Real Estate

Earn back buyer's real estate agent commission - Become an Agent. New Humber College Course is now live!

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 26th, 2023 4:42 pm
Tags:
None
Newbie
Jun 7, 2015
12 posts
1 upvote
Richmond, BC
To me - this idea basically equates to obtaining a membership to receive membership benefits. There are tons of threads on here about starbucks membership rewards on star dashes and whatnot. And then there are the pay-to-be-a-member benefits threads (I love that weekly Costco deals thread). There do not appear to be a whole lot of opposition to the initial cost of those memberships on those threads (selling starbucks our purchasing behaviour to receive targeted ads or paying an annual fee to have the privilege to shop at a Costco - whom are also probably data mining our purchasing behaviours).

Obviously, with greater potential 'membership rewards', the higher the initial cost/time requirement there will be (and yes, a bit of risk too). In this case, there is an educational component along with the periodic 'membership fee' that's slightly more than what Costco would charge, but the payback seems to be much much better. I believe anyone that has had any success with a University degree or College diploma shouldn't find too much trouble with the educational component for this membership. Everyone else would probably find success too if they studied the material in a manner that works best for them.

Full disclosure - I've been thinking about obtaining the credentials required to be able to transact on commercial properties as a full-time gig, but I wasn't quite sure how to go about that short of reading what MREA has to say http://realestatemanitoba.com/become-a-salesperson/ I'm not a real estate agent - just looking for a great deal!

All this to say - thanks for the info and an additional reason (putting commissions into my pocket on personal residential home sales) to look into this further.
Sr. Member
Jun 1, 2006
573 posts
99 upvotes
NB
Cocoon wrote: Totally agree with you! My husband says that taxi drivers next career move is becoming a realtor :)
actually, a lot seem to be prior used car sales(wo)men ... if you can't trust them, who can you trust :)
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 2, 2010
15196 posts
5016 upvotes
Here 'n There
kipflip wrote: To me - this idea basically equates to obtaining a membership to receive membership benefits. There are tons of threads on here about starbucks membership rewards on star dashes and whatnot. And then there are the pay-to-be-a-member benefits threads (I love that weekly Costco deals thread). There do not appear to be a whole lot of opposition to the initial cost of those memberships on those threads (selling starbucks our purchasing behaviour to receive targeted ads or paying an annual fee to have the privilege to shop at a Costco - whom are also probably data mining our purchasing behaviours).

Obviously, with greater potential 'membership rewards', the higher the initial cost/time requirement there will be (and yes, a bit of risk too). In this case, there is an educational component along with the periodic 'membership fee' that's slightly more than what Costco would charge, but the payback seems to be much much better. I believe anyone that has had any success with a University degree or College diploma shouldn't find too much trouble with the educational component for this membership. Everyone else would probably find success too if they studied the material in a manner that works best for them.

Full disclosure - I've been thinking about obtaining the credentials required to be able to transact on commercial properties as a full-time gig, but I wasn't quite sure how to go about that short of reading what MREA has to say http://realestatemanitoba.com/become-a-salesperson/ I'm not a real estate agent - just looking for a great deal!

All this to say - thanks for the info and an additional reason (putting commissions into my pocket on personal residential home sales) to look into this further.
Actually far from parallel analogy! I can't believe you even attempt to make the two sound even remotely similar.

Paying a fee to join a retail program that gives you a discount on purchases when you hand over a couple scheckels to the kid behind the Starbucks counter for your coffee without any further commitment or payment required whatsoever basicaly equates to the total opposite of spending thousands of dollars, taking hundreds of hours of courses over what might be 4-18 months, passing multiple exams (and that's just the first set of courses), provide a criminal background check, further paying for registration, then E&O insurance, etc in order to be able provide a service that is regulated by statute and regulations, not to mention you have to be able to successfully execute a transaction that has a value of hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps over a million, as a result of that service in order to receive any financial benefit whatsoever.

Using your thinking I guess you would say that becoming a lawyer to save money on your own legal work is similar to a starbucks membership, except the study period is longer and the fee higher.
Newbie
Jun 7, 2015
12 posts
1 upvote
Richmond, BC
I wouldn't say that it's a parallel analogy, but it certainly has merit when both the initial outlay of cost/time and reward are scaled up. Is it because of the scale between the two that you don't see the similarities?

In fact, I would say that becoming a lawyer to save money on my own legal work would be similar. I go to school, learn the trade, become a member, reap the benefits. The question though - would it be worth it to me? Perhaps if I dreamt of becoming a lawyer, yes it would be worth it. However, if my sole goal was to save a few scheckels on legal work, then that's not worth it to me. How often would an average Canadian need to encounter legal work in order for the payoff of becoming a lawyer be worth it?

Now how often does an average Canadian purchase a home? Your thread has done a great job of detailing the savings on just a single home purchase which, based on your thread again, seems to be within the reach of an average Canadian. So I would only need to be involved in the purchase of an average home in Toronto in order for my investment into becoming a real estate agent to be worth it.

I'm not trying to disparage any particular trade by comparing it to a starbucks membership. I'm only trying to make a comparison that other RFDer's would relate to - which perhaps might help to inspire them to also want to go down a similar path and generate more meaningful discussion. You taking offence quite honestly didn't really generate anything useful.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 2, 2010
15196 posts
5016 upvotes
Here 'n There
I just updated my first post with some information as one bit of info I had there was incorrect. You do not have to be 18 to start the OREA course as there is no minimum age! All you need is a high school diploma or equivalent or write their simple test instead. The only age requirement is to be 18 to apply for your Initial Salesperson Registration with RECO after you've completed the Pre-Registration courses.

If you are under 18, though, you must get Mummy and/or Daddy to give OREA parental approval for you to take the course. That requires a phone call to OREA to set up. So if you want to become a real estate agent right at 18 you should start the course no earlier than 2-1/2 years before you turn 18 (as that is the maximum time you have to complete the first part of the course and then to register) and no later than probably 4-6 months before you turn 18 (as that's the fastest it seems anyone has done Pre-Registration).

So, all you RFDers with kids: Don't take the course just to save money on your next house purchase or the next few. Get your kids off facebook and tell them to do it! Start them at 16 (or even 15-1/2), make sure you tutor them enough to pass OREA's high school equivalency test (unless you're lucky enough to have raised some little geniuses and they already have it their high school diploma) and they will have more than enough time to be registered by 18 and do your real estate deals for you and save the commission!

Btw, I've always thought that any ambitious kids that have good people skills and at least half a brain on their shoulders but don't want to go to university or college and like real estate should just become agents. By the time their friends get out of university these young agents will be way ahead, will also have no debt and will also be doing something they love. If they decide later to go to college or university well there is still a lot of time, not to mention they could probaby do a few deals between classes!
Jr. Member
User avatar
Dec 6, 2008
146 posts
96 upvotes
Canada
Maybe I am missing something. You don't have to be a realtor to buy, so why bother becoming a agent to buy - to get the 2.5% I guess. But to get it, in addition to taking the course, you have to affiliate with a Broker, who is going to skim off his / her share, which is what, typically 50%? Then because you are doing the deal as agent, it is your business, so it is business income, on which you will pay tax (altho you may then deduct the cost of the course, etc.). And re sale, the argument is presumably more compelling, because the numbers are bigger, but again, you have to split with the broker, you presumably have to pay tax, and if you are selling for a business, then you presumably no longer qualify for the principal residence capital gains exemption. Whereas you could sell privately without any of that hassle. So again, frankly, I don't see the realtor hobby thing working out.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 2, 2010
15196 posts
5016 upvotes
Here 'n There
bknight wrote: Maybe I am missing something. You don't have to be a realtor to buy, so why bother becoming a agent to buy - to get the 2.5% I guess. But to get it, in addition to taking the course, you have to affiliate with a Broker, who is going to skim off his / her share, which is what, typically 50%? Then because you are doing the deal as agent, it is your business, so it is business income, on which you will pay tax (altho you may then deduct the cost of the course, etc.). And re sale, the argument is presumably more compelling, because the numbers are bigger, but again, you have to split with the broker, you presumably have to pay tax, and if you are selling for a business, then you presumably no longer qualify for the principal residence capital gains exemption. Whereas you could sell privately without any of that hassle. So again, frankly, I don't see the realtor hobby thing working out.
You are indeed missing not just something but a lot.

You obviously did not read the first post given the inaccurate comments you just made about brokerage cut. It's all there. You can pay as little as 10% and even less with some brokerages on the VERY FIRST DEAL and then a flat rate of $200 or less on the rest. So, close a lease deal on a condo, which might be just a $30,000 deal with the first months rent paid to you as commission (which is the typical commission for lease deals) and then pay $200 flat rate on buying your home.

As for the 2.5% buyer's commission being income there are a lot of deductions and after tax that is still a huge chunk of change in your pocket. On a typical $1.15M home in Toronto, which is the average price of a detached one now, that's $28,750 less, say 10% for brokerage commission (but it could be only $200 as I noted above), less $6K in expenses is over $20,000 net income less the tax at your marginal tax rate. If your marginal rate was 40% that's $12,000 after tax money in your pocket. Not worth it for you? Fine. I guess you have found better bang for your buck. It sure is worth it for me. I have to laugh given all the posts on RFD with people posting endlessly trying to save $10 here and $5 there but $12,000 tax free is not enough. Also, if you arrange it the way I suggested, your net take-home after tax is about $14,000. If you buy a higher priced home you even get more in your pocket. If you buy again after that even more as the course fees are paid for. Name one other post on RFD with this kind of payback either % wise or in gross dollars please with no downside at all.

I'm not doing it for resale and my first post expressly points out that what I am showing people how to do is not worth it for resale. I already do flat rate MLS listings for a few hundred bucks through a brokerage and do all the work myself without being an agent and just as good, probably better, than they do. So, there is no split with any broker as you seem to think.

Lastly, you do not lose your principal residence exemption because you acted as an agent on your own principal residence. Where in the world did you come up with that?

There, all of your arguments turned to dust.
Deal Fanatic
Jun 29, 2007
6041 posts
2750 upvotes
Vancouver
bknight wrote: you have to affiliate with a Broker, who is going to skim off his / her share, which is what, typically 50%?
Dead wrong. You need to read the thread, esp the OP, closer.
Sr. Member
Sep 12, 2007
610 posts
335 upvotes
Ottawa
Good advice OP. I did precisely this myself in 2008 when I decided to sell a few of my investment properties. Had spare time on my hands to complete the courses and didn't want to pay the listing agent fees for selling my properties, so got my licence and my own homes were my first sales, not only paying back my investment in licencing and ongoing fess, but I still continue to deal as its an interesting business.

Tried to do the FSBO prior to getting licenced but I soon learned that it very difficult to get your homes sold without being on MLS, and prospects put in unreasonable offers expecting that they will get the large discount off the price since no listing agent is being paid.

Different experience when its a brokerage sale as opposed to a FSBO.

Not sure whether getting licenced is worth it if all you doing selling one home, though. Back in 2008, there was no way to get onto MLS it was either an off-MLS FSBO, or off to a full service broker. Nowadays you also have the option of a "mere MLS-posting" discount broker to "beef-up" your FSBO attempt to save the listing fee. And as you pointed out, there might be a marketing disadvantage in trying to sell your home with a lower buyers agent commission than other homes in the area are offering, agents being like everyone else, preferring to close deals with the higher offered rates.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 2, 2010
15196 posts
5016 upvotes
Here 'n There
lkovacs wrote: Good advice OP. I did precisely this myself in 2008 when I decided to sell a few of my investment properties. Had spare time on my hands to complete the courses and didn't want to pay the listing agent fees for selling my properties, so got my licence and my own homes were my first sales, not only paying back my investment in licencing and ongoing fess, but I still continue to deal as its an interesting business.

Tried to do the FSBO prior to getting licenced but I soon learned that it very difficult to get your homes sold without being on MLS, and prospects put in unreasonable offers expecting that they will get the large discount off the price since no listing agent is being paid.

Different experience when its a brokerage sale as opposed to a FSBO.

Not sure whether getting licenced is worth it if all you doing selling one home, though. Back in 2008, there was no way to get onto MLS it was either an off-MLS FSBO, or off to a full service broker. Nowadays you also have the option of a "mere MLS-posting" discount broker to "beef-up" your FSBO attempt to save the listing fee. And as you pointed out, there might be a marketing disadvantage in trying to sell your home with a lower buyers agent commission than other homes in the area are offering, agents being like everyone else, preferring to close deals with the higher offered rates.
I do point out at the very beginning of my first post that it is not worth it to become an agent just to do the sell side of your home transaction, only the buy side.

There are really 2 types of FSBO - with MLS listing and without. There is no longer a reason to do the latter since the Competition Bureau of Canada ruled a couple years ago that the real estate boards have to allow flat rate listings. Before that they kept closing down or censuring brokerage firms that offered them. You can now get flat rate listings for a couple hundred dollars or less. Some will even provide the extra services a la carte for a flat fee such as the photographer, brochure, write-up, website, advice on listing price (which doesn't mean anything these day except don't over list) etc. but they all outsource that too anyway (including the staging you pay for even if you pay them 2.5% as a listing fee). If you want comparables, well they are always 'complimentary'.

The main benefit of MLS is exposure as it is the main central repository of home listings. That's where everyone goes to find homes easily and quickly. Non-MLS FSBO listings just don't get the exposure. However, all you need is to have a listing on MLS, you don't really need an agent if you are prepared to do the work.
Jr. Member
User avatar
Dec 6, 2008
146 posts
96 upvotes
Canada
"Lastly, you do not lose your principal residence exemption because you acted as an agent on your own principal residence. Where in the world did you come up with that?"

It seems to me that once you are a realtor, and you sell multiple properties, there is an argument that you may lose the principal residence exemption. There was an article on the topic in the Globe and Mail a while ago.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... le4804446/
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 2, 2010
15196 posts
5016 upvotes
Here 'n There
Again, a lot of misunderstandings, misconceptions and misreadings here.

If you flip principle residences frequently one after another you could be subject to losing your principal residence exemption whether you act on the sales of your own homes as an agent or not.

It's that flipping that is the critical factor, along with some other more minor factors, not because you were the agent.
Penalty Box
Dec 27, 2013
8003 posts
4050 upvotes
Toronto
eonibm wrote: You are indeed missing not just something but a lot.

You obviously did not read the first post given the inaccurate comments you just made about brokerage cut. It's all there. You can pay as little as 10% and even less with some brokerages on the VERY FIRST DEAL and then a flat rate of $200 or less on the rest. So, close a lease deal on a condo, which might be just a $30,000 deal with the first months rent paid to you as commission (which is the typical commission for lease deals) and then pay $200 flat rate on buying your home.

As for the 2.5% buyer's commission being income there are a lot of deductions and after tax that is still a huge chunk of change in your pocket. On a typical $1.15M home in Toronto, which is the average price of a detached one now, that's $28,750 less, say 10% for brokerage commission (but it could be only $200 as I noted above), less $6K in expenses is over $20,000 net income less the tax at your marginal tax rate. If your marginal rate was 40% that's $12,000 after tax money in your pocket. Not worth it for you? Fine. I guess you have found better bang for your buck. It sure is worth it for me. I have to laugh given all the posts on RFD with people posting endlessly trying to save $10 here and $5 there but $12,000 tax free is not enough. Also, if you arrange it the way I suggested, your net take-home after tax is about $14,000. If you buy a higher priced home you even get more in your pocket. If you buy again after that even more as the course fees are paid for. Name one other post on RFD with this kind of payback either % wise or in gross dollars please with no downside at all.

I'm not doing it for resale and my first post expressly points out that what I am showing people how to do is not worth it for resale. I already do flat rate MLS listings for a few hundred bucks through a brokerage and do all the work myself without being an agent and just as good, probably better, than they do. So, there is no split with any broker as you seem to think.

Lastly, you do not lose your principal residence exemption because you acted as an agent on your own principal residence. Where in the world did you come up with that?

There, all of your arguments turned to dust.
hey bro, he did his research!!!!
Penalty Box
User avatar
Jul 11, 2008
4368 posts
1508 upvotes
Away from RFD idiots
bknight wrote: "Lastly, you do not lose your principal residence exemption because you acted as an agent on your own principal residence. Where in the world did you come up with that?"

It seems to me that once you are a realtor, and you sell multiple properties, there is an argument that you may lose the principal residence exemption. There was an article on the topic in the Globe and Mail a while ago.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... le4804446/
did you read the article? it says nothing about being a realtor would possibly make you lose the principal residence exemption.


That decision established the following criteria to look at: (1) the nature of the property sold, (2) the length of the period of ownership of the property, (3) the frequency or number of other similar transactions by the taxpayer, (4) the work expended to make the property more marketable or to attract purchasers, (5) the circumstances responsible for the sale of the property, and (6) the taxpayer’s motive or intention at the time he acquired the property.
Sr. Member
Sep 12, 2007
610 posts
335 upvotes
Ottawa
Caveat Emptor

I'd be a bit careful giving out advice concerning Canada Revenue Agency's treatment of whether a gain on a real estate trade by an agent on his/her personally-owned property is treated as a capital gain and subject to capital gains tax rates and principle residence exemptions or as business income. The long arm of CRA may surprise you, and best to take your tax advice from a tax accountant which is a bit harder license to get than a real estate agents license.

I do know that CRA looks at real estate agents' own trades differently than laypersons, and that there is a high, high probability of your personal trades being classified as business income and not as capital gain income (the later having tax advantages), simply because of the fact that in CRA's eyes as an agent, you are in the "business" of real estate. Obviously this is not the case for a home that you lived in "forever", but if you move often or hold and then sell investment or rental properties as many do, then watch out - its business income not capital gains. As a lay person, profits on selling your investment/rental properties are more likely to be treated as capital gains, unless you are a landlord/investor of certain scale or trade velocity - the mysterious threshold as determined by CRA unless you like to appeal or even go to tax court.

When you file your tax return, you really do want to file your income(s) under the correct classification as per the tax code, to avoid a negative outcome in the event of an audit by CRA.

Please, in the interest of public safety, yes - give out good info on what it takes and what it costs to be an agent, and what personal benefits you can get with this license, but when it comes to tax advice, best to defer to a tax accountant/lawyer. Nothing is cut and dry with CRA, regardless of what's written up in the Globe and Mail.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 2, 2010
15196 posts
5016 upvotes
Here 'n There
lkovacs wrote: Caveat Emptor

I'd be a bit careful giving out advice concerning Canada Revenue Agency's treatment of whether a gain on a real estate trade by an agent on his/her personally-owned property is treated as a capital gain and subject to capital gains tax rates and principle residence exemptions or as business income. The long arm of CRA may surprise you, and best to take your tax advice from a tax accountant which is a bit harder license to get than a real estate agents license.

I do know that CRA looks at real estate agents' own trades differently than laypersons, and that there is a high, high probability of your personal trades being classified as business income and not as capital gain income (the later having tax advantages), simply because of the fact that in CRA's eyes as an agent, you are in the "business" of real estate. Obviously this is not the case for a home that you lived in "forever", but if you move often or hold and then sell investment or rental properties as many do, then watch out - its business income not capital gains. As a lay person, profits on selling your investment/rental properties are more likely to be treated as capital gains, unless you are a landlord/investor of certain scale or trade velocity - the mysterious threshold as determined by CRA unless you like to appeal or even go to tax court.

When you file your tax return, you really do want to file your income(s) under the correct classification as per the tax code, to avoid a negative outcome in the event of an audit by CRA.

Please, in the interest of public safety, yes - give out good info on what it takes and what it costs to be an agent, and what personal benefits you can get with this license, but when it comes to tax advice, best to defer to a tax accountant/lawyer. Nothing is cut and dry with CRA, regardless of what's written up in the Globe and Mail.
No need to be careful about giving out any advice regarding the CRA's views on this. The Globe article referenced in #234 and the RFD's summary of it is accurate and succint. Again, it's the flipping the homes and the other indicia mentioned in the article that influences the CRA's decision not simply being a real estate agent buying or selling your princpal residence.

I think it is you who might want to be careful in your fearmongering. If you are not flipping homes then being a real estate agent and buying or selling your own home doesn't make a squat of difference. If you do flips then it's the flipping you need to be worried about, not being a real estate agent on your own property.

If you think you are such an expert on this issue, then name one CRA Intepretation Bulletin, Tax Court of Canada judgement or Income Tax Act course textbook that even remotely indicates that simply being a real estate agent selling your principal residence without any evidence of flipping suddenly classifies the gain as taxable income or taxable capital gain.

Right, because there simply isn't any. No caveat emptor required and don't waste your money asking your tax accountant the same question.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jun 12, 2007
20807 posts
6622 upvotes
London
http://taxinterpretations.com/?page_id= ... aye+briker


Connection to taxpayer's business


As is noted above and below, a taxpayer is more likely to be considered to have acquired real property as an adventure in the nature of trade (or as inventory) if it has experience and expertise in
real estate development or trading activities (Friesen , O&M , Lee, Rivermede , Happy Valley ). Professional knowledge, e.g., that of a town planner (Walton ), building inspector (Dubé ) or a real estate broker (Leduc ), may also be indicative of an intent to enjoy a trading gain even where the taxpayer has no prior history as a trader in
real estate.


Op, the OREA website used to have an online discussion forum for real estate students. Stuff like this might be discussed there and you might get a first hand answer.
Sr. Member
Sep 12, 2007
610 posts
335 upvotes
Ottawa
eonibm wrote: No need to be careful about giving out any advice regarding the CRA's views on this. The Globe article referenced in #234 and the RFD's summary of it is accurate and succint. Again, it's the flipping the homes and the other indicia mentioned in the article that influences the CRA's decision not simply being a real estate agent buying or selling your princpal residence.

I think it is you who might want to be careful in your fearmongering. If you are not flipping homes then being a real estate agent and buying or selling your own home doesn't make a squat of difference. If you do flips then it's the flipping you need to be worried about, not being a real estate agent on your own property.

If you think you are such an expert on this issue, then name one CRA Intepretation Bulletin, Tax Court of Canada judgement or Income Tax Act course textbook that even remotely indicates that simply being a real estate agent selling your principal residence without any evidence of flipping suddenly classifies the gain as taxable income or taxable capital gain.

Right, because there simply isn't any. No caveat emptor required and don't waste your money asking your tax accountant the same question.

CRA Interpretive Bulletin IT218R, paragraph 3(f) and 6 is where it falls.

Obviously if it is really your principal residence then no problem. But as I said, even if your not a "flipper" but a simple investor in income / rental properties and eventually decide to sell that income / investment property (as many many people are), as a layperson paragraph 3(f) is not problem for you if your profession is "arms-length", but as a real estate agent you can (and many have) been banged with the 3(f). Then its appeals or court if you don't agree.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it218r/it218r-e.html
Deal Addict
Jan 30, 2013
1432 posts
414 upvotes
RICHMOND HILL
Thanks OP for putting up this info.I am looking into this myself for buying my own home approx 2.5 M in GTA. Commission to buyer's agent typically $62500,but I have since found agents who are willing to split it 50% with me. ie I get $31750 .I dont know whether that is taxable? But anyway in this hot market,because I asked for a cut on his commission,he is not too enthusiastic about finding me a house.



If a person earns $150 per hour and it takes x180 hours to get licenced. Instead of working his regular job 180 hours which can earn him $27000 before tax. I am just wondering whether it is still worthwhile to go thru the hassle.


Ps I forgot about selling my own home for 1m which at 1% would earn me back another $10000 !
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 2, 2010
15196 posts
5016 upvotes
Here 'n There
lkovacs wrote: CRA Interpretive Bulletin IT218R, paragraph 3(f) and 6 is where it falls.

Obviously if it is really your principal residence then no problem. But as I said, even if your not a "flipper" but a simple investor in income / rental properties and eventually decide to sell that income / investment property (as many many people are), as a layperson paragraph 3(f) is not problem for you if your profession is "arms-length", but as a real estate agent you can (and many have) been banged with the 3(f). Then its appeals or court if you don't agree.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it218r/it218r-e.html
Yes but that has absolutely nothing to do if it is 'really your principal residence', which some on here (including you) were trying to claim would be affected by you being a real estate agent and could therefore result in you losing your principal residence exemption. The Interpretative Bulletin you quoted has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. If you deal in your principal residence just like you have in the past in a manner that allows you to keep the exemption then the fact you happen to become a real estate agent to transact your next principal residence won't change a damn thing.

Case closed.

Top