An Exclusive Listing, exclusive of MLS, that doesn’t require the Seller to pay Co-operating Brokerage Commission, could save the Seller a decent amount of money.

In a hot market where there is abundance of buyers, and the property for sale has a lot of comparable sales, such as in the case of condo or freehold townhomes that the properties in the community are very identical, the seller does not need 30+ showings to tell them what price they need to accept. They would have enough data to support a valuation before they sign a listing agreement. They can simply hire a Listing Agent to represent them and ask the buyer to get their own representation at the Buyer’s cost should the buyer choose to do so. The Seller can still get what they want. But they would pay less commission because they did not have to offer a Co-operating Commission.

Again, it’s very possible when there’s plenty of buyers, and the Seller has the right Listing Agent representing them.

CREA’s Co-operation Policy would take that option away from the consumers while increasing the total Co-operating Brokerage Commission payout in the MLS system, which benefits us, the REALTORS.

It would be dishonest and deceiving for a REALTOR to promote this policy as in the interest of the consumers/home sellers. That’s against our own code.

Your assumption is almost valid except that you left out the part where a seller and a buyer would have to pay more commission/selling cost for the transaction(directly out of seller’s closing proceed and financed by the buyer). MLS requires that a participant to pay Co-operating Commission.

The sellers don’t lose when they sell for a price that is similar to recent comparable sales in the neighbourhood and that they are happy with, without having to pay Co-operating Commission. It is not very difficult to accomplish it when the market is hot and the seller has the right agents representing them.

How can an agent double end a transaction when there is only ONE(1) end to begin with when the seller doesn’t want to offer to pay Co-operating Commission?

If your assumptions were true, why do we have a large number of homebuilders selling the homes they built without having a MLS listing?

If your assumptions were true, why did CREA provided exemption for the agents representing homebuilders?

as a fellow proponent of the MLS system, I’d even support a waiver form a Seller needs to sign when and if they decide they do not wish to utilize the MLS system with their agent. The public should understand that in the vast majority of cases, the MLS is going to be in their best interest. When faced with the problem of some agents not using the MLS often, CREA had two paths to go down. OPTION 1 – improve MLS and make it something that more agents and sellers will insist on (and add value to their members in the process or OPTION 2 – force Sellers onto MLS. I’d much rather have seen CREA go down the OPTION 1 path; it would have been in everyone’s best interest (agents and public) but to be fair it is a much more difficult path than just telling people they need to use a product.

I personally have come across several circumstances where I was not able to list on the MLS, but still able to market the property and sell it for the most money possible. These were well informed clients who gave me no other option but to list exclusively or they would go with another realtor.

I think this needs to be looked at by the Competition Bureau.

Thinking you are doing the seller a favor by marketing a home without putting it on MLS smacks of trying to justify efforts to double end a property. The sellers loses and I am pretty sure you know it. If you don’t you are kidding yourself at your sellers expense. If your clients love you for selling it before it hits the open market , it is because they don’t realize they may have lost money because the best buyer never knew the house was for sale.

This strikes me as a matter best resolved between agent and client. This policy is akin to a Medical Association telling individual doctors how and what to diagnose.

I do see the very real potential for abuse of the system though. It seems to me perhaps a better policy would be something along the lines of “IF a REALTOR lists a property on the MLS it cannot have been marketed as coming soon for longer than X number of days” or something along those lines.
Beyond that is, I believe, beyond the authority of CREA.

1. A seller doesn’t want pictures of their belongings all over the internet: MLS requires you to have a minimum of one photo, of the exterior of the home. So, don’t post interior photos.

2. A seller wants to control who comes into their home: MLS still allows you to prequalify buyers as you need. It needs to be “reasonably available” but the seller still has a right to qualify people. I know an agent that sells 8-figure property and required a $500 donation to a charity before a showing would be booked. As long as it’s reasonable and not any kind of unfair bias or violation of human rights, qualify your visitors with confidence.

3. A seller should have the ability to choose how they want their home marketed: Well sure, but they are hiring a REALTOR. That’s like choosing a surgeon then trying to say you don’t like the scalpels they use.

4. A seller doesn’t want their name known to everyone openly: Firstly, the name of the sellers is only on the private, realtor-view on the MLS which should not be shared to the public openly. While we know Realtors will sometimes be liberal with this information, it is actually public information via Land Registry. If the seller doesn’t want their name known, transfer title to their lawyer or other trusted party in trust. Not being on MLS doesn’t protect your name for squat.

If a seller wants their property marketed publicly to attract the most potential buyers possible – MLS is absolutely the very best way to do that. Realtor.ca is visited by nearly 100% of people at some point in their home buying/selling journey. There is no reasonable argument why a seller would want open advertising, and not want to be a part of this library. Every argument that this is illegal, or unwarranted, is simply an uneducated and poorly thought out argument.