Ontario’s provincial government is seeking industry input on the issue of multiple representation.

Here is my background. I have been a full-time Realtor for over 36 years. I have owned and operated small and large independent and franchised brokerages. I currently co-own and operate a large brokerage with over 900 salespeople and multiple locations across the Greater Toronto Area. I have served on Professional Standards and Discipline committees for various boards and the Real Estate Council of Ontario.

I have first-hand knowledge of the types of complaints and consumer concerns that arise from multiple representation transactions. I have a lot of experience and perspective on this issue from all sides and all stakeholders, and therefore my views are not just those of a “self-serving Realtor”.

Story continues below

Before I make my recommendations, I think it is important to address the circumstances that have brought this issue to the public’s eye and drawn the attention of well-meaning government MPPs. This spring a CBC Marketplace segment ran an undercover sting operation to see how honest a Realtor would be about the details of other offers in a multiple offer scenario, if the agent was representing both the buyer and the seller in a transaction.

Out of nearly 50,000 licenced real estate registrants in the GTA, instead of choosing 10 random agents, the CBC chose 10 agents that had the most “double ending” transactions (whereby they represented both buyer and seller) and then posed as potential buyers and asked the agents what would be the benefit of buying the home through them versus another agent. Six of those agents said they would disclose or “give them a nudge” as to the details of any competing offer so they would have an advantage over other buyers with competing offers.

Obviously these actions constitute a major breach of the Realtor’s professional ethical obligations and is prohibited by the current rules and regulations of our profession. However, as with any profession, a few unscrupulous people can tarnish the reputation of an entire industry.

This event/scenario has been widely reported in the press. Even the Ontario Real Estate Association has helped raise public awareness of the issue with high profile press releases and editorials condemning the actions of those Realtors and asking the government to impose harsher penalties for those agents willing to break the rules.

The problem in the video seems clear. If an agent represents a buyer and seller, then that buyer has an unfair advantage over other buyers with competing offers. On the surface, the solution seems clear also. Ban agents from representing a buyer and a seller.

Banning double-enders won’t work

Will that solve the problem? No, it won’t change a thing, as it does not address the intended objective, which is to help “protect/improve” consumer rights during real estate negotiations.

The issue is not that an agent representing a buyer and seller in a single transaction (with no other competing offers) creates a problem. The rate of complaints per thousand transactions in traditional multiple representation situations are fewer than the number of complaints in transactions where the agent does not represent the buyer and the seller.

Why is that? Unlike a civil court action whereby one party will win and one will lose, in a house sale with one buyer and one seller, the parties have a common objective, which is to reach a mutually accepted agreement. If the buyer does not get what they want they will not go ahead with the deal. If the seller does not get what they want, they too will not proceed with the deal.

During the negotiations, there is always full transparency as to what is being offered in respect to price and terms. In this type of transaction both parties can make informed decisions based on the terms of the offer being proposed to them (private information about the parties is not disclosed). The only time a deal can be reached is when both parties have settled on mutually agreeable terms.

Often the listing agent is the ideal person to help the buyer reach an informed decision because they have firsthand knowledge about the property or the area (especially in remote areas or for unique types of real estate), which the buyer may benefit from, while there are other instances where each party is better off being represented by their own agent. In either case, the consumer should have the right to choose whom they feel could best represent their interests.

Some listing agents may agree to reduce their commissions if they double end a deal, thereby saving the consumers money. Despite its best intentions, the government would be reducing consumers’ rights by taking away their right to choose whether they may buy a property through the listing agent, or whether they must seek out another, perhaps less qualified agent to represent them.

The government has already conceded there are many scenarios where banning double ending would be unfair to consumers and they are proposing to develop a list of exceptions and exemptions to such a ban, but that will only create more enforcement issues and confusion.

Keep in mind that out of a thousand transactions there will always be some consumers who are not happy with the deal they made, but the point is having one agent represent both sides of a transaction does not increase the risk of having an unhappy consumer.

Multiple offers

When it comes to multiple offers, it is an entirely different matter. You inevitably will have winners and losers. In the current system, often all the parties feel some degree of issatisfaction even when the listing agents are not double ending the deal.

Often in multiple offer scenarios the winning buyer wonders, “Why did I win? Did I overpay?”

while the parties submitting the unsuccessful offers think, “There must have been some favouritism!” Or, “I would have paid more than the winning offer!” The sellers who hear that “other buyers were willing to raise their offer” become upset that they were not given the opportunity to obtain the highest price possible.

When the listing agent in a multiple offer situation double-ends a transaction, suspicions and mistrust are amplified.

So, should double ending be banned at least in multiple offer scenarios? You would think so, but that still would not help. Why not? Again, lets go back to the CBC video. The issue was not that those agents would be unfair to their own buyer, the issue was they would be unfair to any buyer who was not their own.

Now let’s assume that double ending was already banned. What would those “unscrupulous” agents have done? They would have simply told those buyers, “I can’t represent you but if you deal with my buddy Mr. X agent, I can give him a nudge about what the other offers are.” At the end of the day, nothing would have changed to prevent that unethical conduct.

To solve this issue, we need to realize that the consumer complaints and the current public mistrust with our industry is not due to the practice of double ending but with the current multiple offer process, where often all parties leave the negotiations feeling dissatisfied whether there was double ending or not.

A paradigm shift

Is there a change to the act that the government can introduce that will solve the problem 99 per cent of the time? (No law can ever solve everything 100 per cent). The answer is yes, but it requires a major paradigm shift as to the way multiple offers are handled.

Currently with multiple offers, agents are not allowed to disclose the content of an offer with any other buyer. This rule is not in place to protect a parties’ privacy because the buyer’s identity is confidential. This rule has been put in place to prevent an agent from “shopping” an offer around to other buyers and giving them an unfair advantage to beat that offer.

But as we saw in the CBC’s video, that rule does not stop unscrupulous agents.

My recommendation is simple. Mandate full transparency in multiple offers. For the same reason that double ending has not been a big problem where there is only one buyer and one seller (because there is full transparency as to all the terms being negotiated) wouldn’t it be ideal if all parties in a multiple offer scenario were afforded the same transparency?

The government should mandate that all parties have full disclosure as to the current and best offer on the table. That includes the price and the terms (sometimes the terms are more important to a seller than the price).

The other buyers will then have an opportunity to beat that price, improve on their terms or leave the negotiating table knowing they had the same “fair and open” opportunity to compete for that property as anyone else. At the end of the day the best offer wins. What is unfair about that?

While passing a law to ban double ending may make for a great sound bite for the government, it will not solve the core issue and will only serve to hurt consumer rights. I strongly believe that a better solution is for the government to mandate full transparency in multiple offer scenarios. I am confident that consumers and agents alike (once they get over the shock of the paradigm shift) would not only welcome but cheer such a change.

Is there a downside to this proposal? Yes. Some sellers (and agents) would argue that with full transparency some sellers would lose out on super eager buyers who were willing to pay “way, way” more than anyone else. My experience has shown, however, that often those eager buyers are not so eager to close on those transactions when they realize they overpaid and can’t get a mortgage because the home will not appraise. Even if they can get the financing they often feel like they have been taken advantage of, resulting in a disproportionate rate of complaints and litigation against their agent (whether the agent double ended the deal or not).

I submit that for every agent and seller who thinks they can get more money from over-eager buyers under current rules, there are 10 sellers who would get more money under the transparent approach, resulting in more satisfied consumers and much lower odds of consumer complaints or litigation.


  1. I agreed with the article’s content!.
    full disclosure on multiple offers should be mandatory and enforce!

  2. Disclosing the contents of any offer, other than to the seller is unethical.

    To punish the Buyer that stepped up to the plate by putting their best foot forward isn’t the ethical thing to do. By disclosing the offers on the table only encourages higher offers, we all know this…when does it stop? Do you keep the parties out bidding each other? That’s ridiculous and who does it actually benefit? Not the image of Realtors.

    I’d agree with the disclosure of the offers, after offer acceptance in the case of multiple offers, however not before. My opinion the practice of disclosing the facts before hand would add to the belittling of an industry that’s already in turmoil.

    Once the disclosure is made, the parties that lost out could see why their offer wasn’t accepted. At that time should that party feel that they were treated unfairly, then a complaint could be lodged and investigated. If wrong doing was found, punishment to the Realtor could be dealt with…Punishment, not a slap on the wrist or a reach in the pocket fine, A fine where one is physically hurt where the individual has to actually go to the bank for many $$$$$$$$, where one is actually suspended from practicing Real Estate for longer periods of time, again financially hurting the wrongdoer and publicize it. Yes, punish the wrongdoer, hard, hard enough & publicized enough that it’ll discourage another individual Realtor’s from every thinking that they may get away with unethical behavior.

    • You feel its unethical to “punish the buyer who stepped up to the plate with their best foot forward”? So by default you think its ethical for other Buyers not to have an opportunity to offer more money? Or for the Seller to get the highest price possible? What is unethical about giving “all” Buyers an “equal” opportunity to bid with full transparency and the best offer wins?

      • Rui,
        To simplify what I said: it’s unethical to disclose the substance of any offer to anyone other than the intended party it’s made out to.
        Once offer acceptance is completed and conditions removed if that’s the case, Then & only then, if it were felt by others that wrong doing had occurred, disclosure of the competing offers could be made.

        Furthermore, where I practice real estate, sellers can chose to disclose the existence of competing offers or not.

        In stating that most sellers through their realtor would disclose the existence of competing offers and the number of competing offers for the seller benefit.

        Therefore all buyers have an opportunity to fine tune their offer, either by pulling their original offer back or leaving said offer as it is, some will pull & rewrite the offer with the changes that they think would be a win win for them prior to presentation of the multiple offers.

        I’ve even seen, rewrites of offers during the presentation of offers, this has occurred because the buyer & buyers realtor showed up to the place of presentation, they were not the only buyers & realtors sitting waiting for a reply, where the offers were presented.

        Did your buyer miss out on this opportunity by not showing up? Did you show up for your buyer?

        I did.

        The seller, could counter any offer(s) to try for a higher dollar value and could also take backup offer(s) countered at a higher dollar value.

        All without devaluing the presentation process that is due to all potential buyers.

        That seller could also lose out by being overly greedy & doing so.

        You can’t have all the icing on the cake…. And eat the whole cake without making one’s stomach turn.

        As a buyer knowing the situation that there’s multiple offers to be placed on the table for the seller to review, you the buyer are either in or you’re out… this is the opportunity to purchase the property or walk away from it. Should the buyer decide to compete, as the realtor representing the buyer it would be beneficial to review the sale values of similar properties in the neighborhood and surrounding areas. Help your buyer understand all the related facts of sales in & around the area of similar properties.

        Is the buyer setting a new price precedence for the area in any type of marked, that others will follow or try to follow or is the buyer wishing they had?

        As a realtor, did you help your client understand the information to win the opportunity? Did you explain financial obligations that the lender may or may not have towards a deal if the buyer was wishing to put a mortgage on the property? Did the buyer have the capacity to pay cash? Did you explain to the buyer that their five year plan of home ownership for the property they are competing on may turn into a longer period of time in order that they are able to recoup the value paid?
        Did you have your buyer client sign off and acknowledge the details of this conversation?

  3. Multiple representation where there is one buyer and one seller should not be a major issue. A multiple offer scenario where the listing agent is in multiple representation with a competing offer is. In that situation this suggestion of transparency eliminates an unscrupulous listing agents advantage to ‘nudge’ their client with privileged information about all other offers only they know. It is a great suggestion that would have the added benefit of more sensible and reliable market value data that is not skewed by grossly overpaying buyers who are shooting in the dark and afraid of losing out. Furthermore, I imagine all buyers would have equal opportunity to improve their offers which sometimes is not the case under the current system which would bring an inherent sense of ‘fairness’ with consumers as well. It is non-disclosure in multiple offer situations that fuels doubts, creates anxiety, allows room for shady tactics, and hurts public opinion – not multiple representation on its own.
    Thanks to the author for an insightful opinion.

  4. I am a Realtor and have been in business for 15 years and have additional previous 25 years very ethical practice as a Professional engineer. I have been on both sides of Multiple Representation situation many times. There is so much at stake for a Listing Broker that, I have to yet come across an agent who will willingly let $20,000 to $50,000 walk away. I have dealt with the best and the biggest Producers, I have not yet come across an agent who does not take advantage of the situation to screw the other agents as well his own Seller. There is never any possibility of Proving or disproving the claim by any one, as there is no mechanism to verify.
    Multiple agency should be illegal as in many other jurisdictions in North America. Most Broker of Records want to protect their Big Producers and will do whatever possible to perpetuate the Multiple representation. It is neither in the interest of the Seller nor that of other buyer agents. There is another side of the coin, why not have Multiple agents representing the Seller like in some jurisdictions of UK, where a house will have Sale signs from many agents.

    • How do you justify your claim which seems to castigate all registrants when you said “. There is never any possibility of Proving or disproving the claim by any one, as there is no mechanism to verify. “

      • Hi Lou, as I said, it is my experience and there are no mechanisms to prove or disprove. Everybody is writing about their own experiences. All opinions here are personal. There is not any basis or statistically significant survey done by a reliable 3rd party.

    • Well stated Deedar.
      It is nice to hear from another politically incorrect (“…I have not yet come across an agent who does not take advantage of the situation to screw the other agents as well as his own seller.”), but nevertheless professional, currently practicing Realtor. You are a member of a rare breed who calls a spade a spade.
      For the record, I routinely told potential clients who initially viewed my listings with me that they were free to engage other Realtors to view the listings again and to thereupon represent them with their offers. Some took up my suggestion and hired different Realtors to work with them on the subject listings, but a few did not, choosing to continue dealing with me…because they trusted me and my judgement. I thereupon told them that the sellers had hired me to help sell their properties as quickly as possible for the highest price possible, that I had a contractual fiduciary duty to ‘them’, and that they (the buyers) should contact their lawyers for further guidance vis a vis any offers that they might proffer on the subject properties. Everything always worked out well no matter which choice these folks made, because they were able to make educated decisions.
      People respect honesty when they see it. Short-term money grabs by unethical Realtors become known over and over again by the public, and that knowledge further entrenches the poor standing that Realtors struggle under over the long run.
      There are a few Realtors out there (very few in my opinion) who ‘can’ be effective honest brokers when dealing with double enders (one that I know of personally comments herein regularly), but they are as rare as hen’s teeth. Double ending needs to go. Unfortunately, the many ruin it for the few, because the many need the money more than the few. The old saying that “money talks” is spot on. That is why this industry attracts money mongers in droves.
      Hats off to you for your courage of conviction to post ‘against the grain’ under your full name.

      • The current system does allow agents to, as you say “take advantage of the situation” by giving their buyer the inside scoops as to what they need to offer to be the winning offer.
        You propose to ban double ending but if double ending is banned the “scumbag agents” (as you refer to them as below) will simply refer the buyer to another agent for a few hundred dollars and then disclose the contents of other offers to that agent, so banning double ending won’t change anything other than preventing consumers from being “allowed” to deal with the listing agent whom they may know and trust and/or feel that agent knows more about the property or area than other agent and “force” the consumer to choose another agent who they may not know or whom may not be as knowledgeable about that property.

        If on the other hand a Full Transparency model was adopted whereby the price and terms of the highest offer were disclosed to “all” buyers then the listing agent would not have any advantage regardless of their ethics and financial motivations, and therefore we would be left with a level playing field whereby “all” parties have a “fair and equal” opportunity to come up with the best price and terms. With that model everyone has the same opportunity to be the winning offer and the best offer wins. What is unfair about that?

  5. I have been a Broker for 30 years, we use to have all written offers go through the listing broker and the broker would facilitate the offers with the seller, only if our own agent had a offer, all the other agents competing felt it was handled fairly and most of the time another agent had there offer accepted. I think CEO off all boards should discuss best practice.

  6. At the latest AGM of RECO I proposed exactly that, in multiple offers situation, all offers should disclose the contents to level the playing field. Multiple offer situation is a auction and it should be conducted as auction with every bidder knowing the last bid.PERIOD.

  7. I agree – full transparency is the way to protect the consumer. The secrecy behind multiple offers always leaves the buyers feeling uneasy.

    • There is SO much more to an APS offer over and above the price, to be taken into consideration by not only the Seller, because it IS the listing agent’s JOB to point out details and what each of the details mean in finite terms. A lawyer might come in handy, said tongue in cheek.

      Notation of chattels and fixtures only being one other topic in play. A closing date in one offer might have more meaning to the seller, for example, and might cause the seller to accept one offer over another, even at a lesser price than the other offer(s). Such a situation can put a seller in an enviable position should he decide to sign back a particular offer knowing he has a Plan B available, possibly. The magic word is “possibly,” due to how a signback works. (Touch one offer, and you might cause “everyone” to go into a disappearing act.)

      Why should the listing agent care which buyer ends up having a contract accepted? He’s going to get paid regardless of which buyer’s offer is accepted.

      Agents are not in the “opinion” business. Old saying: “Stick to the facts, ma’am,” he was heard to say. Or Gilbert and Sullivan: “The flowers that bloom in the spring, tra-la.” Or the quite wonderful expression used by Tom Peters. “Stick to the knitting.”

      This is a very old article but much of it does not go stale:


      Carolyne L ?

  8. This is a good argument for the maintenance of the status quo, but, it discounts the obvious reality that not all Realtors are as ethically unchallenged as the author and his esteemed backers whom have stated their agreement with his views herein. Rui is simply preaching to the choir which does not need rules and regulations to abide by because they are ethical (professional) by nature.
    Rules and regulations are ostensibly implemented on behalf of the public interest and are ideally aimed directly at the potentially sixty percent of crooked Realtors as reflected by the CBC’s findings.
    I bet that last sentence riled a few Realtor readers.
    I am not a fan of the CBC. The CBC was looking for a gotcha moment, and their reporters got one. But the CBC brass already had a good idea about what the outcome of the sting might be, and that is troubling…for ORE. I am not saying that sixty percent of Realtors are crooked on any given day. Maybe the number is higher. Nobody can know what the true number of scumbags is. (It is easier to descend from being a professional to being a scumbag when one is desperate for a commission, especially a double-ender) Likewise, nobody can know what the true number of ethical professionals is. The numbers, pro and con, likely fluctuate on a daily and circumstantial basis. Maybe the number of hard-core professionals is ‘less’ than forty percent. (I am of this belief) What we do know is that this business attracts a whole lotta “I-wanna-get-rich-quick” artists…future scumbags…due largely to the juicy carrot of big commissions (double enders).
    Double enders beget “end runners”. End runners beget a culture of corruption. A culture of corruption begets government intervention.
    Government is elected to do the bidding of the voters. Voters want corruption to be banished from the real estate business. Organized Real Estate cannot lobby its way out of this one.
    ORE needs to clean up its own act and stop appealing to the worst aspect of human nature (greed) when it advertises for new recruits in order to keep the dues flowing into its associations’ communal war chests. Real estate associations are first and foremost looking out for their own survival (aka their own paid asses within). The conflict of interest is apparent. The government knows this.
    Does the CBC report accurately reflect the 60/40 split vis a vis unethical vs ethical Realtors? Who knows…again…maybe it’s worse. Maybe it’s 70/30, 80/20, 90/10. “Who knows what evil lurks within the hearts of men…and women? The Shadow knows.” (this from an old 1930’s radio show).
    The root problem with ORE is not double ending per se; it is rampant end running of the rules as they exist. Crooks (scumbags) will always find a way to end run them. It is time for ORE to end run the scumbags and run them off ‘before’ they infect the system. Existing Terry Paranych personality types (pre hearing sentencing) need to be aggressively weeded out and kicked out…permanently; no three month suspensions. Potential government action against entrenched old-school wink-wink, nudge-nudge crooked Realtor practices should be a clarion call for that to happen.
    Methinks that I am spitting into the wind; too many leopards who can’t change their spots within. Ergo…government action looms on the horizon.

  9. I couldn’t agree more. Banning double ending (multiple representation) is not the solution to the problem and as Rui stated, it only makes for a great promotion to the witch hunt the media has on our industry.

    I absolutely believe that one registrant can represent both sides of the transaction honestly, ethically and professionaly. It really isn’t rocket science. I also believe Rui’s suggestion of opening up the contents of the current top offer (minus the buyers identity of course) in a multiple offer situation, adds another layer of transparency and could potentially aid as a cooling effect to prices swinging wildly out of control as we saw in the first 3.5 months of 2017.

    If people knew how much they were being outbid by it could possibly prevent such chaotic upswings. Instead of, all of a sudden, the norm to everyone (dependant on market location) is that you now have to offer 50 to 100 or 500k over the asking price, without conditional protections for the buyers to even have a hope getting their offer accepted. Will it stop all offer blowouts… no, but at least everyone involved can rest well knowing they were treated fairly and legitimately, had every chance to submit their best offer.

  10. Hi Rui – well written. Your proposal is similar to the way some court ordered sales function, at least in BC. The trigger offer, acceptable to the mortgage, is posted publicly so that the baseline is set. On the court date, all ‘bidders’ submit their offers and it isn’t unusual for the judge or master to share the submitted offers and instruct the parties to come back later in the day with their best offer. On the flip side, it’s up to the judge – he may just accept the best offer, but at least it’s transparent. In BC, we expect any day now the Superintendent of Real Estate to release for discussion his proposed ‘rules’ for dual agency and double ending. We’ll be the pioneer.

  11. Pedantic – Prefect: Prefecture …

    Who is the prefect, the on-guard of the prefecture?

    Not unlike in a classroom full of students where the teacher is called away from the room temporarily, appointing a student in place, who is left in charge? the classroom monitor, prefect stands on guard.

    How does the real estate world pair up with other licensed operations? Is it only the real estate industry that is constantly being called up short, as a public embarrassment? In the media?

    Agents are adults, and it takes a CBC witch hunt to root out willful display of the “naughties?” The industry is rampant with misdoings. But in social media, things are more openly discussed, like the rampant newscasts called ‘fake news,’ drawing attention to issues but no suggestions how to right the wrongs. Hired to “throw stones.”

    Editor Jim: this is one of the best contributor articles ever on REM. Rui walked the real-estate earth back in Moses’ day, too, when I was first licenced. He has dedicated an abundance of his personal time to the industry. This is just one example expressing his industry standards.

    In regards to this topic, historically year after year as much as sixty percent of my business came through double-ending. I was fully five years into the business before I was told I was “doing too much double-ending business.” Although the manager said he never had to check my work and he no doubt was pleased to receive his personal share of the commission I “earned” on the business I wrote.

    I had no clue as to the diametrically opposed position I put him in, writing so much business. I truly believed I had been “hired” and that my fiduciary duty was “to sell” my clients’ properties. No one had ever told me that I was just being hired to “market” properties in the MLS ideally, with the hope that someone someplace would sell the property.

    How could I tell my sellers (and my buyers) that? I struggled with it in my head for a long time and then made sure that I explained it to each and every listing as best I could. Each time I dealt with glazed over eyes, because my clients thought they were hiring ME!

    Now it needs to be understood that back in those days, initially we were all working in a totally different environment: SUB-AGENCY was the order of the day. Then in the mid 90’s, Buyer Agency became the norm bringing along with it a whole new set of operational commands and demands.

    Perhaps it could be as simple as having agents use a “liability disclaimer,” signed and acknowledged? Stating unequivocally that the subject property ___ (address in full), and that buyer and seller “representation” FORBIDS certain disclosures, and why. Back to explaining “agency.” In finite detail.

    Who takes the time to do that? I did that. And made triplicate copies, one for the office files. Apparently no one in the office ever read it, because I never received any comments. Lots of problems could be avoided by this simple procedure.

    Best guess is that no one (agents) discusses this topic out in the open, loud and clear with members of the public. It’s not just about protecting the consumer, it’s also about protecting your licence and the validity of the industry itself.

    I was often heard to say, whether to a buyer or a seller: “Present your very best offer (or counter offer) that YOU feel comfortable with.”

    “If the seller is not comfortable accepting it, then he too will be told to offer his best and acceptable sign back. It’s all about a construct called “a meeting of the minds.”

    All the press/media coverage in the world won’t fix this or any other real estate issue, but only serve to exacerbate it, denigrating those who stand tall and fly straight, tarred and feathered on Main St in any domicile.

    It’s really not that difficult, folks.

    Carolyne L ?

  12. Well said Rui !

    It’s a long dialogue but at first look appears to address the issue better than has been done by others.
    If the Ontario government moves ahead with their plans it will change our approach to obtaining listing as we will need to advise our sellers that we will promote their property but advise prospective buyers to find a different agent who may not know the property as we do. Also will that be the end of exclusive listings?

    • From a practical viewpoint, I have had the same thought for some time now. Am I going to run all over hells creation showing my beautiful well marketed listing and then tell those who book appts to see it to get their own agent? Why would I show it if I cant sell it?
      This makes no sense to me. I can bear the expense and the marketing but I cant reap any reward for showing and selling my sellers listing. Please ………
      explain the logic to me. Looks like at the moment if this change is implemented, the only way for lister to show and sell would be thru an exclusive listing which COULD work in a big city setting with sign only promotion but would never work well without MLS in most rural or more isolated communities. Successful Fisbos negotiate together all the time- why cant we?

      • You are getting paid as a listing agent for listing. This is exactly, what many Listing agents think, For Marketing they need to grab the Buyer agent commission also. Why does a listing agent get paid??? If not for marketing. Just for listing!! then, the Seller is better off listing with a no service agent for a nominal fee of $500 as many are doing.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here