Guides

Recruiting agents without giving away the split

The split war is won by whoever loses most. What NAR data says about an agent’s actual career, which value proposition holds up, and what the thirty days that decide whether they stay look like.

Katia Valdés Katia Valdés Co-founder & CTO, Galilei Systems August 1, 2026 · 5 min read

Nearly every recruiting conversation I have watched ends in the same place: the split. It is the easiest currency to offer and the only one the brokerage next door can match in ten seconds. A split war is won by whoever is willing to lose the most margin, which is not the same as whoever builds the best brokerage.

Before the value proposition, it is worth looking at the data on an agent’s actual career, because it explains a good deal about why people move.

What the numbers say

According to the member profile NAR published on June 25, 2026, the median experience of a Realtor rose to 13 years, and median tenure with their current firm is 6 years. That second figure deserves a second read: changing houses mid-career is not a betrayal, it is the statistical norm of this industry.

Median gross income from real estate activity was $59,200, up from $58,100 the year before, with median business expenses of $9,530. And it is heavily skewed by experience: those with 16 years or more reported a median of $88,500. The typical agent closed 9 transaction sides in the year; those working on a team, 32 — though that figure is for the whole team, and only 21% of members work on one.

One honest caveat: NAR does not publish why people change firms, so anyone handing you a ranked list of reasons with percentages is either inventing it or quoting their own survey. What the data does sketch is the terrain — a long career, income concentrated in experience, and a change of house every six years on average.

The value proposition that is not the split

With a median income of $59,200 and nearly ten thousand dollars of expenses, five more points of split is a few thousand dollars a year. That sounds good until you compare it with what actually moves the needle: closing two more transactions. That is where a brokerage can compete without bleeding, and it comes down to four things.

The interview, in reverse

Most recruiting interviews are a presentation of the brokerage with pauses for questions. You learn far more by asking, and these are the questions that yield the most:

The thirty days that decide whether they stay

Recruiting does not end at the signature; it ends when the person closes their first deal in your house. The month in between is where people are lost, and almost always through neglect rather than disagreement.

The three promises not to make

Measuring retention instead of sensing it

Three numbers, reviewed quarterly: how many active agents you have, how many closed at least one transaction in the last ninety days, and the average tenure of each person in the house. The second is the one that matters: a brokerage with thirty agents of whom eight produce does not have a recruiting problem, it has an activation problem — and hiring more people makes it worse.

The seven numbers worth watching every Monday — including activity per agent, which is the early signal of an exit — are in another guide. And if your growth model includes tiered recruiting with overrides, Legacy models that inside the platform and the commission software settles them at closing; but the part that retains people is not solved by any software: it is the Thursday conversation when someone has gone three weeks without closing.

All of it comes down to a line I have heard from more than one broker with a stable team: you recruit with what you promise and you retain with what you deliver. The split is the easiest promise to make and the easiest to match. The rest is not.

Ready to see it with your operation?

15 minutes, no slide deck: your brokerage inside Galilei.

Book a demo