Selling homes is much more than showing someone a catalog and letting them "pick one out". Unless you're one of those discount listing companies, maybe. You spend a couple of hours interviewing the prospective sellers or buyers discovering their "pain" or whatever their motivation is. Then you use your training and experience to communicate with them the process based on what they have told you and what you have seen.
If it's a listing then there is all the paperwork, advertising, marketing, and whatever other methods you use to do your job properly. If you're the buyer's agent there is the time working with the loan officer to make sure the buyers are pre-approved (yes, that's always the first step unless they show you a suitcase full of crisp Benjies), narrowing down the geography, layouts, styles, etc., you know the drill.
Currently, as an agent, you are paid for your time and effort on somewhat of a gamble. You may spend just two or three hours with the customers and they make an offer that is accepted and away you go. Conversely you may spend literally hours and hours, week after week, go through several offers and maybe even a contract or two, just to have the customers decide it's just not going the right way and decide to wait. How much exactly do you get paid for that? Right. Zero, nada. Still, the value of the "score", the actual sales, keeps you pushing and doing your very best to accommodate the customer and their needs.
Currently Mortgage Loan Originators (they used to be called Loan Officers) at many lenders and most brokers work that way, too. They do hours and hours of work "for free" and on the deals that close they get paid a fair amount of income. This keeps them driving to reach more customers, make sure the customers understand the process and are sold on working with that MLO, work with credit reports, tax returns, income verifications, rent verifications, gift letters ... quite literally hours of work on every application. They get paid when? Usually about a month after the closing.
Going back to the listing agent.
We know a good listing agent makes 2 to 3 points on their sold listings and that can be either a few hundred dollars or a few thousand dollars. The listing agent, a good one anyway, makes sure they do more than just plop a listing and maybe one photo in the MLS. The goal is to get the home sold and do so as quickly as reasonably possible. The cost of advertising and marketing is all fronted by that agent. It may be just a few dozen dollars or it may be thousands of dollars depending on the property. The point is there is a cost involved not just in time but in real dollars to market that listing. The agent gets their money back when? Not until the closing is done and the closer releases the check.
What if a listing agent could get a fair salary.
Let's say $80,000 per year. Just for comparison let's say the top listing agents in that market who sell 30 or 40 homes per year make in the neighborhood of $200,000 easily. Then let's say the government, the federal version you know the bicameral thing with the House and the Senate who's tiny salaries we pay from our commission, decide agents can no longer earn commission. In fact they can't do anything except get a salary and that salary is set by the Congress.
While $80,000 sounds pretty good to the agent who has been selling only 2 or 3 homes per year it sounds really crappy to the one who has been selling 40 per year. The reason Congress decided to do this is because they believe agents have "steered" customers to more home than they could actually afford or have failed to lower a sales price just because the agent makes a higher commission on the larger sale. Congress doesn't like that and they say the agents are causing harm to the innocent citizen.
Think it can't happen?
It's been happening to Loan Officers for years now. So you just thought, "well that's different". No, it's not. Loan officers can and do make more commission on higher loan amounts. In the past they have been able to make more and higher commission on certain loans and in certain states. In Georgia, North Carolina and Illinois that has not been true for several years. Lender fees have been capped in those states for about 7 to 10 years depending on the state.
So what's the problem?
The problem is a societal one. It's all about creating a common base and including doers and slackers in the same pool. It's about demanding people who don't give even 20% be treated the same as people who give 100% (there is no 110% by the way so you don't give it). The problem is if people make the same for doing a crappy job as they do for being as perfect as possible and taking pride in their work then the community at large is going to suffer - not because people who care will start doing crappy work but because people who don't care will be on a level playing field with people who really care.
In reality this is about the massive failures of socialism, communism and acceptivism. It's about how that idea and thought process has so penetrated our industry and our nation that it may be impossible to completely root it out. The result is a diminished "give a hoot" factor and fewer service providers caring to go the extra mile. Limit a loan officer a salary and now everyone is dealing with the same level of incompetence the big banks had before there were mortgage brokers to compete with them. We've almost come full circle and with Congress continuing to blame the service providers for the greed and ignorance of the buying public (at large, not everyone of course) you're next my agent friends.
To the buying public.
This should sum it up. Right now your loan officer at most lenders, most brokers and a few banks get paid only if and when your loan closes. They know if they don't get you to the closing table on time, as promised, all of their work is going to have been done for nothing. Their work costs them time and money. If they don't close your loan they have lost time, money and commission. If they get paid $45,000 a year (which is what most banks are paying in salary) think they'll give a real hoot about whether they close your loan, on time or not, or if you have any problems with it? Some will, most won't.
Ken Cook - Web coder (I write the programs that make the whole world zing!) (678) 439-8683 Anything your mind can conceive I can create - online that is!
Social Media Edge Radio - seriously true professionals who won't misguide you with some crap they made up to sell more books and seminars. Every Tuesday at Noon eastern.
RETSORadio - part of the RETSO family. Great tech information and updates from people who have the answers, people who speak and product and service users.
NOTICE: I have been writing in this blog since July 2006. Some of the older articles may contain information that has changed. Please check the date and phone me if you have any questions.
EXCELLENT POST! Last year had a deal with employee that works for major bank/servicing company. They got a special deal to save them money on a mortgage through their lending division.
The LOs I was FORCED to work with were AWFUL. They got paid no matter what. They were always going on vacation, failing to tell us, etc.
We ended up closing THIRTY DAYS LATE (after giving a full contracted 45 days) because they just didn't care if the thing closed or not. ALL they had to do was provide me with information on what was going on which they failed to do. My clients and ahem their clients got charged a per diem one week after the first extension because the seller (FANNIE) didn't have a clue what was going on with the buyers due to the LO.
At any rate, I got the per diem reversed at the very end due to an HOA demand hiccup (that cost them another 3 days to close.) I was so frustrated with using Big Brand LO on salary that doesn't care!
Ken, prior to re-entering the world of Real Estate I worked as a Six Sigma Black Belt helping improve profits of both manufacturing and service organizations. A number of organizations understand to basic flaw in hourly remuneration and many have or are in the process of reconfiguring compensation to be based on output rather than time spent.
It seems that commission type remuneration is where organizations would like to go, and that it would be a step backwards to switch from a commission based remuneration system to a salary based remuneration system.
I started as a traditional banker, paid on salary. Their were 10 of us with loan authority. Your chance of finding someone who would "give a hoot" varied greatly! One never did. Three cared, but with limited competence. Two were competent, but attitudes changed hourly. Four were aggressively consumer oriented, fortunately they included the two at the top. Your odds at getting a fair decision were very good! We signed our names to our decisions and you could always appeal to the top.
Times have changed, not only aren't decisions signed by decision makers, you can't find any one who admits making decisions! There is simply no reason to take a stand! You're not known, you can't make more by being aggressive, but you can lose your job for a mistake, you don't even have to have made it!
I much prefer today's brokers and correspondent lenders, who work on commission! The market controls commissions if the consumers shop. When a client's success determines your income, you're much more concerned about the success of the client!
At this point many are going to point and say that's what causes the problem, they don't know or care that brokers and correspondent lenders may have to buy bad fraudulent loans back or that correspondent lenders often fund their loans. Brokers didn't cause the problems!
We may well lose commission agents and lenders! We're at risk because voters don't understand! It's easy to buy votes by claiming to cure an evil, weather or not one exist! We all know any group that makes more than we do is evil!
Ken, well said and well written. Let's hope that sound minds will prevail here. But then again the old 80/20 rule no longer applies ~ it's more like 97/3. The 97% of agents that are making an average of $37/40K a year might like that salary idea unfortunately...
I'm running a business, a real estate brokerage. Folks buy my services and my services are priced on a contingency model.
There is no choice. The choice of how to charge for my time was made my me and I made the choice many years ago. There is no limit to how much business I can do or how much money I can make. No one on a salary can say that.
The idea of a salary makes me question why that person doesn't just take a desk job someplace. We have a business and I have to agree with Lenn that I choose how I charge for my services. I do not have a limit as to how much I can make.
My primary Mortgage LO recently told me that she's no longer allowed to work more than 40 hours a week with permission from her superiors. WHAT? so I can't get my buyers to call her for pre-quals on the weekend anymore if she already worked 40 hours that week.
I think congress is nuts and their plan that people who don't work harder and smarter get the same compensation for those that do simply won't work... otherwise... as you stated who will work harder?
If the banking model had been adapted it would have resulted in banks completely monopolizing the business of real estate, and it would have put a flat fee on the "agent" as a facilitator who could only make more money if they could push as many deals through no matter what, details be damned. This business supoorts multiple business models that will continue to proliferate although many will be a variation on a theme. The public deserves choice, and the public deserves full disclosure as yo waht they are getting. My choice is to be full service 100% and on commission.
Ken. There are days (like today) where I would welcome being on salary. That way I could tell some folks to F&^*k off and still get paid :)
But alas.....I must perform if I want to get paid. Actually that's not a true statement. I must make sure others perform if I want to get paid. Now that really puts it into perspective.
Could the government control how much I get paid? Possibly. But I WOULD find a work around. My value is in my brain. No one can take that from me.
My income will never be static, I will always challenge myself to do more. No matter what business I am in I will always set my worth and work the way I want to.
Excellent blog, Ken! Can we somehow make our congresspeople commission based? I bet they would stop leaving for their many recesses without passing bills if that were the case.
I agree with comment #14, where we may get a certain % but when all is said and done the agent may only get one half a percent. Congrat's on being feature.
Great article, Ken. I would not put it past Congress to tinker with the system and make agents salaried employees. This would be detrimental to the quality of service the consumers receive and to the agents who are worth the pay they achieve. Ever more a reason for Realtors to support their PAC.
Very interesting...not a concept or possibility I had thought of. Seems a little out there, but I suppose we are living in times today that seemed a little out there to our parents in the '50's.
I talked to a Wells Fargo employee who works at a local Well Fargo Financial (WFF) office. They do mortgages and all kinds of loans. In September when Wells takes over the Wachovia branches here in TN, they are going to close the WFF offices and put the "loan officers" in the bank branches. The loan officers will be simple order takers. The processing of your mortgage will be handling at a central office in Minnesota or somewhere like that. I guess the "loan officers" of the future can open a checking account for you, check the balance in your savings account and take your loan application too. It's so sad.
While I don't think there should ever be any kind of income caps for any industry I don't think comparing a listing agent to a loan officer is a good analogy. I realize that loan officers make a bigger commission on larger loans but the products themselves are pretty much the same. 2 loan officers from the same or from a different lender pretty much sell the same products based on current interest rates. Of course a good loan officer makes more money on volume and higher loan amounts and a mortgage broker can shop for the best product.
While that is also true for real estate agents. I think there is a difference. 2 different real estate agents listing the same house may get a very different sale price for the seller. Most loan officers work for banks or lenders and they sell their employer's line of products. Real Estate brokers are hired by homeowner's to sell their homes. Every home is different and some brokers can get more for a home than others. I think a contingency or commission as a percentage of the sale price is the only way to compensate a good broker.
Ken, this is spot on. I hope it does not become a model. This statement "Currently Mortgage Loan Originators (they used to be called Loan Officers) at many lenders and most brokers work that way, too. They do hours and hours of work "for free" and on the deals that close they get paid a fair amount of income. This keeps them driving to reach more customers, make sure the customers understand the process and are sold on working with that MLO, work with credit reports, tax returns, income verifications, rent verifications, gift letters ... quite literally hours of work on every application. They get paid when? Usually about a month after the closing. " My wife is an MLO and it is going this way.
Ken, I posted a blog, "Everyone should work on commission" a few weeks ago. It got more responses than any post I've ever submitted here on Active Rain. I agree with those who have commented before me about our incomes being unlimited. Which is what attracts a lot of people to this business. Inclulding myself. However, I disagree with your sentiment that it is a societal/governmental issue we are facing. I blame the businesses. So many businesses these days are trying to do things on the cheap. They don't train their staffs properly, they don't set a level of expectation, and they don't fire those that don't live up to the standards. Instead what do they do, they lay off the folks with the most experience and knowledge to save on salary costs. Leaving behind a bunch of 20 somethings who don't know anything and don't care. Government and society has nothing to do with that. Companies have to start realizing that squeezing every penny down to the bottom line is not the end all be all. Sometimes you have to spend a little more money in order to establish and keep a good reputation. Which in turn will lead to greater profits. But that's thinking long term and big picture. Which is something that is sorely lacking in corporate America these days. I could go on for hours about this stuff. Thanks for the post and best of luck to you.
I love the 'pay for performance' model for exactly the reason that others hate it... I get paid what I am worth... or at least what the market thinks I'm worth. Even when I am getting skunked, I can't blame "the man" for keeping me down, it is all me.
Fascinating post and very thought provoking. I spent time at IBM years ago and had a great experience. However, having said that, I LOVE working for myself (and really my clients!) I make decisions and run a business and am responsible for me! If I make a bad decision, I can actually lose money. If I do a good job, I make money. If I do a great job, I get referrals and continue to make money. It's very simple, but I get paid when I do a good job.
I am not interested in being paid the same as everyone else with no benefit to do a better job or not! Otherwise, I would still be at IBM. (And hey, they are not bad, but this works for me.)
I do hear your frustration, it's very frustrating that we are trying to equalize pay and have no reason to perform better. We are not all worth the same even when you measure by something as simple as effort, not to mention brain power.
There are some real estate teams where listing and buyer agents are paid salaries. And that's one contributing factor to better customer service. Free from worrying about whether or not they will get paid, the agent can focus all of their efforts on the client.
Salary has a hard time incentivizing people. I like paying people for results not for time spent. I like the model as it has been and think it serves the consumer for the loan officer to be paid at closing.
I was a retail banker for many years and along with salary comes quotas -- no matter what shape the economy is in. We also got commissions for loan production, but not producing loans meant getting raked over the coals -- and in one bank loan decisions were made by underwriters in another state -- they turned everybody down they could...
Great post..amen..amen to your thinking! The bankin industry would love to get control of real estate and if anyone doesn't think so they have blinders on!
There are good loan officers and bad ones. There are good real estate agents and bad ones. The problem is the consumer doesn't always realize this! They think we are ALL ALIKE and they can just "pick one, any one" and get the same level of service, expertise and value from ANY ONE OF US. That is so not true!
Fantastic discussion. Many agents think that our business will never change, but consider what has happened in loan land. The major lenders have a death grip on the industry. Couple that with so much blame for the foreclosure crisis aimed at mortgage brokers. Now it's routinely required to have a pre-qual or cross-qual from a "direct lender."
My very best friend was a mortgage broker for years and did very well for himself ... until the crash. After nearly 2 years of no income, he surrendered and went over to "The Dark Side." Now he's an MLO for BAC. The environment, and the money, there is a lot different.
Is everyone following the effort by major banks to get into the real estate agent game? NAR has been fighting it for years (Please check the box to contribute to the legal defense fund when you renew your dues!).
Ken: As I read your post, I saw some good points, and cringed at some of the other things you said. Then, when I reached the part about communism and socialism... my eyes just rolled back into my head. Good Grief. Another one, I thought.
Where do you get this stuff ? I know some of your customers and clients might just eat this stuff up, but with others... when you dive into the communism and socialism stuff... you just lose all credibility with many more... including myself.
A banker cost me $3500 on a loan. He flat out did not care. I now send people away from the person. Oops on his part.
As far as Realtors are concerned, no one every said you must charge a commission based on transaction. Every Realtor is a small business, and sometimes outside the box thinking is necessary. I touch on commissions in my series Every Realtor is a Small Business - http://activerain.com/blogsview/1699496/are-you-worth-your-commission-
Renee - you zeroed in directly on the exact point I was looking for. You completed the post!
Chris - why are we so outnumbered when it comes to plain talk and common sense?
Bill - it is, indeed, a completely different America. Not for the better but there is still REAL hope.
Pamela - yuck. Just yuck. I can't imagine. I have rarely lived on a salary or hourly and have never been satisfied with it.
Lenn - I like that perspective.
Barbara-Jo - and let's keep it that way!
Tammy - you just put the rubber on the road in that short space.
Karen - see YOU at the top!
Joe - I have to read yours again. Again. I think yes is the response for you.
Bryant - you get the LMAO award!
Gary - you're probably right - but ours has in the lender pool. And brother it's not a good thing.
Michael Russell - I do hope so.
Coral - you get the LOL award!
Irene - we know. I used to own a real estate company and wrote the checks. But if it were salary ...
las Kratz - ditto :)
Sandy - amen!
Lina - it goes little by little - day by day - until all of a sudden there it is in your wallet, eating your paycheck. A little cancer called "equality".
Rhonda - I really hope it doesn't continue to go this way. Next they'll all be union members so they can't even be chastised for their lackadaisical methodology much less fired. Already bank employees do not have to pass the stringent licensing lender and broker loan officers do.
Mitch - thanks. I wasn't really comparing LOs to ags but service level to service level. Your comment could lead to a long exchange so I'll leave it at THANKS!
Lola - thanks and agreed very much.
Ken Barker - thanks! Tell your wife to fight for her client's right to have the best service!
Stephanie - thanks!
Patricia - agreed.
Rob - we kind of do that as well. There are complaints about everything - flat rate loans means everybody pays the same amount whether they took the time to nurture their credit or live without caution. Is that fair to those who have spent years keeping proper records, paying every payment on time and managing credit expenses with a passion?
Jerry - it's not a matter of opinion in the mortgage industry, it's a matter of political agenda in fact. Through government actions they are seeking to force all loan officers into a salaried only position - it is the businesses who are fighting back. Thanks!
Sharon - the word that comes to mind is "yikes"! Although our license office here is amazingly efficient now. That's new in the last 4 years though.
Lane - how many would live on bologna and beans if the rule was "if you work you eat .. if you bust your but and do a good job you eat well"?
Michelle - you go girl!
John - in a perfect world that would work. But as long as there are lazy people who are satisfied with the status quo and no benefit to rise up we get the lowest point in the common denominator. That's the unfortunate reality.
Christine - Well put!
Pam - I know if I were on salary only I would do my job and do it well. So would you. Not all, though.
Michael - right on!
Dori - few realize the power of the banking lobbies.
Erica - very true. Downside is if one treats them badly they think we're all that way.
Brian - great reminder! The NAR now is doing more for loan officers than the NAMB just because of size. Many of us are long time associate members.
Karen - thanks for your judge, jury and execution style comment. Obviously we disagree on fundamental principals. Guessing your'e a "progressive" who believes in "equality for all". I'm a heterosexual, Christian, conservative, leader in the Tea Party movement, and a white, middle aged male - the object of the hate of many.
For all of us with short memories, remember when the market was soaring .... and sellers were balking at commissions. It wasn't so much the percentage that caused a problem, but the amount that percentage translated to in dollars. It seems that for decades a benchmark of 6% has been around, with variations for circumstances. When the seller was paying $3000 for the sale of a $50,000 home - and then that home reached a value of $150,000 the resulting $9,000 question was "what are you doing different?" We were marketing value-added services and competing with discount houses or discounting agents in our market.
We can move toward higher educational standards, create new CE requirements, tout our honesty and ethics, but in the final analysis the consumer will be the judge. Regulation of any industry is only an act-of-congress away. If it can happen in lending, it can happen in real estate.
Ken, I thought this was a great post. Spot on. As a loan officer I get where you're coming from and of course know you are not suggesting that you think real estate agents or loan officers should get paid a salary. You were trying to let agents know that the way loan officers are paid is under attack by the government. And yes, I do think this is comparative to a socialistic system where loan officers, if goverment regulators have there way, may eventually be paid salary with little or no incentive for closed loans. Its already happening, but based on some of the comments from agents above, they have no clue what is happening and seem to think you're suggesting they should be paid a salary as well. Of course that is not the case. As a matter of fact, if the goverment gets their way, I expect many of the top loan officers may switch over and become real estate agents. I have no clue why a top producing loan officer would work on a salary.
Please respond to some of the comments above just to clarify your position. I sense your frustration in your post as our way of getting paid is getting steam rolled by the goverment. As is evident by some of these comments, the word still needs to get out. Otherwise, soon, there may not be an option of "only working with loan officers who get paid if the loan closes."
Jack - and the consumer should be the judge. The consumer also should be educated which is one of the things I think we, as an industry, do the most poorly. They don't know how to shop for a loan much less a loan officer. Congress tries to make people think they don't need to shop because Uncle is taking care of it for them.
Tim - I think I was short commenting while you were reading. You are correct - I'm not suggesting ANYONE be on a salary. What I am suggesting is that many loan officers already are and there isn't a chance in 100 a salaried gaggle of loan officers is going to perform near to the quality and speed of commissioned loan officers. Answer this one, why are lender and broker loan officers required to pass stringent background and licensing procedures and bank employees are not?
Hi Ken, Interesting post and comment thread. My belief is that many agents are drawn to this business because they have worked in a commission driven business prior to real estate and understand the level of skill, effort and dedication needed.
Ken: The last thing I would be doing, would be hating you. It goes against all I stand for. It appears that you are the one playing judge and jury. I simply do not agree with you. Have a wonderful Fourth of July Weekend.
And... I also agree with you about putting links in comments on this post... to some of the commentors other posts. This is YOUR blog post, not his. Links have no place here... unless he asked permission, and you gave it to him.
As for your Tea Party... I wish you all the success in the world in getting as many of your Tea Party candidates on the November ballot as possible. I really do. That would surely give voters a distinct choice as to who to vote for.
Bill - many of them certainly have. There are people who "just don't get it" about commissioned compensation.
Karen - Apparently we're using a different meaning to the same language. It's all English but something is munged. My perfect goal is to have nothing but friends ... sometimes there is a shortfall.
Interesting, but let's lay off of "those discount agents" They work hard for their money too. I have been there, done that and know many other excellent hard working agents who also have. Some of us have decided that it is not smart to work so hard ony to get paid so little. However, other excellent agents have decided that discount real estate is their niche and continue to offer good service at a lower price. There are just as many lazy, incompetent agents in full-commission offices. In fact, I have had transactions with some that I wouldn't recommend at any price.
Gene - very true. No system is perfect. At least not any in this life. We do the best we can with what we have and sometimes we have to fight to keep the right to do so. Thanks for your addition.
Alex - I deleted your post - copied and pasted it here without your link to your website.
Hi Ken, there are so many discount agents with the growth of zip in my market place,Boston real estate. These agencies are making it tuff, and they give lousy splits to their agents too. its not easy making a buck anymore. sellers tell you well they will do it for this much. I tell them good luck. they don't understand that your whole life is controlled by the business, showing at all times of the day and week.
Yes, looks like you were responding to comments while I was making my comment :)
Answering your question regarding bank loan officers not needing to go through the same licensing and education requirements as those who work for brokers and mortgage banks, the only thing I can come up with is bank loan officers must be smarter (since they don't need to take the National or State tests), have perfect credit (since they don't need to have their credit run by NMLS), and have nothing in their background that would prevent them from being a loan officer (since we have to have a back ground check and they don't). But seriously, the big banks have good lobbyists, and somehow they were able to exempt their loan officers from licensing because of that.
I actually think the NMLS licensing is a good thing. We have had no barrier to entry in this business for too long, and I've seen unscrupulous loan officers take advantage of borrowers too often. One of my agents, who used to be an appraiser before HVCC did to his business what financial reform may do to ours, got a call from a mortgage broker he used to do appraisals for. The broker told him he had taken a break from the business but just got back in because of the low rates and wanted him to do all his appraisals. My agent had to tell the guy that due to HVCC that would not be possible. He was surprised someone could jump in and originate loans at this point, and not have a clue about HVCC. Someone should also tell him about the 2010 GFE.
Long story short, bank loan officers should have to go through the same NMLS licensing that all other loan officers have to.
Im not sure if we have any Washington State Agents here, but I heard through the grapevine they are talking about removing the "Commissioned Agent" and going to a "Salaried Agent". Could be happening at state levels already.
I sincerely hope that real estate never becomes a salaried career, because I fear that the lowest common denominator would prevail.
We may all "love people" and want to help. And there are times when we all do things with no idea of being paid for our efforts. But face it, for the most part those of us who work harder do it because it means better compensation. If the added compensation went away, the enthusiasm for the game would go with it.
In order to do well at real estate you have to be dissatisfied with knowing how much you'll make from week to week. You have to have a little of the gambler mentality. I guess that's true of any small business owner - you gamble more of your time and effort in hopes that it will pay off.
When I left real estate sales it didn't even cross my mind to go looking for a J.O.B. Of course I knew what I wanted to do when I left. but even if I hadn't, I'd have done something other than look for an hourly wage or a monthly salary.
As a freelance writer I'm still in the gambling business... never knowing how many clients will need me in a given month. But I sure wouldn't have it any other way. At least, not unless that salary was way, way, high! (If you want me to sit in your office for a million a year, I'm game. And I might even work hard!)
Marte - a million a year would do it for me, too. Even then I would want a "achieve or else" clause. When I was forced by the Department of Labor to pay my commissioned employees minimum wage some were terminated because they couldn't meet the minimum quotas I had to establish. It was very sad because these were people who averaged much more than minimum wage who either fell into a slump or just decided not to perform and to live on the minimum wage (one confessed that to be true). Others zoomed well past the minimum wage because they never intended to try and live on it.
The sad part is those I had to terminate for lack of production would eventually have come around but if they couldn't earn enough revenue for the company to justify continuing to pay them "a living wage" for the 2 month period they had to go. It didn't matter that the next month they may have earned $20,000 in commission. So, there went a wage earner on their way - angry at me because I had to follow some BS law from Congress who thinks it's the government's responsibility to "equalize" everything just so they can buy enough votes to hold on to their massively overpaid and overcompensated positions.
You have not had a salaried job in a very long, long, long time. If you had you would realize that you have just INSULTED a lot of people are working insanely hard under what is often impossible and abusive conditions. I was working on salary until 2005 and trust me working for a salary is not the snap that you think it is. Ask anyone who has been in for a quarterly review. It's perform or die but WITH limits on how much you can ever make. Then there is "off the clock time" where everyone's personal life has been invaded by work. It started innocently enough with email being sent to the home. Writing a few memos and letters from your home PC. Now with texting, smart phones - employers can make demands on their work force anytime anywhere. So quit you say? Ummm....look at the job market. Most people can't quit, they are trapped like rats in low-paying jobs working 60-70 hours a week while being paid for 40.
Get a JOB my friend and try it on for size - you need the reality check. The communisim nonsense is just that - nonsense.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
Posted by 
;)
;)
;)
EXCELLENT POST! Last year had a deal with employee that works for major bank/servicing company. They got a special deal to save them money on a mortgage through their lending division.
The LOs I was FORCED to work with were AWFUL. They got paid no matter what. They were always going on vacation, failing to tell us, etc.
We ended up closing THIRTY DAYS LATE (after giving a full contracted 45 days) because they just didn't care if the thing closed or not. ALL they had to do was provide me with information on what was going on which they failed to do. My clients and ahem their clients got charged a per diem one week after the first extension because the seller (FANNIE) didn't have a clue what was going on with the buyers due to the LO.
At any rate, I got the per diem reversed at the very end due to an HOA demand hiccup (that cost them another 3 days to close.) I was so frustrated with using Big Brand LO on salary that doesn't care!