This is a made-up 12-agent brokerage. Four of its desks cost more than they bring in — and its GCI report would show every one of those agents producing.

Gross commission hides it. Once the rent, staff and software are shared out per agent, and each agent's split is applied, the picture changes. Three of those four turn out to be fine — new, capped, or quietly paying their way. For the other one, the figures don't explain themselves — which is a question, not a verdict.

Industry-wide, median brokerage gross margin fell from 19.07% to 18.14% last year, and median EBITDA was just 1.68% (AccountTECH, 157 firms, February 2026).

Change any number to see how it moves. Nothing you type leaves your browser, and nothing is saved.

Overview

Your brokerage's financial pulse — the numbers that matter, at a glance.

Run what-if

Brokerage net profit

$10,825

▲ $730 7%vs Jun '26

Production (GCI)

$80,500

▲ $2,280 3%vs Jun '26

Brokerage keeps

$22,825

▲ $730 3%vs Jun '26

Overhead

$12,000

— flat vs Jun '26

Active agents

12

— flat vs Jun '26

Roster health

12total
  • 6Profitable
  • 2Thin
  • 4Losing
View roster

Where the money goes

How this month's production becomes what the brokerage actually keeps, once agents are paid and overhead comes out.

$80,500Production−$57,675Paid to agents$22,825Brokerage keeps−$12,000Overhead$10,825Net profit

Of $80,500 in production, $22,825 is the company dollar; after $12,000 of overhead, $10,825 is real profit (13.4% of production).

The margins that matter

Every figure as a share of the same $80,500 of production.

Company dollar28.4%

what the brokerage keeps of each commission

Overhead load14.9%

cost of running the business

Net margin13.4%

what's left as profit

$2,160/yr

value of one split point on Alice Johnson

Model →

Since last month · June

Net profit rose $1,721 on May; the biggest single gain was Brian Kim (+$573), and overhead held steady.

Profitability heat map

Each agent's status month by month. Green is profitable, amber is thin margin, red is losing money; a blank means they weren't on that month's roster.

JanFebMarAprMayJun
Brian Kim
Alice Johnson
Carla Mendes
David Chen
Elena Petrova
Frank Ruiz
Grace Lin
Henry Osei
Isabel Cruz
Jack Thompson
Liam O'Brien
Karen Novak
ProfitableThin marginLosing moneyNot on roster

Top movers

By net-profit change vs last month.

Biggest gains

  • Brian Kim $573
  • Alice Johnson $540
  • David Chen $432
  • Elena Petrova $369
  • Grace Lin $263

Biggest drops

  • Carla Mendes $297
  • Frank Ruiz $179
  • Henry Osei $96
  • Jack Thompson $32

Profit momentum

Net profit over time.

JanFebMarAprMayJunNow

Latest $10,825 · up $9,283 across 7 months

Longest run in the red

Karen Novak has been in the red for 6 months running

Total loss over this period: $6,182. A single red month is usually pipeline timing; a run this long isn't — but it reflects allocated financial results only, not tenure or circumstances.

See Karen Novak's trend

Things worth checking

Surfaced from this month's figures — points to look at, not verdicts.

  • 1 unexplained shortfall has run 3+ months
  • 7 agents have no start date recorded

Fixed costs vs costs that move

Most overhead stays the same whoever is on the roster — an agent's share of the rent isn't money sitting there waiting to be freed up. Only per-head costs change with your agent count.

Allocated

$31,200/yr

Their fair share of every cost. An accounting view, not cash.

Genuinely recoverable

$2,000/yr

Based on $167/month of per-agent cost that leaves with them.

3 agents look like a loss but are paying $900/month toward your fixed costs

Isabel Cruz, Jack Thompson, Liam O'Brien. Their commissions cover the costs that came with them, and leave something over toward fixed costs that are due whoever is on the roster.

Where the shortfall sits

Ordered by how long they've been in the red — 3 months or more is beyond what one slow quarter explains.

  • Karen Novak6 months running
    $0 GCI($1,000)

This ranking reflects allocated financial results only. It knows nothing about tenure beyond a start date, market conditions, an agent's circumstances, or what they contribute beyond production — and it should not be the sole basis for a decision about anyone's contract.

Losing money, but expected

These agents are in the red for a structural reason, not a performance one.

  • Liam O'BrienContributing cashstill paying $33 a month toward fixed costs
    ($800)
  • Jack ThompsonNew — rampingmonth 5 of 12
    ($600)
  • Isabel CruzContributing cashstill paying $633 a month toward fixed costs
    ($200)

“Expected” here means the shortfall has a structural explanation — a start date, a cap, or costs already covered. It isn't a judgement about how anyone is performing.

3 renewals in the next 90 days

A one-point move across these is worth $5,400 a year. Terms are only genuinely on the table at renewal — this is when.

  • Alice Johnsonin 2 weeks
    on 20.0% today$2,160/yr per point
  • Brian Kimin 8 weeks
    on 25.0% today$1,800/yr per point
  • Carla Mendesin 2 months
    on 30.0% today$1,440/yr per point

Dates are the anniversary of each agent's start date, which is the usual cycle for both contract renewal and cap reset. If yours run differently, treat these as a prompt rather than a calendar.

Put your own roster in

This is sample data, and it forgets everything when you clear your browser. Your agents, your overhead, saved month to month — the first 10 firms lock in $99/month for life.

Lock in founding access

All figures are allocated financial results. They do not reflect tenure, market conditions, or an agent's circumstances, and should not be the sole basis for a decision about anyone.