’t have a chance, that we would fail, because we didn’t have the “Big Brand” name and all of the associated advantages and that we would be crushed by costs. I thought about his comment and could not come up with one thing he or other big brokerages could provide me with that I couldn’t do better myself (and for less cost). We have our humble little office and our cost structure is actually less then our last big brokerage (even at our 90% split there), we are using technology that they haven’t even heard of yet, much less deployed. But the most gratifying validation of our move was as a result of a recent interview we gave to the San Diego Daily Transcript (one of our local business papers) about just this subject – the move from a large brokerage to becoming a smaller independent brokerage. The reporter wanted to take a picture of one of our “for sale” signs and we gave her an address. When there she happened to run into our client who was leaving her home and asked her what she thought about our move. Her answer: “I don’t hire the brokerage, I hire the agent.” Nirvana!

  5. December 22, 2008 5:36 pm

    Steve –

    As I’ve mentioned in my response to Kris, first and foremost, THANK YOU. I know your time can be spent doing more remunerative things than comment on a blog, and I can’t tell you how much I appreciate it.

    I think the first place we should begin is in agreeing that Big Brokerage needs to get its act together. But honestly, that particular problem is not something only brokers face. Every large company I have been part of has the same problem. It’s just what happens when you go from 10 people to 100 then to 1,000 and so forth.

    There is no doubt that an enterprise with 3,500 agents cannot move with the same speed and nimbleness than a brokerage with 35 agents can. And the 35 person brokerage cannot move as quickly as a 5 agent brokerage can.

    Having said that, it is important to recognize that while Big Brokerage may not be as nimble as independents, they have one major advantage: they can go Big. They can tackle big investments into truly cutting edge, custom technology that sets them apart. Microsoft and even Google no longer has to be all about innovation and nimbleness; they can just buy out (or muscle out) companies that are.

    I have little doubt that Kris is 12 months ahead of Big Brokerage. But then, Kris can’t deploy fully integrated CRM with a team of database marketers. Big Brokerage can (and should). Someday, some technology company will come along and offer that level of power to independents, and make a fortune. That has always been the story of technology. But by that time, Big Brokerage needs to have moved onto the next productivity enhancing technology.

    The key thing here is that Big Brokerage may have already lost the battle for best website — although, if those third party companies can’t achieve profitability, then they may not be around long enough to win the war. They cannot let that happen to core technology: CRM, document production, transaction management, client retention, etc. If they do, then given the structure of our industry, they will become irrelevant. For too many agents, and too many consumers, they already are. (FWIW, I happen to believe that even on the website front, the Big Brokerages can’t really be said to have lost the battle as much as they simply haven’t started to fight. Some of the best websites in our industry belong to Big Brokerages.)

    With respect to the profit margin, yes, that is excluding salaries and overhead. But every dollar paid to the CEO is a dollar that can’t be reinvested into the business. So from this standpoint, my essential point remains: brokers have to somehow get from 3% to 10% profit margins in order to have a sustainable business. Unless the reason why the margins are at 3% is because of heavy investment into technology… every other expense is basically mortgaging the future of the business.

    Finally, I loved the story about your client talking to your local business paper. That exemplifies on the one hand what makes you guys successful.

    At the same time, if you were the local owner of a national franchise, or the CEO of the national franchise… wouldn’t you think that your client’s comments are a wakeup call? “I don’t hire the brokerage, I hire the agent” is precisely a symptom of failure on the part of Big Brokerage. You almost never hear that when it comes to investment advisors or bankers. In fact, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that having consumers say, “I hire the brokerage, I don’t hire the agent” is the whole raison d’etre of brokerage/brands in the first place.

    -rsh

  6. December 26, 2008 1:16 am

    “In fact, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that having consumers say, “I hire the brokerage, I don’t hire the agent” is the whole raison d’etre of brokerage/brands in the first place.”

    Until the agent is an employee and not a 1099er, this is a pipe dream. A trader at Goldman Sachs is an employee of the firm and represents a standard of performance represented by the brand. The low bar to entry, 50 sets of state regulation make our business unique. Although given the financial crisis, perhaps 50 sets of regulation may be less corruptible than the Federal Securities regime.

    With this real estate cycle we will see a big shake out. The big vs little debate may be rendered moot as politicians throw blame and rewrite regulations. I doubt however, that the states will cede sovereignty to the Feds without a fight. Big real estate has lobbying (bribe) money, the little guys can dance on the head of a pin.

    This conflict is mythic. We know that David won. We also know that all 300 did not survive the Hot Gates (I have to keep Greek out of this), nor did the Light Brigade. While we all like to be the underdog, the money is on the money.

    I wish all a prosperous 2009.

  7. January 7, 2009 1:37 pm

    Rob, I’m way late on this but a couple of things anyway:

    1. One factor that wasn’t mentioned in changing profitability (at least not in the main post) was the impact of company-generated leads. If a company invests in developing unemcumbered leads from its website, outreach to highly targeted markets, etc. and charges, say, a 20% referral fee to the agent after qualifying that business, it changes the effective split and adds value to the agent who doesn’t have to prospect for that NEW business.

    2. Brokers are seeing more profitabilty from related businesses (mortgage, title, insurance) than brokerage…kind of like making money on the film rather than the Polaroid camera. Oops, bad analogy…are they still in business?? 🙂 Yet agents sometimes refuse to use those company services because they don’t want the broker making more money…how silly is that if it helps invest in things like more company leads? Great article in Jan 09 Real Estate (RIS Media) magazine about why agents need to re-think this and see the value.

    Lastly, not all tools provided by brokers are a waste…that implies that agents are so smart they don’t need any help. I hear brokers bemoaning the fact that if agents used some of those tools, they would become more productive. Given that the average annual transaction count is something like 7 or 8 per agent, just adding 2 a year would be significant.

    This whole broker versus agent thing is needs to go away, along with the sentiment that the agent does everything and the broker adds no value. As critical as the agent is (he/she IS the brand and the consumer’s touchpoint), the broker’s risk versus reward in the current model – as you point out, Rob -is something most agents wouldn’t tolerate.

    We’re all in this together. A great (and short read) book, Silos, Politics & Turf Wars shows how focusing on a common goal…how both the company and the agent can add value to the CONSUMER in this case….is win-win in the long run. –pjoc

Trackbacks

  1. Innovation in Real Estate Brokerage — Are we really different or did we just change clothes? — The San Diego Home Blog
  2. Onward Kristian Soldiers! « The Notorious R.O.B.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: