Personal Finance

Proposed Change to the Act governing Real Estate Agent Listing Commission

  • Last Updated:
  • May 21st, 2015 9:10 am
Tags:
None
Member
Apr 29, 2006
381 posts
30 upvotes
Toronto
daivey wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 1:21 pm
Umm, I dont think hes looking for cheerleaders. That being said, you haven't posted anything of value other than just trolling the guy.

It's really sad that when you get called out for trolling and told to get lost, you retort "I can voice my opinion"..... What opinion did you voice other than barking like a chihuahua??

Lame. Grow up dude, you're annoying.
The OP was looking for feedback. This opens doors to criticism whether negative or constructive. There isn't a need to get defensive over something that hasn't materialized.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14534 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
Thanks daivey.

None of these agents can find one single negative with this plan except that they will make less commission. Not one thing. Call me greedy or any name you want. It's irrelevant. Of about 30 people friends I have mentioned this to so far every single one thinks the proposal is brilliant and wants to be able to have the option to choose it.

If it is necessary for agents to be paid as they currently are in order for them to get the best price for a homeowner, then fine, they should have no problem convincing the homeowner it's the best commission arrangement. This new method will not affect them one iota. Yet, they are running so scared at the very mention of such an option being available, one they have the choice to decline. Funny that!
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 4, 2009
3803 posts
1710 upvotes
on the links
daivey wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 1:21 pm
Umm, I dont think hes looking for cheerleaders. That being said, you haven't posted anything of value other than just trolling the guy.

It's really sad that when you get called out for trolling and told to get lost, you retort "I can voice my opinion"..... What opinion did you voice other than barking like a chihuahua??

Lame. Grow up dude, you're annoying.
Umm, giving an alternate viewpoint doesn't mean trolling. Nor do I have any connection to the RE industry as some have alluded. But thanks for playing.

Oh, and I don't want you to get lost. You can stay...sit, if you prefer, heel or even rollover.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14534 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
blu3xtc wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 1:55 pm
The OP was looking for feedback. This opens doors to criticism whether negative or constructive. There isn't a need to get defensive over something that hasn't materialized.
You are totally missing the point. I am very open to criticism about the proposal itself and why it may or may not work, what could be improved, why it is not in the interest of the 500,000 property owners who list properties every year in Canada, why choice is a bad thing, etc.

The only comments I am getting is about my motivation for making the porposal and calling me names like I am 'greedy', saying I 'have too much time on my hands', that the original post is too long, etc. Absolutely NOTHING about the proposal itself. That's what daivey's point is. But you don't seem to get that. As for barking like a chihuahua, you might want to look in the mirror because your post makes as much sense as one.

Now do you have anything substantive to provide about the proposal itself? If not then go troll somewhere else.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14534 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:09 pm
Umm, giving an alternate viewpoint doesn't mean trolling. Nor do I have any connection to the RE industry as some have alluded. But thanks for playing.

Oh, and I don't want you to get lost. You can stay...sit, if you prefer, heel or even rollover.
Alternative opinion? Hardly! Your comment that:
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 11:40 am
I can voice my opinion just like anyone else, or are you just looking for cheerleaders/zealots to pat you on the back?

You're just a greedy 1%er who wants to sell your Rosedale mansion and pocket as much $$$ as possible, nothing more. Don't wrap it up and tie it in a bow as a "worthy" cause.
has nothing to do with the proposal at all but an attack on my motivation. You don't clearly do not understand the difference. As for a pat on the back, if you read my first post, I hardly ask for that.

Now, how about a comment about why the proposal is not in the public interest, how it will not benefit the 500,000 property owners who list property in Canada every year, how it does not preserve the consumer protection policy behind the current prohibition, how it will not lower prices for consumers, how it is not an incentive, how it is not more of an incentive than the flat rate now allowed, how it does not allow RE agents to still charge the conventional commission, how it is not a worthy cause to give consumers more choice?

Something?


If not, that's trolling so go troll somewhere else.
Member
Apr 29, 2006
381 posts
30 upvotes
Toronto
eonibm wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:14 pm
You are totally missing the point. I am very open to criticism about the proposal itself and why it may or may not work, what could be improved, why it is not in the interest of the 500,000 property owners who list properties every year in Canada, why choice is a bad thing, etc.

The only comments I am getting is about my motivation for making the porposal and calling me names like I am 'greedy', saying I 'have too much time on my hands', that the original post is too long, etc. Absolutely NOTHING about the proposal itself. That's what daivey's point is. But you don't seem to get that. As for barking like a chihuahua, you might want to look in the mirror because your post makes as much sense as one.

Now do you have anything substantive to provide about the proposal itself? If not then go troll somewhere else.
Nobody is trolling you. I'm not an agent but I am familiar with commission agreements and how they can be structured. I haven't said anything about how your proposal is garbage or anything.
Nobody has said choice is a bad thing but is it of any value for all of the effort.

What you're basically proposing is like comfree.com but with a face to it. So how is your proposal able to provide 'choice' when such an option already exists?
Is it not substantive to question why a sliding scale doesn't work or do you just want to argue/debate with every person that comes along and says something you don't agree with?
Penalty Box
Dec 27, 2013
8003 posts
3957 upvotes
Toronto
blu3xtc wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 1:55 pm
The OP was looking for feedback. This opens doors to criticism whether negative or constructive. There isn't a need to get defensive over something that hasn't materialized.
What?

Dude, the guy flat out attacks him saying his threads are stupid/meaningless and just taking up space on the Finance Forum..... How is that feed back??

Sheesh man.
Penalty Box
Dec 27, 2013
8003 posts
3957 upvotes
Toronto
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 9:12 am
ok, ready to join your cause, I'm pumped. Let's do it!!

You make up some ribbons, I'll get the bumper stickers. We can get Bono to sing at the telethon, and maybe Jerry's kids can be strategically photoshopped into the posters.
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 9:40 am
Naw, this is only the 3rd or 4th RE thread that you've started. It's way too early...I'm waiting until you hit double digits.
So for those of you saying that Sauerkraut is posting his "opinion," what opinion is that????? I quoted it for you guys to see since you so much cherish everyones freaking opinion.... That's an opinion????? That above, whichi I quoted is an opinion?????

REALLY???? That's what counts as an opinion these days??? Thats a reasonable discussion??? You can have a reasonable discussion with a person that posts what I just quoted????? BUT THATs not a trolll??? LLOLOL omg. I think I'm going crazy here.
Penalty Box
Dec 27, 2013
8003 posts
3957 upvotes
Toronto
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 9:12 am
ok, ready to join your cause, I'm pumped. Let's do it!!

You make up some ribbons, I'll get the bumper stickers. We can get Bono to sing at the telethon, and maybe Jerry's kids can be strategically photoshopped into the posters.
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 9:40 am
Naw, this is only the 3rd or 4th RE thread that you've started. It's way too early...I'm waiting until you hit double digits.
blu3xtc wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:37 pm
Nobody is trolling you. I'm not an agent but I am familiar with commission agreements and how they can be structured. I haven't said anything about how your proposal is garbage or anything.
Nobody has said choice is a bad thing but is it of any value for all of the effort.

What you're basically proposing is like comfree.com but with a face to it. So how is your proposal able to provide 'choice' when such an option already exists?
Is it not substantive to question why a sliding scale doesn't work or do you just want to argue/debate with every person that comes along and says something you don't agree with?

it honestly seems like you're just posting, just to post. Because clearly you didn't read anything at all in the original post, nor do you have a cluet what he's talk about. and im not attacking you or trying to be rude. You really haven't read anything in this thread if THAT's your post.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 7, 2008
5765 posts
702 upvotes
Ottawa
daivey wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:43 pm
So for those of you saying that Sauerkraut is posting his "opinion," what opinion is that????? I quoted it for you guys to see since you so much cherish everyones freaking opinion.... That's an opinion????? That above, whichi I quoted is an opinion?????

REALLY???? That's what counts as an opinion these days??? Thats a reasonable discussion??? You can have a reasonable discussion with a person that posts what I just quoted????? BUT THATs not a trolll??? LLOLOL omg. I think I'm going crazy here.
Why are you all butthurt. It isn't even your thread...
Penalty Box
Dec 27, 2013
8003 posts
3957 upvotes
Toronto
Dude, this guy Suaerkraut is completely out to lunch. It's amazing how he can post nothing of value at all and then claim that he has an opinion and we should even read it. It's amazing. It's actually pretty sad that this is the state of affairs of people in ACTUAL REAL LIFE. Like I would honestly like to meet Sauerkraut in real life to see if in the real world he can actually string a sentence together.
eonibm wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:19 pm
Alternative opinion? Hardly! Your comment that:



has nothing to do with the proposal at all but an attack on my motivation. You don't clearly do not understand the difference. As for a pat on the back, if you read my first post, I hardly ask for that.

Now, how about a comment about why the proposal is not in the public interest, how it will not benefit the 500,000 property owners who list property in Canada every year, how it does not preserve the consumer protection policy behind the current prohibition, how it will not lower prices for consumers, how it is not an incentive, how it is not more of an incentive than the flat rate now allowed, how it does not allow RE agents to still charge the conventional commission, how it is not a worthy cause to give consumers more choice?

Something?


If not, that's trolling so go troll somewhere else.
Penalty Box
Dec 27, 2013
8003 posts
3957 upvotes
Toronto
TripleHelix wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:46 pm
Why are you all butthurt. It isn't even your thread...
LOL butthurt?? It's hilarious how someone TROLLS and then says that his trolls are "an opinion that's of value". It's amazing. I'm not butthurt at all. Im actually quite shocked because these are REAL people behind these screen names typing this up.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 7, 2008
5765 posts
702 upvotes
Ottawa
Yo Daivey, you realize you are adding nothing of value to the thread either right?

All you are doing is bitching out a few users and not adding anything to the discussion...
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14534 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
blu3xtc wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:37 pm
Nobody is trolling you. I'm not an agent but I am familiar with commission agreements and how they can be structured. I haven't said anything about how your proposal is garbage or anything.
Nobody has said choice is a bad thing but is it of any value for all of the effort.

What you're basically proposing is like comfree.com but with a face to it. So how is your proposal able to provide 'choice' when such an option already exists?
Is it not substantive to question why a sliding scale doesn't work or do you just want to argue/debate with every person that comes along and says something you don't agree with?

Such an option exists? Did you even read my first post? Do you even know what the Act says? Obviously NOT.

Comfree, or any other real estate brokerage, is not legally allowed to agree to the commission structure I am proposing. It is expressly prohibited by the Act. To refresh your memory and so you don't have to scroll back:

Prohibition

S36(2) No registrant shall request or enter into an arrangement for the payment of a commission or any other remuneration based on the difference between the price at which real estate is listed for sale or rental and the actual sale price or rental price, as the case may be, of the real estate, nor is a registrant entitled to retain any commission or other remuneration computed upon any such basis. 2002, c. 30, Sched. C, s. 36 (3).


As for the sliding scale I addressed this already in my post #27. If you can't see the difference re-read and re-read...
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14534 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
TripleHelix wrote:
Apr 10th, 2015 2:49 pm
Yo Daivey, you realize you are adding nothing of value to the thread either right?

All you are doing is bitching out a few users and not adding anything to the discussion...
He wouldn't have had to if they hadn't trolled in the first place, right?

Top