CMP’s Top 50 Brokers List

CMP-Top-50-BrokersBrokers are performance-based individuals and they love to know how they stack up to the pack. That’s largely why Canadian Mortgage Professional’s Top 50 broker list is so intriguing.

CMP's latest rankings for 2009 were released just recently. The top five brokers include:

  1. Calum Ross (Mortgage Centre, Toronto, ON)  $148 million funded
  2. Jim Tourloukis (Advent Mortgages, Unionville, ON) $127 million funded
  3. Paul Gazzola (Mortgage Architects, Guelph, ON) $119 million funded
  4. Michelle Beet (Mortgage Alliance, Port Moody, BC) $111 million funded
  5. Nicole Drummond (Dominion Lending, Ottawa, BC) $97 million funded

Here are some factoids from the top 50:

  • Average years in the business:  10.38
  • Minimum years in the business: 4
  • Average deals per month:  19
  • Average volume per year:  $59 million
  • Average volume per month:  $4.9 million
  • Minimum volume per month:  $2.5 million
  • Average administrative staff:  1.4

CMP’s broker ranking is based on voluntary submissions from brokers around the country. CMP then attempts to verify the resulting data as best it can.

Since the survey is voluntary, the majority of Canadian brokers don’t participate. As a result, the list is missing numerous major producers, like last year’s #1, Peter Kinch, for example.

Nonetheless, all of the brokers on the list deserve recognition for outstanding production.  It isn’t easy to build a $30 million+ business, and these folks have each cleared that hurdle, and then some.


Update:  CMP restated its rankings after this story was published, citing a technical glitch that misplaced some submissions. As a result, CMP says the #2 broker is actually Dan Eisner of True North Mortgage. More…

  1. Peter Kinch is a personal friend of mine and he made a decision not to submit because he now farms out many of his leads. While his numbers may have gone down, let me set the record straight – I know for a fact he would have made the top 50 list and for the record and he is still a large producer.
    I think it is important to note that there were also several $100 million dollar producers who chose not to submit for various reasons. Many of these people deserve mention but I wouldn’t want to accidentally exclude anyone. My hat also goes off to those in smaller markets – clearly those who work in markets that have average transaction sizes of less than $100,000 are at a marked disadvantage, just as those in Vancouver and Toronto have a huge advantage.
    As for myself personally, this was the first year that I submitted my own numbers and I did it for professional reasons. While I am happy with my volume – my 2009 numbers represent me being now exactly even with where my numbers were before my serious car accident four years ago.
    I know of many great brokers who did not submit who are, or should be, in the top 50. We also all know that there are people who made that list by giving away the shop – achieving great numbers while basically running an unprofitable business simultaneously cannibalizing the living that we all try to earn in this industry. I have a hard time giving respect to those individuals who consistently undercut other brokers and who hurt the brokerage community at large by constantly trying to take deals from others. Conversely, it is my opinion, that anyone who makes a difference in client’s lives everyday should be very proud of their accomplishments whether their volume puts them on or off the list.
    There is a lot more to being a great broker than great numbers. Some of the brokers I personally respect the most in Canada would have never qualified for the list, and never will, but could teach each and every person on the list a lot about being an upstanding and respectable member of the mortgage industry – an industry that I truly love and feel privileged to be a part of.
    When it’s all said and done – clients and industry peers won’t remember you for your rankings, your bank account balance, or the car you drove … they will remember you for how you made them feel. Please accept my personal best wishes to all for a happy, healthy, and successful 2010!
    Yours Truly,
    Calum Ross

  2. If every $100 million broker filled out CMP’s survey there would be no brokers under $100 million on the list!

  3. Just curious. Does this list include broker teams where sub-brokers are submitting deals under the lead broker’s name?

  4. I would suspect so. My boss is on list and the numbers for her are just hers not any agents who work with her company.

  5. CMP audited the numbers this year where sub-broker numbers were not supposed to be included. It would be nice if the lenders would stop people from ‘sand-bagging’ their numbers soon as well.

  6. With all due respect to the brokers on this list, it really comes down to CMP’s reputation. Why would they publish this list? Most brokers should know that this list, along with their yearly awards, are complied in a non biased fashion. It does not make them look very professional, especially if they consider themselves advocates for the mortgage broker industry.

  7. You can’t make people submit.. its optional and no firm would share the numbers due to confidentiality. Just like the one in the investment, insurance, and real estate industry… you won’t make the list if you don’t submit – how is that biased. They do the best they can… my only problem with the list is I am not on it.

  8. As I am new to the mortgage industry, the CMP’s Top 50 Brokers List helped me choose which brokerage to join. I’m sure more work can go into cleaning up the list, regardless the 50 names on this all probably deserved to be there and all had a huge year in 2009!

  9. Jesse Mattu and Joe Tomkins, the numbers are audited, so there is credibility to the numbers. It’s not just a matter of submitting a number to the magazine. Joe, may you can clarify what you mean by biased, I’m sure its not your intention, but it seems you are slagging the CMP without anything to substantiate it.
    I can see bias because the only bias is that not all brokers submit to CMP.
    It’s a very important for any industry to determine who are the cream of the crop, however in mortgages, there is no clear cut way to determine number one. Some of said go with Filogix.
    Biggest issue with the Filogix method: Doesn’t tell you who originated the mortgage and if Calum included all the mortgages from all his businesses his numbers would be on another stratosphere.

  10. It’s not CMP’s fault if not all brokers want to reveal their numbers. Some choose to fly under the radar because publishing their funded volumes would draw attention to their business model/unique selling proposition.

  11. Hey Calum,
    First off, thanks for what is great perspective in so many ways. As you very correctly note, the primary measure of success in our business is always the impact we have on clients. Hundreds of brokers out there purposely do fewer deals so they can allocate more personal attention to each homeowner. There’s a lot to be said for that choice of model.
    Notwithstanding, the production of most folks on this list reflects considerable work ethic, client satisfaction, and refinement of business processes. It’s exceedingly difficult to be a $30 million+ producer without caring for and properly servicing your clients. When you get to the $100 million+ range, then you are talking a totally different level. The degree of effort, strategy, relationships, and client service required to achieve those numbers simply can’t be understated.
    Lastly, there’s one point that deserves more airtime. You’re dead on when you suggest that, despite all of us brokers being competitors, this really is all one big team sport in some ways. Having a collective goal of reflecting positively on the industry makes the pie bigger for everyone. The easiest way to do that is educate folks on the value of insightful advice, and to continually work hard to deliver it.
    In any event, congrats once again! All the best…

  12. Response to Brian…
    My point regarding bias should have been better explained. First of all CMP is publishing these results that are voluntary, and yes audited. However as Marc commented he is using this publication to help decide what Brokerage to join. If the results of the survey only represent a small fragment of the broker industry then the results are biased. They are a systematic distortion of a statistic as a result of sampling procedure. If through the procedure, they realized that the results represented large proportion of the brokerage industry then great. But when there is lack of voluntary reporting by not just high volume consultants but also by complete Brokerage firms then there is an issue. I think that slagging a publication such as CMP can and should be done if there is an issue with reporting. It is after all their survey and opinion. They could have reported it differently.
    Take the latest flap in Ottawa with regards to the long form census. Conservatives want it to be voluntary, but everyone in the know (head of stats can. quit) understands that as soon as you make it voluntary the results are going to be completely useless.
    I believe in rewarding success and everyone working hard to get the great volumes deserves to be congratulated. However if someone is going to be making their employment decisions based on a voluntary survey published in an industry advocate magazine, that is when to me it seem to be completely wrong.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copy link