I agree with your point about consumer-centric thinking. That’s one of the reasons I’m not with that company anymore. True, relo leads were “found money” inasmuch as it was business I wouldn’t have had. But when you’re making 3/4 of one percent, far less than the broker and the relo company and you’re the one looked to for flexibility when needed, it’s a losing proposition.

I’ll still work relos where I am but I’ve got a heck of a lot more flexibility to do what’s needed.

“Financially battered relocation giant Sirva Inc., which conducts about 300,000 relocations per year, has filed for bankruptcy…”

Personally I think the whole relo system will be revamped in this decade and become somewhat obsolete as to it’s current funding structure.

It’s not a penalty. It’s a business decision. Company policy is not “greed”. There are way more greedy agents than greedy companies, as this post points out.

Usually the 50-50 only applies to one side, whichever is impacted by the referral. The issue was the buyers side also dropping to 50-50 because the agent reduced her overall commission to make sure the deal got done.

There’s company policy and then there’s unmitigated greed. She also had been told by her manager that the second side wouldn’t go to 50-50 but he was overruled by the relocation department, which seems to run the show there.

Doesn’t surprise me. I’ve seen many offices whose policy is that the split drops to 50/50 when there is a referral fee to be paid, or anytime the total is less than x percentage. I think it’s old fashioned, but clearly not a new concept.

Of course, nothing like this ever happens in our office

I just heard a very similar story to yours from an associate at my former office. Surprisingly, the broker took the extra $$ needed out of her split, while his son still got paid (not on his deal). Only one of the reasons I took my business elsewhere

Interestingly enough, the relocation department in this company theoretically is self-sufficient. And they have proven in the past they’ll suck every last penny they can out of a commission check, even if it doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.

A compromise would have made more sense. After all, if she had let the listing expire then there would have been no money coming back to the company either. And it would be one more client who could report back to USAA that this company didn’t sell his home.

This reminds me of a bank advertisement we have running up here where everybody stands around with their hands in someone elses pocket.

I would like to empathize and offer an alternate solution but I left brokers like that a long time ago.

I dunno, just seems like it could have been handled better by the company. There had to be more of a compromise that an out of hand dismissal.

It is easy to hide behind “doing the right thing”, but everyone has to give something. I have walked in both sets of shoes, and a compromise would be in order here.

Flame away.

It’s amazing how a couple of short-sighted decisions can send good agents running for the door.