![]() |
Real Estate News and Advice |
July 10, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
RE/MAX Smacks IPO Rumors
by Blanche Evans
RE/MAX International's size, scrappiness and success in building the agent-centric franchise business model are only a few reasons the industry loves to wonder about the company. With more focus on broker profitability over agent loyalty, is RE/MAX making big changes? Concerns about broker profitability is behind a rumor that all RE/MAX franchisees are going to start charging a mandatory five percent "Broker Service Fee" per transaction, effectively ending the reign of the 100 percent commission era. More profits for franchisees to pass on to corporate could be attractive as RE/MAX International prepares for a possible IPO. Unfortunately, neither statement is true, according to the company, but never say never. "That has been rumored for 20 years, says Daryl Jesperson, RE/MAX's international CEO. "We like being private." For more than 10 years, RE/MAX has "allowed" RE/MAX regional owners (franchisors) the option of instituting a "broker service fee" or 'broker fee' in their regions, up to 5 percent on a transaction. This first happened in the early 80s, says a source, when the Canadians in the Ontario/Atlantic Canada region were told by the licensing authority that brokers had to participate in commissions, so RE/MAX allowed that region's broker/owners to charge a 5 percent fee to agents. Later, when RE/MAX of Florida was re-opened in the late 80s, under new owners, they were granted a 'trial' of the same concept. It also happened in California, the only state to require brokers to pay worker's compensation to independent contractors, says Jesperson. "It was another way of handling the numbers. That premium had to be paid somehow." According to Jesperson, the broker fee is a non-issue. About 40 to 50 percent of RE/MAX associates pay some kind of a 'broker fee.' RE/MAX has been well aware of broker profitability issues, and more than 10 years ago, authorized any region to adopt a 'broker fee,' but only a few had done so until recently. "More brokers are doing it because the agents prefer paying expenses as their business comes in," suggests Jesperson, "whereas under our 1973 operating guidelines, they got a bill every month whether they did business or not." In all cases where this fee is initiated, RE/MAX recommends that all agents be "grandfathered" -- at minimum based on their independent contractor agreements with their brokerages. Company-owned franchises will convert to the 'broker fee' structure within the year, grandfathering current agents according to their contracts with their brokerages, of course. That could cause other broker-owners to capitulate, and start charging the 'broker fee,' too. What kicked the rumor mill into action was a story published December 31, 2004 by The Denver Post in which the writer tried hard to build a case that RE/MAX was preparing for a possible IPO by suggesting that the company is buying back many of its top franchises, purchasing nine in the last five years. RE/MAX is also becoming compliant with the federal government's Sarbanes-Oxley financial-disclosure law, which is required for publicly-held companies. The company is hiring compliance officers, an outside auditor committee, and is drafting mock Securities and Exchange Commission reports, according to the Denver Post report. Again, there is a reasonable explanation. Aging brokers looking for exit visas from RE/MAX may trigger a need for RE/MAX to go public if the company were to buy a number of franchises at one time. "We have purchased some of those regions with our own cash," explains Jesperson, " but if 20 came on the same time, we don't have that kind of money and banks would say they are tapped out, too, so in those instances, we may have to go to Wall Street. If you are borrowing (bonds), they require you to be Sarbanes Oxley-compliant. It is the banking rules that have driven private businesses to do this." So, this is also a non-story, say sources. What Liniger did say is that "someday" RE/MAX "probably" will need to go public. One relevant circumstance is if Liniger and his wife and partner Gail Liniger were to pass on, triggering hefty estate taxes, suggests the Post. "It only makes good business sense (especially now that the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations are available as guidelines) for any company to begin activities to be compliant to those regulations -- and RE/MAX is doing those things," says Jesperson. "Prudent businesses get prepared, and that is what we are doing, but there is no pending date or intention by the company to file an IPO." Published: January 5, 2005 Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws. Related Articles:
|
Real Estate News Network
Today's Real Estate Outlook
Spotlight
Today's Headlines
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
for Agents
Readers' Choice
|
||||||||||||||||||