I value the two ideals of transparency and integrity. They have been the cornerstones of my Calgary real estate brand for nearly two decades. I know many others who have also built healthy, fit business models based on the same core values for success.
So, when CREA recently announced the new Realtor Cooperation Policy, I welcomed it as a robust advancement of standards in an industry where upping our game means raising our stature among our clients. Consumers have rightful expectations and demands of us as advisors to be trust-worthy partners in their life decision(s) to buy or sell a home.
How do we deliver on those expectations and demands? With transparency and integrity.
I have landed on my current worldview of the real estate industry as one of desired cooperation, professionalism, and collaboration. But that doesn’t mean I haven’t seen it all – from the practice of pocket listing and off-market sales to the “hush-hush” for sale signs on front lawns saying exclusive listing and corruptive coming soon marketing (those pre-listing ads that bypass MLS and Realtor.ca so a property can be sold without ever reaching the system).
CREA’s new policy, which takes effect next year, seeks to bring integrity and value to the MLS by making it mandatory to place listing(s) on board/association MLS systems within three days of public marketing. In strengthening cooperation, it will reinforce our qualifications as professionals, meet consumer needs and bolster both the MLS and Realtor trademarks, according to CREA.
Back-door and closed-door deals aren’t in the interest of the buyer or the seller.
Unless you’re running a coming soon program with total integrity, this new standard will hit you in the gut, especially if you’re building a business model on it. A “coming soon” program is intended to create excitement for the day that it launches to the public, not to generate leads to sell prematurely with limited visibility in the marketplace. Many buyers have missed out on properties that sold off-market, and that frustrating message has been clearly received from the public over the last couple of years. One can also argue that sellers have left a lot of money on the table – with limited visibility when selling off-market with a coming soon or pocket listing program.
The goal of a well-respected coming soon program is to pre-market a property with fairness and access to all on the MLS and Realtor.ca. Without ever reaching the online listing destinations and demographics it is intended for, it is inevitable the honest intention of coming soon marketing will become a broken promise to the consumer because something that’s supposed to be coming soon never comes at all.
All of this is misconduct, and it is not in the best interest of the consumer or all the advisors that work diligently by the book every day in this business. We have been running our own program exclusively through the Justin Havre team for more than two years. Not then, nor now, have we ever allowed any buyers access to view a property before it is available for public viewing — not to buyers of agents on our team, not even to team members for their own personal purchases. Not to anyone.
We will market ‘coming soon’ listings for 7-14 days. We also have an addendum to the listing agreement outlining the entire program that the seller and the listing agent sign. From our experience running this program, if a seller wants to extract as much money as possible from the sale, the property must be available to the public so that the seller can have the greatest number of buyers bidding for it.
For our team, our program integrity and the highest level of seller representation win out every time. The more visibility of homes for sale, the more attractive to buyers. The more buyers looking, the more attractive to sellers. The policy has it right.
The Realtor Cooperation Policy addresses and eliminates the shadiest of practices by some outliers.
This measure of the policy to avoid further erosion of public trust and confidence in the real estate industry as a whole comes on the heels of the two-year-old Clear Cooperation Policy introduced by the National Association of Realtors in the U.S. After CREA spent almost two years working on creating this policy, and consulting with local real estate boards and associations here in Canada, the consensus was obvious: We need the same thing across our industry. In the U.S., advisors only have one day after public marketing to list on MLS. We have three.
The more listings posted to MLS, the more beneficial and valuable the platform becomes to home sellers and buyers. The Canadian real estate business cannot afford to lose listings. According to the conclusions of a whitepaper commissioned by CREA, having “more listings on MLS increases the value for both buyers and sellers through network effects.”
While this is a massive shift, it is also a loud-and-clear message to the consumer that, as industry members, we will use the front door, not the back door, to make sure everyone has access to see or bid on a property.
For our business, this is good business.
Justin Havre is the founder and team leader of the award-winning Justin Havre & Associates of Re/Max First, Canada’s #1 Re/Max Large Team in closed transactions since 2018.
I agree with you about “coming soon” listing. Sellers should have the choice about how their home is marketed. Some of my sellers have not wanted their home on display for the public to view. They do not accept the sharing of the sold price for anyone to view. Our listing agreements do not have opt out abilities to preclude this information from being released to everyone to view. I have had a number of clients that have told me that they are willing to not get every penny to be able to have this control and not have to accept the use and distribution clause. This should be the Sellers choice alone.
I disagree with CREA policy that all listings must be on mls within 3 days of listing being signed. As numerous others have commented , quite often there are extenuating circumstances where the owner simply doesn’t want to be on mls It’s their home it should be their decision, period.
Tracy, the new rule would not eliminate Exclusive listings but limit the marketing of them to the masses, which is what the MLS choice is for. My understanding is consumers would still have the choice: MLS or Exclusive. The difference is only in how the listings are marketed. What I read says you could still have Exclusive listings and could share this information with your colleagues in your brokerage. I believe the intention is to eliminate the mass marketing of specific listings and hoarding of so-called Exclusive listings by a team or brokerage, who often force buyers to deal directly with them to have access to their ‘secret’ listings ‘not found anywhere else’. This is unfair to consumers as it creates an unfair advantage to some buyers over others. It is also unfair to buyers who prefer to choose their own real estate professional and still have access to the listings that are being marketed to them. Sellers would still have the same choice as they do now: MLS or Exclusive. Correct me if I’m wrong. I am all for the new rule. You should read it 🙂
Policy is now back drawing board
Terrible idea to begin with.
It is a myth that the seller is not happy with the result and to label it the way you do here. You should have more respect for your colleagues and not paint everyone with the same brush. I would like to see this two-year study made public. New business models are evolving, and old models should fade away. While I can still see a need for a national association, the role they play should needs to evolve and be encouraging new models and not restricting seller choice. This will be challenged and likely overturned as it has been challenged with NAR. We need to raise the bar with new innovative models and options, not lowering the bar with restricting consumer choice. In a nutshell, this seems more about nurturing the increase of licenses to feed and old, out of date business model.
Agreed. This may in fact add to the public claim that property prices are the result of the greedy Realtors & their association.
Two -three days of coming soon is fine, but i have seen a sign for 10 weeks while a flip was being done.
Same applies to sold, local bylaws say 2 weeks after sold remove the sign. That same company leaves the sold sign up until bylaw is called. Directional signs are NOT allowed except for open house and placed day of open house only. With the big commissions surely you can find other advertising options without you sign pollution.
Sorry but I smell another Competition Tribunal in the near future.
Absolutely! The general public will be in an uproar when you tell them they MUST put their home on MLS. We are a free country and have our own choices….as long as the realtor explains fully the benefits of putting their home on MLS.
Excellent article, Justin, thank you. I’m pleased to see this so well articulated after Barry’s piece the other day. It amazes me how many of the arguments against CREA’s new policy take the form of “consumers (sellers) need to be in control, need to have the right to choose the services they want”. Every concern a seller may raise about the process when their property is listed on MLS is readily handled by any agent capable of critical thinking and a genuine interest in following their client’s legal instruction.
No properly informed seller would choose to hire a Realtor and not list their property on MLS. Could their be exceptions? Are their extremely sensitive situations that demand zero possibility of discovery? Perhaps. I argue they are so rare that they needn’t be considered in Realtor governance other than by a provision that Realtors simply should not be handling those cases.
It’s disheartening – or even embarrassing or frightening – that so many agents’ arguments imply that by being on MLS the agent is in charge rather than the client.
Our professional service to clients does not end when we include MLS exposure for their properties. An MLS listing should strictly enhance our services in all cases. It ensures the best possible results, without consideration for our benefit, provided the agent understands the principal – agent relationship.
Bruce, your assertion is clients opting to not have an MLS® listing are not “properly informed”. I have clients with exclusive listings, or exclusive listings ahead of the planned MLS® listing commencement, or even ones that bridge a gap between an MLS® listing conclusion and the re-start or start of a new MLS® listing. My clients are always properly informed.
Hi Cameron. It sounds like you are not using exclusive listing periods to market the property publicly, which is the issue. I should have specified that consumers who choose an exclusive listing that allows their realtor to market the property publicly are almost certainly not properly informed.
My dearly departed father used to say “don’t believe your own press”.
As real estate professionals our fiduciary duty is to serve our clients and obey their lawful instructions, not dictate marketing terms that may not align with the Seller’s needs. In my primary trading area in Muskoka, my Seller Clients often value discretion and privacy on the same level as final price. Indeed, most of my sellers are keenly aware of the fair market value of their properties and prefer to market their properties discreetly among a smaller but qualified all cash buyer pool who share their appreciation of a waterfront property and are willing to offer at market value while avoiding the publicity and stress of having indiscriminate and potentially unqualified MLS buyers and their non-local agents parade through their lakehouses with little or no intent or resources to actually purchase the property. This was especially true during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020-2021 where exclusive non-mls listings in my market allowed. Sellers to have control over who is allowed to view their property and when. It is not always about price forand exclusive listings provide a valuable alternative for some Sellers that value their privacy and want to have the option of limiting showings access to their beloved waterfront homes.
Well said.
Hi Justin I would have to disagree with your stance and think that its a bit narrow sighted. I list every home exclusive to begin with. I explain the benefits to my clients and I list it exclusive the day we sign the paperwork. Exclusive does not mean I am not offering a cooperating commission. I always have offered commission, as of course its in my clients best interest. It takes at least a week to have staging, minor repairs and photos taken. In this time we can begin to market the home share it with the brokerage post it on Broker Pocket and then market the home through 100’s of media channels. I teach our team to pretend MLS did not exist how would we sell a home? We can also adjust a price with no history or impact to the clients. Listing a home to just through it on MLS and hope it sells is not a way to justify your commission.
I have listed a home that needed to be painted inside and lots of staging as they were a young family with 2 kids and a cat. We signed the paperwork to get things going. We sold to an agents clients from our office in 1 day for full asking. Both clients were very happy. My clients had no family and no where to go for showing so they had to load the kids and cat into their van and wait for the showing. Since it was only one showing and we sold it right away they were thrilled. I have never had a client not want to list exclusively while we prep the home. We also have many buyers that want to be the first to see a great home and providing them access to off market home is a huge benefit to them. Yes its a lot more work and takes more effort on behalf of the realtor as opposed to just setting up a search for clients and getting them to do all the work.
My issue is they claim it’s working in the US and that is not the case. 100’s of realtors are leaving NAR and local real estate boards and working outside of their rules. For RECO to say this is in the best interest of clients just simply is not the case. Who does benefit from this is the Bay Street companies that can now scrape MLS data spend huge amount of advertising dollars to generate leads to sell back the Realtors who’s listing it was to begin with.
This RECO rule is draconian and narrow minded and not in the best interest of the public or Realtors. If they want to help the Public ensure listings are listed on the local board where the home is sold. I can list a home on TRREB for a home in Niagara Falls and not have to list it locally. Realtors locally would not have access to the listing. The public looses out on this everyday and it cost them $1000’s but no one wants to address that.
This is CREA, not RECO. A CREA acting as though they are our governing body which they are not. It is a clear overstep.
The marketing concept of coming soon should be abolished. It serves no purpose other than allowing the “outliers” an opportunity to hoard the details or attempt to work both ends of the transaction. As for exclusives………create a mandatory exclusive form explaining the benefits and pitfalls of this type of marketing and have Sellers sign off.
“Coming Soon” to a theatre near you.
A very common means of creating interest.
Dare it be said, but perhaps it need be said that to attack every ‘coming soon’ effort as outliers, or as intentionally disenfranchisement of some in the market, or the intent of colleague professionals for personal gain (“to work both ends”), or to broadly brush it as serving no purpose, to suggest the foregoing is impugning others integrity, ethics and honest service.
Did CREA consult with its members to find out how this policy effects its realtors? This policy already got rejected by the states and NAR is desperate to appeal it. Waste of CREAs budget now to defend multiple lawsuits and attacks. They should also state they encourage others to participate in this space not to look anticompetitive.. ugh
I disagree with CREA upcoming policy ALL listings must be on mls
As said by many others for a variety of reasons quite often there are extenuating circumstances why a seller doesn’t want to be on mls Their property, their decision- period.
CREA should be supporting this concierge service model, not trying to ban it. Banning serves only one purpose for CREA, keeping membership numbers high to fund their existence.
Congratulations on running an ethical operation. But you’ve demonstrated exactly why this is an industry serving, anti-consumer move that needs to be panned and challenged by the Competition Bureau..
Rather than take direct aim at the miscreants in the industry who abuse the systems with their fake coming soon signs, their clients and consumers with unethical practices, CREA instead decides to smack the consumer over the head and insult them in the process by more or less declaring they don’t know what’s best for themselves, but we Realtors do.
How bloody rude!
The myopia and inerudite underpinnings of this industry, of which I am a part. Is appalling! Yes, the MLS Services are a seller based benefit, where, if it is our purpose to get the highest price for our seller clients, it seems shoved under a rug that it is also our duty to get the lowest price for our buyer clients and so if an exclusive listing is to the detriment of the seller, it is obviously to the advantage of the buyer. How you can then state that, “back-door and closed-door deals aren’t in the interest of the buyer…” is an interesting conundrum.
And who are we really to decide for a seller that their best interest is strictly about the highest price possible when there can be many determinative factors that are personal in nature? I have known of women who were abjectly afraid their abusive ex could find out they’re selling and moving and other very prominent people who did not want the world to know their business.
We have no right to be their ‘best interests’ police!
If CREA is so hellbent on protecting sellers from themselves, this very ruling suggests it could have instead deemed that no Realtor may place coming soon advertising and be done with it. This would ensure that a property is only marketed under a listing, exclusive or otherwise. How that simply solution got past the geniuses governing ORE escapes me.
More importantly, if CREA really wanted to protect sellers from themselves, under the guise of open market advertising, they could have banned the most egregious practice of all – the bait and switch holding back of offers with pre-emptives accepted anytime which essentially amounts to nothing but the same as offers anytime that is a double-enders dream. Or, it could have insisted that all MLS listings must be comprised of a minimum number of pictures, and none shall be upside down, blurry or of poor quality, for surely CREA must believe that a property not advertised on realtor.ca is a worse atrocity than a property with pictures that turn off buyers?
Well said.
Agreed
Yes Justin I agree with you! We all have to abide by a set of rules and regulations. If we start to give certain privileges to one we have to give to all and that open’s a can of worms. Remember, we are working for our Sellers and it’s all in the presentation and if explained correctly and to get the best benefit for them, they will understand. I just retired after 34 years in the business and have never had a seller dispute the way I was marketing their property. As I said it’s all in the presentation.
Disagree. There are different circumstances in every transaction. Too many rules actually destroy Realtor Seller relationship, Every time we have to explain why we cannot do something that might benefit the Seller in making sale as easy as possible.
It is not enough to suggest this policy is good for business because some of its tenants solve some problems with current MLS® system operations and its support of real estate professional services. And there is significant, thoughtful opposed views as to the appropriateness and utility of the CREA policy which should give its implementation pause.
Cornerstones, fundamentals, rightful expectations, trustworthy, transparency and integrity are words. But as the character Colonel Jessop says in defense of his indefensible behaviours “We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something.”, the words are meaningful in their implementation and are not THE backbone of service a REALTOR® is obligated, in law and in good conscience, to provide!
Experience with ‘pocket’, ‘off market’ or the ‘coming soon’ listings perhaps does benefit but a few. However, asserting “Back-door and closed-door deals aren’t in the interest of the buyer or the seller.” is just words that cannot always be true. The assertion itself lacks some transparency as the absolute form of the statement ignores the realities some sellers face, for instance a client who would prefer a family member or other member of the public not be privy to their wish to sell a property is impossible to fulfill through an MLS® “Public Marketing” defined listing.
But, let us not quibble about the detail of what listings are harmed by or which benefit from CREA’s policy; core issues underpinning Mr. Havre’s opinion come with ‘two sides to every story’ consideration.
“CREA’s new policy… seeks to bring integrity and value to the MLS®….”. The MLS® is inferred as THE required means of delivering integrity and value to the consumer. That is a bit of a stretch, IMO. “
“…it will reinforce our qualifications as professionals…according to CREA”. True, then again getting consumer confidence as to qualifications is not, IMO, a function to be what the MLS® is, it being one tool in our tool box to market property. The statement is all about reinforcing a viewpoint of how we REALTORS® are viewed, whether or not that is acceptable to the consumer is not really a function of the MLS®.
“it will …..bolster both the MLS and Realtor trademarks… according to CREA.” Ok. Yes it might. Actually probably will. And, accordingly these would or should improve the service available to consumers….that, however, is not the same thing as improving consumer service. It implies, kind of arrogantly, the MLS® and REALTOR® trademarks ARE the means of consumer service, regardless of a consumers perspective.
“All of this is misconduct…”, referring to alleged misuse of the “coming soon” model. Experience shows many MLS® rules and requirements are not followed as their spirit or regulation intends.
IMO, a new rule is not the first line of defense countering the attack on professionalism that arises from improper or even blatant disregard for professional conduct.
The first line of defense ought to be self regulation, fairly, assertively, timely and with tough love administrative applications. That is on ORE.
It is not my wish to ignore the ‘out’ CREA offers, the right of a consumer to expressly opt out of the on the MLS® requirement. The foregoing is less about the option than it is about Organized Real Estate’s (ORE) perspective it has a given means in service to promoting real estate transaction. But even that out is so narrowly defined as to, effectively, require all listings of an exclusive nature (except for three specifically excluded type of listings) to be made an MLS® listing.
“ “Office Exclusive” means a listing which is……..only marketed between REALTORS® directly affiliated with the listing brokerage/office in a business capacity…..advertising is limited to one-on-one promotion with these REALTORS® and their clients in accordance with the written instructions of the seller.” Put more directly the listing cannot be on your web site or any other web site, cannot be advertised in the paper, really cannot be marketed in any way EXCEPT one on one and EXCEPT to REALTORS® who are “affiliated” (which I do not know the interpretation of, does it mean only registrants with that brokerage?) with the brokerage. By way of more certainty of what is not “Office Exclusive” is the definition of “Public Marketing” (which) “means the representation or marketing of a listing to the public and/or any REALTOR® not directly affiliated with the listing brokerage/office in a business capacity. Public Marketing includes any representation regarding the sale of a property, including but not limited to, flyers, yard signs, digital marketing on public facing websites, brokerage website displays (including IDX and VOW) and onsite brokerage promotion, digital communications marketing (i.e., email blasts, newsletters, social media posts), multi-brokerage listing sharing networks, and applications available to the general public.”
What is the opt out option rule: written acceptance of the “Office Exclusive” approach by the seller. Any aberration of the limited means of marketing, for instance putting the listing on any direct or indirect web site, nullifies the written instructions. What said to be an ‘opt out’ is not really so; it is a narrowing of tools available to a REALTOR® to market a property in relation to the specific interests of a client or customer.
We already have a spate of rules, codes of ethics, law and common law requirements underpinning integrity, transparency, honesty, ethics….all of which should or could be the first line of defense in respect of the ‘misconduct’ asserted to coming soon or other exclusive listing arrangements and the most generally described “shadiest of practices by some outliers”. On this last note, ORE is brushing all its professional members with obligations that limit the consumer choice on the basis “some” do not act with the degree of required professionalism. It is a plain argument that dealing with outliers is a function of enforcement and the new rule should be a commitment to enhanced professional conduct enforcement!
There is no back door at my place of business regardless of the listing type. “Back door” is a pejorative phrase intended to reflect the practice as not beneficial to consumers. It is used to sully the approach of an exclusive listing, when it should be used only in relation to the conduct of a registrant or REALTOR®. The listing is not at fault, the listing marketing concept is not at fault, it is the conduct of the REALTOR® which may be where attention is to be drawn.
Commercial, rental, and new construction listings are exempt areas of practice. Apparently consumers involved in such transactions are more skilled at understanding the merits of an exclusive listing over use of the MLS®. Interesting to think the areas of practice with the higher number of exclusive listings is an area of practice with no need of ORE real estate intervention!
Take note of the three (3) day provision between creating a Public Marketing listing and the requirement to place on the MLS®. Take note that many ORE MLS® rules require that new MLS® listings must be on the system in two, maybe less maybe more days. It seems counter intuitive to the notion that a listing should be on the MLS® to serve the consumer and not require that said listing be on the moment its contract commences.
The idea of improving a service is good for business, but not all proposed improvements prove to be good for business. It is possible this (new) policy has a tenuous future. Either that or there will be a whole new means of circumventing the rule and need for a new one then again!
Bravo, Justin! you get it! The controversy surrounding this matter is most confusing. The hostile attitude by some in these posts and comments is exposing a scary lack of awareness and education by members of the industry about the industry. It’s too easy to label the world based on the narrow views of local experience. You’re clearly someone that operates a large, very high producing team and listens to leaders from all perspectives as well as being one yourself. You seem to have a well-rounded view of the values of non-MLS exposure – which can be important, as you identified – balanced against the value of MLS as a whole. Change is never always within everyone’s ideas of perfect. In this case, realtors will have to adjust business practices they’ve previously benefited from in order to serve the greater good – even if they don’t fully understand it themselves. I bet I’ll be called out for anonymity but I’ve seen what some of you do to people you don’t agree with. I’d rather not be your next victim.
Love it!
Exactly!
This new rule will be challenged as it is illogical to be enforced and will push more companies to seek alternatives to mls. I use the coming soon exclusive listing system , not to show it myself, but to drum up the best possible buyer for the sellers. No one shows it till home is ready to show at its best, but exposure has already commenced. I sure encourage all agents to bring their buyers thru once house is ready. Why allow double ending at all if that is a major concern. I think BC already has that. Also I had a seller who’s husband had passed away and she didn’t want all the mls system involved. Very emotional time.
Low profile and only handled by our company was her wish, even though I suggested MLS as the best way to market.
I totally believe the best way to get the most chance at top price for a home is using MLS. Again the honest agents do their fiduciary duties to the highest level and the mediocre do what is in their personal best interests .
Is REALTOR.ca needed or the responsibility of CREA, to market to the public? That is the agent and their company’s responsibility. The MLS system, and all the info, sure does need to be shared to all agents as a practice of good buisness for their client’s best interest to get the best buyers found, but why does CREA do the marketing for everyone. If you google -Houses for sale Lethbridge, up pops all major players and REALTOR.ca and individuals spending money to effectively COMPETE with REALTOR.ca to get business.
MLS as it is , with rules of course, could be just be for agents use only. Most buyers for homes that are produced don’t come from REALTOR.ca public call in, but from agents who have buyers, cause the info is shared with them on our board system.
Major players could combine to make their own “MLS” system and drop CREA MLS system and share amongst themselves.
Seems like mediocrity is being pushed by this as REALTOR.ca has made it easier for any agent to have massive exposure at no additional expense. Why?
By one REM article, I believe, about 30% of TREB sold zero homes in that year and about 50% sold only 1 or ZERO.
If professional is what is desired by our members, this needs to be addressed.
A ton of part timers? Second jobs? Just have a license in case and get write offs?
Professional is 2 year college course and an articling period too if we wish to build this industry as it should. Biggest investment in most peoples lives and we have so many who have this as not their total or main profession.
Justin, if the issue is “COMING SOON” abuse, then legislate that. Do not ban exclusive listings. Exclusive listing has its own purpose. Like I mentioned in my comment to another article this is installing a wrap around the whole foundation to address a small hairline crack that could have been fixed surgically by an injection. CREA is overstepping their mandate in my opinion.
Summary:
This rule vis throwing the baby (Exclusive Listing as an option) OUT with the Bath water (the Coming Soon Game in a Hot market)
Suggestion:
It’s too draconian and also too late. This problem has evaporated.–Find another solution, that suits Normal and Slow markets while achieving the regulation of Coming Soon abuses
Thank you for this Justin Havre (and REM V.2.0) – it’s a very good series of reasons to “Stop the Coming Soon Game” where registrant/Realtors (DURING A FAST-PACED, RISING PRICE BOOM Sellers’ Market) purposely feign the presentation of a signed Exclusive (no-cooperation & no showings for a while) Listing as a future-MLS listing in order to buy the time to effect a Double-Ender for themselves/their team/their company.
Heck, they get a lot of listings (but competition cuts into the LBO portion) AND they have a sizable overhead to sustain AND all their Best Properties get gobbled up before their own buyers/Team/Office gets a chance to look at the home / work on the Listing/ network with the 10 neighbours on each side and 20 across the street.
I agree 100%.
CREA has ruled that Canadian Homeowners do not have the right to privacy anymore (exclusive listing). As soon as the owner has decided to market his/her property he/she has to tell every other person in the country, via an MLS system, that he/she wants to sell. It is a remarkable decision, which must not stand up in a court of law.
If it is not successfully challenged it will create a new type of business: “For Sale by Lawyer”. A lawyer can act on behalf of his client (for a fee), and he/she does not have to be a member of any real estate board. Since lawyers are struggling these days (because of the low fees which they charge), CREA has just opened the door to a new business model. No real estate boards required. Thanks. I knew that sooner or later some realtors would find a way to commit business suicide. Why not have the lawyers handle the entire deal from start to finish. I remember when the creation of Title Insurance changed the world for Real Estate Lawyers fairly dramatically. Imagine: “guaranteed privacy” through your local incorporated real estate lawyer who actually knows how to write a proper contract to protect you. Great!
What a disappointment to see the crea make this move putting the sellers interest not at the top spot. Realtors across Canada have had quite the bad reputation over the past few years.
Sellers should have the choice on how they want their listings to be presented. Either in mls or exclusive it is up to the sellers and not the realtor or their association.
Starting to feel that this is a cash grab because they could have made it mandatory to disclose the benefits and cons of having a mls or exclusive listing to the client, if their concern was the ethics of the realtors ……..
This is a very well-written article, but I have to disagree. Our brokerage also commonly markets listings for 7-10 days as “coming soon” before posting them on the MLS system. We also never allow showings until the property is entered into the MLS system. It is a differentiator for us. The problem CREA is trying to solve is not advertising coming soon listings; it’s the showings and offers, so the rule should address showings, not advertising. If the rule said no showings are allowed until the property is listed in the MLS system, it would solve the issue of agents trying to double-end listings before exposing them to the market and allow those of us that want to market listings as “coming soon” to continue to do so.
I am just totally baffled by this decision. It is not protecting anyone. Exclusive does not mean you are not cooperating with other agents. It dies not mean you are not marketing the home. It cost me 100 times more to market an exclusive property than to just be lazy and throw in on MLS. I do it because it gets my clients get more money and I can prove it over and over agin. Creating exclusiveness is what buyer and sellers want. There are people that prefer to shop at Holt Renfrew as opposed to Walmart. Limiting the ability of my clients and forcing us to put on MLS so big Bay Street companies can take the listing and market it how they see fit to generate leads for no other reason than to sell them back to Realtors. Is there a financial incentive to members at RECO executive to make this decision?
Can not believe the number of uninformed members who post their opposition to this with out understanding or quite clearly in most cases, even reading the information. Is there a need for exclusive listings – perhaps in specific cases… but follow the rules. If you are a member and/or if your listing is going on MLS – follow the rules – or don’t use it, perhaps cancel your membership, seems simple to me. Speaks to the challenges we have with members truly understanding what their obligations are to the profession as well as the public. As far as extended coming soon marketing, it is a rouge for agents and brokerages who are the only benefactors… and by the way, this is one of those tactics which continues to provide agents with the “greasy” label while brands, brokerages and brokers profit from double ends.