Skip to content
×
Try PRO Free Today!
BiggerPockets Pro offers you a comprehensive suite of tools and resources
Market and Deal Finder Tools
Deal Analysis Calculators
Property Management Software
Exclusive discounts to Home Depot, RentRedi, and more
$0
7 days free
$828/yr or $69/mo when billed monthly.
$390/yr or $32.5/mo when billed annually.
7 days free. Cancel anytime.
Already a Pro Member? Sign in here

Join Over 3 Million Real Estate Investors

Create a free BiggerPockets account to comment, participate, and connect with over 3 million real estate investors.
Use your real name
By signing up, you indicate that you agree to the BiggerPockets Terms & Conditions.
The community here is like my own little personal real estate army that I can depend upon to help me through ANY problems I come across.
Starting Out
All Forum Categories
Followed Discussions
Followed Categories
Followed People
Followed Locations
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback

Updated over 6 years ago on . Most recent reply

User Stats

7
Posts
1
Votes
Andrea Barbee
  • Rancho Cucamonga, CA
1
Votes |
7
Posts

Should I get my RE License in California?

Andrea Barbee
  • Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Posted

Hey Bigger Pockets Fam!

So here is my question for the week. 

I have been working on my RE license for a few months now and I have sent all my paperwork into the BRE. All my fees are paid as of now and I am just waiting on a test date. Well, as soon as I got into real estate I quickly learned I wanted to go the investing route. I want to start doing buy and holds as soon as I have enough capitol for my first one and would like to get to a point where this is my main stream of income. While I have been waiting on the BRE I have taken a personal assisting job and the more investors I meet, the more they tell me not to get my license to sell real estate and to just focus on the investing side of it. I would think these two go hand in hand but I have also heard that you can invite more lawsuits your way with this strategy and also that you have to pay 70% market value for homes if you are licensed. I could be wrong and am beginning to research this in my state but if anyone has any useful knowledge they can throw my way, I would love to chat. Thanks and hope every one is having a beautiful Tuesday. 

Most Popular Reply

User Stats

1,416
Posts
732
Votes
Joseph M.
  • Flipper/Rehabber
  • Los Angeles, CA
732
Votes |
1,416
Posts
Joseph M.
  • Flipper/Rehabber
  • Los Angeles, CA
Replied

Hi Andrea Barbee , I am in CA as well .

I know this topic has come up quite a bit over the years . Everything I have heard is that as long as you disclose you are licensed there is not an issue being an investor . You also have to work under a broker though so you’d want to be upfront about your investment plans prior to signing with them.

I have never heard the thing about having to pay 70 percent value for a house if you are a licensed agent, it sounds like a myth .

Basically from my understand , if you are buying a home directly from a homeowner and you are licensed you have to make it clear that you are not representing them in the transaction.

I haven’t heard anyone ever mention that they lost a deal due to being licensed .
I’ve also heard people say that they feel being licensed gives them more credibility, this does make sense too .

If you are targeting properties on the MLS being licensed could be a big benefit as you could see the properties quicker and write your own offers without having to rely on another agent.

There are costs to keep in mind but one decent deal should pay for several years of costs at least here in California .

Loading replies...