This would devalue the Broker's license, as there would be no distinction between licensees.  It would be akin to the drive that "everyone must have a bachelor's degree" which has greatly devalued the bachelor's degree to the point where now a Master's is becoming the minimum standard.

For what it's worth, the Broker's exam is in two parts.  I finished the first exam in under 30 minutes and was done before the examiners finished checking in the morning session.  It's the salesperson's exam all over again... which I finished two years prior in about 40 minutes.  The afternoon exam took me about 40 minutes.  I've seen baking recipies that were harder than the real estate exams... of course I also studied and took Duane Gomer's most excellent exam prep crash course.

It is also fairly easy to become a broker. 

As I am sure you know, some states require that all agents be brokers.

The bar to be a licensed agent or broker is not so high that it eliminates all who unsuited. That is not possible.

Becoming a broker would allow me to hire agents. I have no interest in that. I would not be doing anything different than I am now doing. Would I be better at my job? Would I be smarter? Would I be more capable? I have been an agent for over 20 years. Getting a broker's license would not make me a better agent.

When I got my MA license the only license was a Broker's license. Later on the State thought it better for a person to have experience as a sales agent prior to seeking a brokers' license. I agree

I have always been a Broker. Both in NY and in NC. In NC we are an all-broker  state now, in any event. I don't understand your comment about it being too easy to become a Realtor. You don't "become" a Realtor... you pay your NAR dues and you get to call yourself a Realtor. 

Is that a mandate? Just kidding.

I am not sure if being a broker would solve any problems.  I am in favor of raising the bar for all realtors.  Ethical issues, lack of knowledge, etc, continue to surprise me.  I hate being a chicken little with the sky falling.  We are going thru interesting times but who am I to be the one who becomes judge and jury.  

It seems, Tony Lewis, that you're not really asking if every agent should be required to be a Broker, rather "should the barrier to becoming a Realtor be harder?"

I agree that it's become too easy to get a real estate license.   And waaaay too easy to find that new agent on the street, representing hapless buyers and sellers. 

Yes, something should change, but I don't think that requiring everyone to become a "Broker" is the answer.

By all the laws and mandates being thrown about by the government, haven't they become the new Broker!

Many states now differentiate managing brokers and brokers. A real game of semantics since it replaces salesman and broker. The continuing education requirements are different, but once was is now called something different and remains basically the same. Gotta love state legislators who know not what they do.

I agree with Ryan Huggins - Thousand Oaks, CA .  This would just devalue the broker's license.  I had to wait five years to be qualified to sit for the broker license exam and prove I was a full time agent for 5 years.  My broker had to sign off on the latter.  Making it the entry level position is ridiculous.  

I applied for a broker's license six months after I received my Salesperson license.  I believe it is an educational experience that gives you more insight to running your business.  Whether you choose to be the broker of record or a broker associate is besides the point.  You take on more responsibility that many part-times are oblivious to.

I am all for raising the bar on entry level. 

I am not a fan of mandates.  Look how many agents have alphabets after their name without being a broker.  There will always be agents who excel in our industry😎

I agree with Ryan Huggins - Thousand Oaks, CA comments as well.  In my instance, working in a small office, if something were to happen to the broker of record, I can seamlessly continue to close the transactions on the books here in the State of Florida and disburse commissions earned without any red tape. 

I agree with Ryan Huggins - Thousand Oaks, CA and also on Duane Gomer. A

No I don't think it's necessary.  I got my brokers license pretty early on knowing I'd be opening my own company fairly soon.  Had I not, there really was no need for me.  The education, honestly is a joke - and I was a member of the Education Committee trying to make it harder.  Not happening in this state.

If I understand you correctly, you are voting for greater, deeper education/training requirements for agents, which I would favor. I don't think everyone needs to be a broker. BTW, to become a "realtor" you need to join the NAR; it's a trade name. I wish we weren't blackmailed into having to join!

No, it should not be a requirement. It is fairly easy to also leave the industry because not everyone is meant to be an agent. They are weeded out quite regularly.

I do not see a need for that. In so many cases it would not make a difference unless one decided not to affiliate with a broker/age and work solo as I have done. 

Not so cranked on making sweeping new layers of regulations for the entire country. In my state, you have agents, brokers, designated brokers and all rock and rolls very well. 

It is inevitable. Just like ZEV, we are all going to 'volunteer.'
The good news is, the 'raising the bar' chant will continue becuase this will not change those things that distress so many. The song will continue.
The good news is, as a BROKER, not associate broker, the agent can follow the opportunities that the public has demonstrated they want. 
The good news is, as a BROKER, the encumberances imposed by brokers, franchises and even associations could be reduced if not removed.
The good news is, the BROKER requirement may reduce the pool from 1.2 million to the more appropriate 800 thousand that is needed.
The good news is these new and fresh minded brokers will pursue the oportuniteis buyers and sellers reveal and implement systems to reduce the count from 800K to 500K and NAR will get in line behand BlockBuster.
It should be noted the real driver behind this is the business models (employee) of Red Fin and Coldwell Banker. The real estate agent independant contractor days may be numbered.

I don't think it's necessary to make it more difficult to get any real estate license.  We need some level of licensure to protect the public, but licensure has nothing to do with professionalism.  There is no law, nor should there be, that says you have to act professionally at all times.  Let the free market regulate that.

Would you support a law that made it more difficult to KEEP your license?  Perhaps taking the state exam every renewal cycle, or doubling the continuing education?  That would be more likely to raise the bar on the profession than creating barriers to entry.  But old-timers never recommend that.  Old timers usually say, "I made it passed the moat.  Now let's build a deeper and wider moat."

One should pursue what is presented to them and then put it to good use for all to benefit. Referred to as "calling", answer the call! Being a Broker summoned me. When I was an agent, not so much. As far as licensing qualifications etc. the testing doesn't address the industry, its challenges or successes. In the end, regardless of practice or career, the secret to life when revealed is all you need to know and i.e. Love God Love man

In Colorado, all licensed real estate professionals are brokers now, but have different levels - associate, independent and employing.

I like the idea of creating higher barriers to entry for Realtors (and Loan Officers). Not sure if requiring a Brokers license is the answer though. My thoughts are to require significantly more CEU's than we have for initial licensing and subsequent renewals. These CEU's should be directly related to the "street smarts" of our industry to allow Realtors to enhance their knowledge and ability to assist the consumers we collectively serve.

licensing requirements are different in different states. my state requires a certain number of transactions before sitting for the Broker exam, which makes sense to me that some experience in the business should be required before becoming a broker. requiring all "agents" to be "brokers" would do nothing to add additional protection to the consumer, which is the point of licensing in the first place. in my opinion, the only benefit would be to the state collecting additional fees for licensing.

You have to become a broker in NC. The biggest difference is you take more classes and your broker is even more responsible for you until you go from being a provisional broker to a full broker. You're not a broker who runs an office until you become a "Broker in charge". I don't have a problem with it. I do think new agents should be mentored more closely than they are and not release until the broker signs off on a set of standards. In other words, it shouldn't just be about time and classes.

I suspect that it would have little effect other than giving many people the false opinion that they are now qualified to run a brokerage.

I think state licensing regulations should be left to the states

It might be fairly simple to become licensed, but keeping your license and staying in business isn't that easy. A large % of agents drop out within 1 year of getting licensed. So, I'd leave the system like it is. Many new agents need a broker to help get them started and answer quetions.

It became mandatory in IL but I had already had mine. Think it is a good idea.

 I have always held a broker license. 

Most Associations have gone to an all REALTOR memberships . I have not seen anyone ( for years) have REALTOR Associate ( as a Salesperson) on their Card .

I don't have a dog in this fight, Tony! In NC, we are all mandated to become brokers within the first 18 months of having acquired our sale/agent license.