The best place to be a real estate agent

The best place to be a real estate agent

Toronto, ONT · Member since 2014 · 64 posts · 12 votes

Just saw this article and thought I would share with the community. Where real estate agents make money so the money flows.

The Best Place to Be a Real Estate Agent

Daily Real Estate News | Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Turns out that “location, location, location” is also a mantra for real estate pros looking to thrive in their business. WalletHub recently compared the 150 largest cities across 13 key metrics, such as sales per agent and the annual median wage of agents, to find out the best places for real estate pros to practice, and the mile-high city won out.

  1. Denver, Colo.
  2. Irvine, Calif.
  3. Seattle, Wash.
  4. Austin, Texas
  5. Aurora, Colo.
  6. Portland, Ore.
  7. Indianapolis, Ind.
  8. San Francisco, Calif.
  9. Colorado Springs, Colo.
  10. Boston, Mass.
  11. Grand Rapids, Mich.
  12. Boise, Idaho
  13. Honolulu, Hawaii
  14. Raleigh, N.C.
  15. Madison, Wis.

Of course, real estate is also intensely local. Researchers found that Knoxville, Tenn. (which ranked 34 overall out of 150 cities) had the highest number of sales per agent at 120 – about 20 times more than Houston, which had the lowest at an average of 6 sales per agent. Indianapolis (which ranked number seven overall) had the highest annual median wage for real estate agents at $105,370 – four times greater than in Wichita, Kan., which had the lowest at $24,320, according to WalletHub’s findings.

Source: WalletHub

Source: WalletHub

1Reply
26 views

Most Popular Reply

Russell BrazilBusiness Member
Moderator
Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
10y

There are lies, damn lies...and statistics.  I find it hard to believe agents in Madison, Raleigh, Boise, Grand Rapids, Co Springs, and Indianapolis make more than agents in DC. Indianapolis has the highest median at $105k, but I do not know many agents here that make that little. (Full time agents who are actually in retail sale)

See this reply in the discussion

6 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Realtor · Denver, CO · Member since 2013 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    I saw this article a bit ago and disagree. We have right around 3,000 homes on the market in the Metro area(Around the lowest since they started recording it). An average number for us is 15,000 plus. It is a bloodbath out there on anything under $500k with a loan. If we had triple the number of listings, then I would say it should rank. There are multiple offers, properties with 100+ showings over a weekend with 20+ offers. It isn't all roses out here. 

    So from us with boots on the ground, I disagree.

  • Bill S.Pro Member
    Moderator
    Rental Property Investor · Denver, CO · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    10y

    I have to disagree as well. The actual dollar value of homes sold in 2015 was less than 2014 so if an agent earned more in 2015 than in 2014 it was because they took sales from other agents. I would have to say that in areas with fewer agents and more sales per agent it would be better to be an agent. My business isn't agency so I don't really care but it is very difficult to be an agent in this market. Especially for newbies.

  • Russell BrazilBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Agent · Washington, D.C. · Member since 2012 · 17k+ posts · 30k+ votes
    10y

    There are lies, damn lies...and statistics.  I find it hard to believe agents in Madison, Raleigh, Boise, Grand Rapids, Co Springs, and Indianapolis make more than agents in DC. Indianapolis has the highest median at $105k, but I do not know many agents here that make that little. (Full time agents who are actually in retail sale)

  • Dawn BrenengenBusiness Member
    Moderator
    Real Estate Broker · Raleigh, NC · Member since 2014 · 2k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    10y

    Nice.  Glad to see Raleigh made another list, and this time it's a list that's relevant to me.  :)

  • Investor · Willow Spring, NC · Member since 2009 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    10y

    You have to look at the source. If you think Zestimates from 2013 are spot on, then believe the numbers (or publications) from NAR. I'm not a realtor, but before you bash me take a look at the comments from Realtors about the source of the article: http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2016/02/17/best-place-be-real-estate-agent From this link:

    • "Does anyone at NAR check this info or do you just copy and paste it thinking that no one will notice that it simply doesn't pass the common sense test? "
    • "We appreciate the news you share with us if the sources are to be trusted. This story needs some serious vetting",
    • "Sad that NAR is putting this out there. What are they trying to achieve?"

    Yes, NAR published the article from another source. For historical reference, see also books (priced at $0.01 on Amazon, but way overpriced) from NAR's David Lereah:

    Lereah, David (2005). Are You Missing the Real Estate Boom?: Why Home Values and Other Real Estate Investments Will Climb Through The End of The Decade—And How to Profit From Them

    Lereah, David (2006). Why the Real Estate Boom Will Not Bust—And How You Can Profit from It.

    "The steady improvement in [home] sales will support price appreciation...[despite] all the wild projections by academics, Wall Street analysts, and others in the media." Lereah was Chief Economist at the National Association of Realtors when he said this. Business Week Jan 10, 2007.
    http://quotemaster.org/author/David+Lereah

    To answer the question 'What [is NAR] trying to achieve?' I'll leave that to Realtors to contemplate.

  • Apex, NC · Member since 2016 · 16 posts · 5 votes
    10y

    I have to disagree also and reiterate with @Russell Brazilsaid.  We may sell at a higher volume here, but an agent who is selling a $1.7 million row home in DC sure is getting a lot more buck for their effort.  

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.