Always a topic I wish to discuss…
Do we get paid enough $$ to manage an asset that is worth a lot of money. I always do the analogy of the service on a car - a depreciating asset - and the what we get paid to manage a property - an appreciating asset. The cost to service and repair the car is sometimes more than the cost to manage a house or apartment. The difference in value is extraordinarily different (try like 7000% per cent more) or shall we even go down the path of getting the ladies hair coiffed in a year… Yet the amount that we do for a property again is quite disproportionate compared to other professions. At least we have the “counsellor” hat in common with the hairdresser.
I always question why so many in the industry want to cut rates to get business and make a rod for us all to bear.
Whilst going through files last week - the last task to going paperless, I came across a Managing Agency Agreement from 1991 - that is 30 years ago. Shall we hazard a guess at how the rates compare to the market today?
You guessed it - the same as standard % that we see today
In 30 years nothing changed
Or has it - the rent has, therefore the amount that you as an agent has. Rent was $120 per week and is now $450 a week. And there are a couple more fees thrown in.
Is the change in rent good enough to be an increase in fees to cover all the extra costs that go with managing a property.
I am interested in everyone’s thoughts