Episode 139 of the daily Toronto Real Estate Musing video blog. George O’Neill discusses the recent Canadian Competition Bureau ruling that the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) needs to make changes to open up access to the Multiple Listing Service (MLS)® and how Realtors® should react to this change.
If you are interested in Beach or downtown Toronto real estate or wish to discuss this topic further, please email George@GeorgeONeill.ca or leave a comment below.
Related posts:
- Competition Bureau Shakes Up Multiple Listing Service (MLS)® – Part 3
- Competition Bureau Shakes Up Multiple Listing Service (MLS)® – To Do's
- Competition Bureau Shakes Up Multiple Listing Service (MLS)®
- Pros Require Service Contracts, Which Protect All Parties
- Do Not Allow A Realtor® To "Buy Your Listing"
Join our Facebook page
Follow us on Twitter
Rate us on Google Maps
Connect over on LinkedIn
George,
you neglect to mention that the potential to reduce or eliminate agency and privacy laws will impact the consumer in a negative manner.
Discount brokers have been around for a very long time. That is not an issue.
The new form of discount broker the bureau is aiming at differs by virtue of their demand to eliminate The Agency Pillars
- Sec 17.2.3 “the relieving of the listing member of any obligations…” (Agency) and
- Sec 17.2.6 “seller’s name shall not appear…” (the Privacy Act).
Many consumers and their advocates fought long and hard over many years to have these statutes enacted. The Bureau’s myopic view does not seem to understand the implications of their demands on the consumer. It’s a regressive stance!
Hi Larry,
Thanks for your comments. My thoughts:
1) If consumers are willing to let their names be published in a listing why not let them do it? If they understand the risks and benefits of doing so, let them decide.
2) Agency is great when two willing parties agree to work together. It doesn’t work that well when one side feels they are forced into the agreement. I think this is what is happening with some sellers today, who feel their property should be on MLS to get exposed to the market, but in order to do so, they must agree to an agency agreement in order for that to occur. Hence, they haggle over commission and generally are not that agreeable to work with, but reluctantly do so in order to get what they want – access to the market. I’m sure you have worked with such consumers – I certainly have and they are often unhappy folks who tried and failed the for-sale-by-owner route prior to contacting a brokerage. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the general perception of agents is so low in some of the public’s mind – .i.e. in order to get to the market they must go through us.
3) Any business that has ~90% of the market is a monopoly in my books. Economists are pretty much in agreement that unless there are valid reasons for natural monopolies to remain (like the electrical transmission and distribution systems, for example), rules and practices need to be put in place to ensure there is a level playing field when business monopolies exist, and even going as far as breaking some up (see the history of Standard Oil, and more recently AT&T).
The good news to me is that this should help raise the bar for this industry. Where there is change there is opportunity for those that choose to look for it. Full-service brokerages will still exist and will find willing clientele who will seek out and pay for those services. But it does mean some things have to change. For example, the practice of giving away a CMA in order to hopefully get the listing must change, since some consumers will use agents to do a check on market value, then list with a discounter. I do not know any other professional services business that gives away so much in hopes of attracting business. We should be charging for these services, and I think the market will go in that direction if the proposed Competition Bureau changes come to pass.
I could go on, since I have so much more to say on this topic – please watch future videos.
I do welcome your thoughts and debate.
George