Thanks to everyone for answering. I had to give Holly best answer on this one. Sylvia, you both had similar answers.

I gave you all thumbs up because you all had great points. Jim...I loved your points and I think you are right on regarding the possible issues one could have with a locally owned smaller company. You had me think of some additional questions to ask so that I could make my decision. I will keep you guys posted on my move or no move.

Thu Dec 20 2007, 21:05

Sylvia... I love the fact that your company does reviews! That is great! I wish our real estate commissions would do reviews because there would be fewer agents! I would rather pay higher fees to our boards and have those that actually produce be agents than have all the agents that give the industry a bad wrap!

Wed Dec 19 2007, 14:24

Hi Lorie,

I guess I can't answer your specific question about which company to go with because I have no idea how all three operates. I have heard people who loved and other hated KW, but did not really bother to go into the details to ask why; the reason why one might hate a company may be the perfect reason why the othe loves it.; all depends on personal experience. I also don't know your personal needs; but the thing is I know you will be successful wherever you go from what I have seen so far. The difficult part for me would be to leave your current company and the people you have come to know so much. If you are really torn, sometimes maybe taking a leap by faith is what needs to happen. You will make the best of the situation, I am sure of that!

To get back to your comment about FHA. We offer specialized training sessions for new agents, and continuing education for experienced agents. The best part is that most of the classes for the experience agents are taught by our top agents who are willing to share their trade secrets, which is difficult to find.

My office hires about 3 agents a year although (until this year, where there are not many new agents) we have interview requests weekly; and we have semi annual reviews (new agents, more often, others, every 6 months) and only the good ones stay. So, this is really not a training ground for new agents. The ones who stays are there for the long haul.

Sylvia

Wed Dec 19 2007, 09:14

I appreciate the answers thus far. Sylvia... your answer is right on for new agents because new agents need the training to get going. I am an experienced agent and the education and training that I attend is primarily independent from any company. My company orginally only hired experienced agents but the body count game got the best of them so our reputation amoung agents is that we have become a new agent training company... that is probably the only negative I see with the company here on a local level.

When I first joined my current company (which is a large company nationwide) 6 years ago I left a locally owned company that had been in the Atlanta area for 27 years that had about 800 agents. I had no problems with being with the local company but that local company already had a big name like your company Sylvia. That company has now been gobbled up by Buffett and will soon be merged with another locally owned company that he added to his portfolio. When I joined my current company 6 years ago they had only been in Atlanta for a year so no one knew who they were and you had to explain. People would ask "Keller Who". No problem my business even soared because of my hard work not because of the name. I have absolutely no problems with my current company. This newer company that is locally owned and operated right now hires experienced agents and makes it very difficult for new agents to join with strict requirements. This company already has 2100 agents so it is no small company. Many of the agents within my company have left to go there because the cost is quite a bit less per year and per transaction. With write ups in Forbes among other real estate magazines I cannot help to think if this company will become a huge national success as my current company has done. Considering the fact that they have one awards for their state of the art technology I would hate to think they are not covered in a crash but thanks for bringing up a good question JIm.

I am really torn on staying put because the company my current company is national or taking the risk to make more money annually and on each closing plus get in early on on what could be a huge contender on a national level in the future. As we see with our current real estate market, nothing is a guarantee.

Wed Dec 19 2007, 08:11

Hi Lorie:

My company is a locally owned company in Marin. It has been here since 1911, and has stayed as the number one company.

When I started out, I asked my sister (an independent broker in S.F. for the past 30 years) for advise. She suggested that it is really important to go with a company who can support me and help me getting started.

I interviewed with three companies, two are nationwide companies and one is FHA. I decided to go with FHA because of the training program, the strong market hold and the reputation my company has. I also like the company because we only hire full time Realtors - getting started in real estate is very difficult and wanting to be successful is even harder. The Realtors in our office are very ethical and helpful to each other. I stayed because of the same. So far, this has proved to be the right choice.

Our company has stayed forefront and is very committed to be up and coming with spending money on the technology and marketing presence. They also are up-to-date on the legal front and market trends which is enormous help. We also have hands on manager for each office who can be reached almost 24x7 if needed and great support staff..

I think how much money a company spend on us is important, but to me, all the other intangibles are more important because if I want to stay and be successful in real estate, the fundamental belief, support, training and infrastructure; coupled with my own hard work are what's going to really last for a long time.

Sylvia

Wed Dec 19 2007, 07:05

Your question strikes a chord - I just left a smaller local company (one that typically had between 250 and 300 agents during the time I was with it) to go to a national company - my observation is that the new national company I have affiliated with has better technology and less chance for systems to not be running properly - with a small firm, how many people can be making sure the technology is working properly? Who is evaluating new systems? Is there sufficient back-up so that when hiccups occur, it doesn't create days of down time? When the primary technology person leaves, who is ready to take their place or does the company come to a grinding halt while a replacement is found? I suspect that like every other business out there, there ultimately will be consolidation and that the national companies that can keep the cost per agent at the lowest levels will be the survivors. There will always be smaller niche players but I suspect they will have some other reason for their success and they will not be the low cost (for the agent) participant in your market. I would be glad to visit with you about the issues that a small company can have.

Wed Dec 19 2007, 07:00

I have worked for a national franchise and have started two independents. I really did not see any benefit to the national company that wasn't cancelled out with benefits of being independent. The idea behind franchises is that you can expect the product consistency in a multitude of locations, but I think every consumer is aware that the local management in a franchise makes all the difference ( Ever buy your favorite sandwich at your favorite chain restaurant in a different location, and it was so horrible you would have refused to feed it to your dog?)...it is no different in the real estate industry. The people behind the company or franchise make all the difference, the name brand is irrelevant.

Wed Dec 19 2007, 06:48