Canadian Money Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,508 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I read this article in today's Globe and Mail:

"Canadian homeowners will be able to list their homes on the Multiple Listing Service for a flat fee, but they’ll still have to compensate any real estateagent who brings a buyer to their doorstep"

What if the seller offers less than typical 2.5% to the buyer's agent, or he/she may not bring the buyer to the door? For anyone that says, "sell your house privately then." It's not so easy. MLS has an unfair advantage and has basically put a choke hold on the ability to sell and buy homes. The issue is that their commissions are not worth the labour they give and now with this decision, it could lead to unethical actions from a greedy buyer's agent.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
429 Posts
This is going to be an interesting fight. However, nowhere does it say that the seller has to provide a "percentage" of sales. So it comes down to a contract fight, and perhaps the enforcement of the percentage will shift to the buyer?

Having information on comparables is invaluable ... and maybe worth that 2.5%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,423 Posts
I think the issue of a seller compensating the buyer's agent (if they have one), has nothing to do with MLS. It has everything to do with the contract between the potential buyers and their agents. The buyers can't buy anything without compensating the buying agent according to the contract.

I believe up to now, it is common for a FSBO to pay the buyer's agent an agreed upon sum. I don't see why this won't continue.

Another interesting possibility is that perhaps the payment (or some of the payment) for the buying agent will shift to the buyers themselves? In my opinion, they should be paying their own agent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,647 Posts
You would think it would be wise to pay your own agent who is negotiating a price for you..

There must be a way to turn the incentive in your favor. If you get x price I'll pay you full commission or I'll accept that counteroffer if you only take x for commission

Which begs the question why use a buyer's agent in the first place
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
A certified appraiser can give you comparables and it costs about $300 not 2.5%

You know what is kind of sad and funny about this whole deal? The initial fight that brought this on was between Realty Sellers (a discount Broker) and CREA. Now FSBO's get to post on the MLS. It's like a Greek Tragedy of errors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,423 Posts
You would think it would be wise to pay your own agent who is negotiating a price for you..

There must be a way to turn the incentive in your favor. If you get x price I'll pay you full commission or I'll accept that counteroffer if you only take x for commission

Which begs the question why use a buyer's agent in the first place
The main benefits I can think of are:

- Expertise. Lots of buyers don't know sh*t about anything, so having someone help this can be beneficial.
- Comparables. Agents can look at the sold prices for houses in the area. This is very worthwhile.
- Access to houses. While it's not necessary, it's more convenient to have a buying agent who can book appointments.
[/LIST]
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7 Posts
The main benefits I can think of are:

- Expertise. Lots of buyers don't know sh*t about anything, so having someone help this can be beneficial.
- Comparables. Agents can look at the sold prices for houses in the area. This is very worthwhile.
- Access to houses. While it's not necessary, it's more convenient to have a buying agent who can book appointments.
[/LIST]
Funny enough if the MLS was more "open" to the public your second statement would be unnecessary. As we could all search for at least some basic comps. But I think that the agreement between the Competition Bureau and the Real Estate Boards does not go far enough in allowing access to the MLS.

And as for statement number 1 - that is highly dependent on the agent. ;)

Take Care
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
I think that agents should start offering fee for services.

For instance I have an agent that sends me every single new multi-res listing. I wouldn't be upset if he wanted $20 per month for that and I suspect a lot of people would pay for that information.

Or selling agents could be paid per showing and offer regardless of acceptance. In this way houses that spend a few days on the market are subsidizing the work that agents do on properties that don't sell or that stay on the market for ages.

And if buyers want to be driven around in SUV's they should pay for that too.

I even talked about this in one of my posts on Million Dollar Journey, that investors should pay agents for all offers they submit especially if they are "low ball" offers. Because there are many agents who don't want to have anything to do with investors looking for a deal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,892 Posts
Would an individual listing on MLS (paying a flat fee to list) be able to post their contact info, just like a listing agent would? Then alot of buyers could simply contact directly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,936 Posts
Sure cal. But then the real estate association would see a much-diminished incentive to keep the MLS website free and open. They would need to change the funding model for that website, which I'm sure costs a tremendous amout of money to maintain.

It almost sounds like you are describing the comfree format, which I believes charges sellers about $600 for listings, which include a spot on their website.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,868 Posts
There have been many attempts to cut out the middle man in real estate. None have been successful so far. I think it relates to the infrequency of individual transactions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
Sellers will not have their contact info posted but... they can post a link to a website.

About the whole deal with the MLS website and how much it should cost...View it.ca maintains a site and a database and they charge 60$ for an ad per month this includes the cost of the professional photographer.

The idea is that a for profit company like View It can run their website and pay staff and also make a profit. They also run a database with all previous listing and photographs. If they can do it can't the MLS?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7 Posts
I have been investigating low cost selling options for a while. One place you can find a $109 MLS listing package is ihatecommission.com

When looking for investment property in Whitby I came across a listing that used the service. It basically forwarded the email contact from the listing to the home owner, who then contacted me directly.

You can add contact information via "View Brochure" but it is not very likely that people will look there. Unless you ask people to review the brochure in your description :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
I understand people's beef with agents and their high commission, but people who think that MLS should be free (or have a small fee) are crazy. It's their site, they built it. yeah, it probably doesnt cost them millions to maintain it, but they were the ones to gather the data and make it available to the public/realtors. One of the conditions of its use is that you use a realtor. It's their game, they can play it like that - no one is forced to use the service. The problem is that everyone wants to use the service because it's the best out there.

To tell you the truth if I were the CREA I'd tighten up the site - have it so that the front end just showed houses available and it's location and it would say - contact a realtor to view this house.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
113 Posts
I understand people's beef with agents and their high commission, but people who think that MLS should be free (or have a small fee) are crazy. It's their site, they built it. yeah, it probably doesnt cost them millions to maintain it, but they were the ones to gather the data and make it available to the public/realtors. One of the conditions of its use is that you use a realtor. It's their game, they can play it like that - no one is forced to use the service. The problem is that everyone wants to use the service because it's the best out there.

To tell you the truth if I were the CREA I'd tighten up the site - have it so that the front end just showed houses available and it's location and it would say - contact a realtor to view this house.
Not so. The reason they can charge high prices is because they've got a monopoly. And they've had a monopoly forever.

When you're a monopoly the rules are different. Government needs to control them because market forces don't.

While you point out that no one is forced to use the service, the reality is just the opposite. There's no effective choice available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,647 Posts
I understand people's beef with agents and their high commission, but people who think that MLS should be free (or have a small fee) are crazy. It's their site, they built it. yeah, it probably doesnt cost them millions to maintain it, but they were the ones to gather the data and make it available to the public/realtors. One of the conditions of its use is that you use a realtor. It's their game, they can play it like that - no one is forced to use the service. The problem is that everyone wants to use the service because it's the best out there.

To tell you the truth if I were the CREA I'd tighten up the site - have it so that the front end just showed houses available and it's location and it would say - contact a realtor to view this house.
Web sites are not rocket science, it would be easy to make a better one. The problem is the agents would not show any listings from it and seeing as most buyers use agents no other site will gain enough exposure. It's a vicious cycle that gives them a choke hold on the market. You can't sell privately because agents won't show them and you have to use an agent to see the latest listings that mls hasn't opened to the public

I can't think of another industry like it. Many industries make business for themselves in corrupt ways or price fix but this really is a choke hold
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
I understand people's beef with agents and their high commission, but people who think that MLS should be free (or have a small fee) are crazy. It's their site, they built it. yeah, it probably doesnt cost them millions to maintain it, but they were the ones to gather the data and make it available to the public/realtors. One of the conditions of its use is that you use a realtor. It's their game, they can play it like that - no one is forced to use the service. The problem is that everyone wants to use the service because it's the best out there.

To tell you the truth if I were the CREA I'd tighten up the site - have it so that the front end just showed houses available and it's location and it would say - contact a realtor to view this house.
The banks also built the ATM network but the competition bureau opened this up to outsiders. I think some of the issues are similar.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top