Flat turnover, high stakes: What real estate agent movement data reveals about brokerage risk

Real estate agent movement may dominate industry chatter, but the data tells a different story. Agent turnover remained relatively stable in 2025, according to a report published Monday by Recruiting Insight in conjunction with contributors Lone Wolf Technologies and MyBFFSocial. 

The report found that the annual agent turnover recorded for 2025 was 6.8%, up slightly from 6.0% a year prior. Overall, internal moves, agents moving within the same brand, accounted for 1.3% of total agent turnover up from 1.0% a year ago. External moves, agents moving to a different brand, accounted for 5.5% of agent turnover, up from 5.0% in 2024.

This data is based on a 12-month analysis of 184,097 productive agents across four major MLS regions, and conducted 200 hours of exit and retention interviews. The study tracked $15.72 billion in annual transaction volume that migrated between brokerages in 2025. In addition to tracking this data, Recruiting Insight also conducted over 200 hours of exit and retention interviews with agents. 

One-third of agents moved for financial survivial

The analysis showed that the velocity of agent movement averaged at nearly 350 productive agents per month per MLS, with movement activity peaks recorded in April and January. Due to this, Recruiting Insights said it is important for brokerages to continuously monitor agent migration patterns. 

According to the study, roughly one-third of agent moves were “distressed migrations” as agents sought financial survival. 

“With these agents, what we saw was that at least 60% of their business was homebuyers and that their business had dropped between 18% and 24% in the past year,” Mark Johnson, a managing partner at Recruiting Insight, said. “In their exit interviews with us, they would say things like ‘I need to survive’ or ‘I need to cut costs.’”

Which cities are tops for aggressive recruiting?

As with prior years, the report found that San Diego and the Washington, D.C. metro areas remained the top metros for aggressive recruiting, with $636.6 million annual transaction volume moving between firms in San Diego and $1.2 billion in volume moving in the nation’s capital. 

“They are such big markets, so you would expect to see a lot of moves and the data was stable in these markets, but it really stood out in comparison to other markets,” Johnson said.

Internal moves have productivity advantage

When it comes to agents who moved internally versus externally, the report found that internal transfers generate $1.516 million in average production compared to $1.218 million for external recruits, giving internal transfers a 24% productivity advantage.

Due to this insight, Recruiting Insights concludes that to create an overall highly productive brokerage, companies should focus on facilitating internal mobility to create a “moat” of high-value talent. 

Additionally, agents who moved internally were more likely to stay at their destination for 12-months than those who moved externally, with 89% of internal movers demonstrating 12-month retention compared to 76% of externally recruited agents.

Agent retention should be a big focus

Another reason to focus on agent retention or to allow an agent to move internally, is that according to the data, the top 10% of agents who moved controlled roughly 45% of $7.01 billion of the $15.7 billion in total annual sales volume tracked by Research Insight.

Due to this, Johnson warned that brokerages who had 40% to 60% of their total production tied to a small cohort of agents could face harsh financial consequences if some or all of those agents decided to move.  “It really is a volume concentration crisis,” Johnson said.

Why are top agents moving?

For the high-producing agents that moved firms in 2025, three of the most common reasons cited for moving were leadership, derisking and autonomy. 

“Most of them also mentioned dollars or splits, but that typically came up after they mentioned something else as their main motivator,” Johnson said. “It was really with the elite agents that autonomy came out as a reason because they want the freedom to do things like be licensed or work in two states and maybe their brokerage doesn’t allow that.” 

The report also found that a firm’s greatest challenge to capturing high-value agents on the move is the inability of a human recruiter to maintain consistent and personalized contact with the prospective agents over a long-period of time. 

As brokerages and agents both look to the future, the report also examined the risk posed by “legacy veterans,” which the study defines as agents with over 25 years of experience, of which 21% are looking for an exit strategy. As a result, Recruiting Insight said that this succession planning could be a critical revenue risk to many firms across the country. 

“Succession is no longer a long-term planning exercise,”  Ben Hess, a managing partner at Recruiting Insight, said in a statement. “It’s an immediate operating requirement. Firms that delay addressing concentration and legacy transitions are leaving themselves exposed to abrupt capital flight. The next cycle will reward firms that compete on net value, not headcount. Efficiency, durability, and internal alignment are now decisive advantages.”

Why this matters to brokers and agents

Stable turnover can be misleading. While overall agent movement barely budged in 2025, who is moving — and why — carries real financial consequences for both brokers and agents. For brokers, the data underscores that retention and internal mobility matter more than aggressive recruiting: internal movers are more productive, stick around longer and help protect against volume concentration risk tied to a small group of top producers.

The finding that one-third of moves were driven by financial distress is also a warning sign that cost structures, support and value propositions are under stress, particularly in buyer-heavy businesses.

For agents, the report reinforces that movement is increasingly strategic, not impulsive — driven by survival, leadership quality and autonomy rather than splits alone. In a slower, more margin-sensitive market, stability isn’t about staying put; it’s about being in the right place with the right support before performance or capital risk forces a move.