Personal Finance

Proposed Change to the Act governing Real Estate Agent Listing Commission

  • Last Updated:
  • May 21st, 2015 9:10 am
Tags:
None
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jan 4, 2009
3803 posts
1714 upvotes
on the links
eonibm wrote:
Apr 12th, 2015 1:40 pm
It seems everyone, other than realtors or realtor-fanboys/girls (who, although not agents, are against more choice for some peculiar reason which they won't disclose but likely they have a conflict of interest)
Sorry to burst your bubble but I have absolutely no conflict of interest, and would welcome more options and/or paying less for a service (I own a home so it would eventually be to my benefit). In fact once you’re done with RE why don’t you take on the 407ETR, I could use some reduced toll rates there as well.

Where I take exception is your constant and incessant "worthy cause" marketing scheme. This brief is a way for wealthy/middle class people to save money by paying less to other wealthy/middle class people, nothing more. It’s the definitive 1st world problem meme.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14535 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
popbottle wrote:
Apr 12th, 2015 3:29 pm
You quoted arcane and/or obscure laws that prevent this and that when in every province, there has already been the ability to have a low commission rate for almost forever. Its just inertia that keeps it at 2.5% for Ontario and 7%/2.5% in Vancouver with a minority using one percent realty and other discount brokers.
Now you are claiming the law is not the law? Now I have heard everything. I won't comment on anything you write anymore because it's obvious to me and all RFD readers you are crazy.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14535 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 12th, 2015 3:32 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble but I have absolutely no conflict of interest, and would welcome more options and/or paying less for a service (I own a home so it would eventually be to my benefit). In fact once you’re done with RE why don’t you take on the 407ETR, I could use some reduced toll rates there as well.

Where I take exception is your constant and incessant "worthy cause" marketing scheme. This brief is a way for wealthy/middle class people to save money by paying less to other wealthy/middle class people, nothing more. It’s the definitive 1st world problem meme.
What do you have against people having more choice if it does affect you nor will it affect anyone who wants to choose the commission structures already available? It's obvious, regardless of what you claim. Otherwise you would just move on and skip this thread, but you keep coming back. And I get that you don't think it's a worthy cause. I do. Fine. We are both entitled to our opinions. Stop coming back like a parrot and chirping the same thing over and over. You've beaten the horse to death. Move on, but you don't. Funny that...

As for only affecting the wealthy/middle class, you might want to take a course in basic arithmetic. It will allow ALL 500,000 property owners per year who list properties, regardless of their property value, to save money if they choose the incentive commission structure. It is a way for ALL people to pay less. Did I ever say it wasn't? Sheesh!

Also, if this is such an underdesirable commission structure no one will chose it anyway then stop fretting so much. For someone who claims they have no conflict of interest a phrase comes to mind: Thous doth protest too much.

As for the 407/ETR, it does not affect me as I never use it, so it is not a cause that concerns me. So, I wouldn't comment on a thread you wrote about you wanting to pursue making changes to it because you felt it was a worthy cause, nor would it matter to me whether you thought it was a worthy cause or not. See how that works?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 26, 2015
2573 posts
435 upvotes
BC
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 12th, 2015 3:32 pm
Where I take exception is your constant and incessant "worthy cause" marketing scheme. This brief is a way for wealthy/middle class people to save money by paying less to other wealthy/middle class people, nothing more. It’s the definitive 1st world problem meme.
What an idiotic comment, 1st world problems are which iPhone model to buy, not real estate cartel behavior and a lack of transparency which affect nearly the whole populace at one stage or another, and inhibits competitiveness
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 20, 2011
5310 posts
481 upvotes
Vancouver
Sauerkraut wrote:
Apr 12th, 2015 3:32 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble but I have absolutely no conflict of interest, and would welcome more options and/or paying less for a service (I own a home so it would eventually be to my benefit). In fact once you’re done with RE why don’t you take on the 407ETR, I could use some reduced toll rates there as well.

Where I take exception is your constant and incessant "worthy cause" marketing scheme. This brief is a way for wealthy/middle class people to save money by paying less to other wealthy/middle class people, nothing more. It’s the definitive 1st world problem meme.
Exactly, this is a first world problem. In addition, there is the ability to sell a home without a realtor too, and if you chose to hire a realtor, you have the preexisting ability to negotiate the commission rate.
Deal Addict
Oct 14, 2004
1402 posts
377 upvotes
Toronto
So are we trying to write the law here on RFD? This has to be a first...
Jr. Member
User avatar
Feb 24, 2009
198 posts
16 upvotes
So I'll start with the disclaimer ...

I am a happily retired Realtor.

change the legislation all you want, it would not make any difference to my income if I was still active in the business.

If I can't negotiate a salary for myself, that I find acceptable, I'm surely not going to be able to bring together a 'willing seller' and 'willing buyer', and complete a sale.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14535 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
tdeem1 wrote:
Apr 19th, 2015 6:28 pm
So I'll start with the disclaimer ...

I am a happily retired Realtor.

change the legislation all you want, it would not make any difference to my income if I was still active in the business.

If I can't negotiate a salary for myself, that I find acceptable, I'm surely not going to be able to bring together a 'willing seller' and 'willing buyer', and complete a sale.
Of course you can negotiate a salary for yourself. How does my proposal limit your choice? Huh?

Also, it might make a difference to your income if clients started to shift to my model and I think they will, albeit slowly. It makes SO much more sense not to pay a commission on a price that a blind deaf and dumb person could sell a house for and only pay on the difference.

And you underscore exactly the problem with some listing agents. They are more in it for themselves than for their client. You fully admit that if you had willing buyers you would not bring them together with your seller. Despicable!!!

Now, how about a reason it shouldn't be allowed other than it will slow down the gravy train of agents who agree to it?
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 20, 2011
5310 posts
481 upvotes
Vancouver
tdeem1 wrote:
Apr 19th, 2015 6:28 pm
So I'll start with the disclaimer ...

I am a happily retired Realtor.

change the legislation all you want, it would not make any difference to my income if I was still active in the business.

If I can't negotiate a salary for myself, that I find acceptable, I'm surely not going to be able to bring together a 'willing seller' and 'willing buyer', and complete a sale.
Thumbs up. Under existing laws, clients may negotiate an hourly/monthly rate or a percentage of the sale. No complex formulas or limited rights. You get a higher price for the property, you make more. You get a lower price, you make less. Looks like the foundation of salaried vs. commissioned sales and very easy to understand.
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14535 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
% of the difference is insanely simple. No complex formulas & increased choice. You get a higher price for the property, you make more. You get a lower price, you make less and maybe zero. Looks like the foundation of a real incentive vs paying a commission on the price you'd get anyway in a fire sale, which any deaf dumb and blind person could get merely by placing the MLS listing.

Again, very telling that real estate agent and fanboys are so against something that doesn't have to affect them. Very telling indeed...
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 20, 2011
5310 posts
481 upvotes
Vancouver
- what kind of customer would want to offer a non refundable listing fee+ commission to someone they dont even know? customers can already offer flat fees but it is not normally done
- what kind of agent except an inexperienced and hungry agent would accept a listing with a non refundable listing fee + commission?
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14535 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
popbottle wrote:
Apr 20th, 2015 12:14 pm
- what kind of customer would want to offer a non refundable listing fee+ commission to someone they dont even know? customers can already offer flat fees but it is not normally done
- what kind of agent except an inexperienced and hungry agent would accept a listing with a non refundable listing fee + commission?
Those are irrelevant questions, not to mention those options are already done as you note.

Increase choice and let the market decide why don't you? Again, so against freedom aren't ya. Another wayward post from the resident real estate agent/fanboy. Very telling...

Again, listing commission structures:

Existing: % of selling (typical 2.5%) + optional flat fee, or just a flat fee.
Add Proposed: % of difference between selling & listing (cap 2.5%) + optional flat fee


Both are based on VERY EASY SIMPLE arithmetic most 10 year-olds good figure out. Popbottle finds the proposal very 'complex multilevel' (one number multiplied by another is not multi-level lol) and extremely hard to comprehend even though it's been in the Act, albeit as a prohibition, for years. I get that. No need to keep repeating. I am not here to teach a Grade 5 arithmetic course to you.

Actually S36(2) of the Act is way more complicated than multiplying 2 numbers together as in my proposal. It reads:

(2) If the commission payable in respect of a trade in real estate is expressed as a percentage of the sale price or rental price, the percentage does not have to be fixed but may be expressed as a series of percentages that decrease at specified amounts as the sale price or rental price increases. 2002, c. 30, Sched. C, s. 36 (2).

So you could have a whole bunch of different commission rates and different amounts to multiply them by and then add everything up. Poor popbottle if he has to work that one out if he's already struggling with multiplying 2 numbers together.

The optional flat fee (which typically covers the MLS listing) is currently allowed, totally negotiable (I've seen as low as $250 and up to many thousands) with the lower end usually requiring a bit more work by the homeowner and the upper end being close to a typical listing with the agent doing all the work.

Real estate agents & sellers will be free to choose whatever structure they want. What's not to like? Let the free market decide instead of imposing artificial restrictions that only feather the nest of real estate agents.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 20, 2011
5310 posts
481 upvotes
Vancouver
I'll use easier words.

You make reference to a complex multilevel compensation system and further say that you found that it is illegal under current law.

- What kind of homeowner would pay a flat listing fee that is not refundable PLUS a tiered sales based commission to some guy they saw on the side of a bus or a transit shelter that they barely know? realtors are already allowed to work by the hour or by a time period. although it is not normally done

- no agent except one that needs to urgently put food on the table would accept a listing contract that provides for as little as no commission if a property is sold
[OP]
Deal Guru
Aug 2, 2010
14535 posts
4291 upvotes
Here 'n There
Still waiting for even just one person to provide a cogent argument for why my proposed new commission structure which provides increased freedom of choice is a negative for anyone other than the real estate industry who will see their gravy train slow down. The simple insertion of a 2.5% cap preserves the consumer protection aspect on the currently prohibited commission.

What I have heard so far are not arguments, but mere whining and I thought at least one person could do better than that. This is what we have so far:


I don't like it (So? Many do)

Everything is okay the way it is (The masses beg to differ)

I can't subtract 2 numbers and then multiply it by a % commission rate! (Take your grade 5 arithmetic course again)

It's too fancy and complicated! (the S36(2) declining tiered % commission structure depending on price which is allowed now, is WAY more complicated)

Why would someone want to pick that commission structure? (It has obvious advantages for many property sellers)

I'm a real estate agent and I would never agree to that commission structure! (Relax honey. You don't have to. No one is taking your freedom of choice away)

It's already allowed in BC. Agents can choose any commission. (Not it's not - you need to read the Act not rely on industry blogs. No province or territory allows it as it is written)

Customers already can chose a realtor based on a salary or a commission based on the sales price (Duh, this is different. You obviously didn't even bother to read the proposal)

Fancy complicated thresholds as you describe are currently against the law. (Double Duh! That's the whole reason for the proposal! LMAO!!!!)



Anyone? Didn't think so. I'll keep editing this post as I find more useless 'arguments'.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Apr 20, 2011
5310 posts
481 upvotes
Vancouver
In Metro Vancouver there are so many choices for commission its not funny. The conventional full service with extras, 2.5%, which is half Ontarios 5%. Flat fee service(like getting married lol), or a 1% commission, an up front fee plus a commission as well, all under existing laws in BC. The real estate board clearly states there is no regular commission, and there are no limits both up and down on commissions here. In particular, the 1% brokers in BC have no problem getting buyers agents from full service agencies showing their listings.

Top