As many know, in January 2024, CREA will restrict the public marketing of exclusive listings not on MLS.
I further wonder if, in January, there will be a change to the CREA Realtor Code. Article 3 currently reads, “A realtor shall protect and promote the interests of his or her client,” and that will be impossible to fulfil if early marketing activities, a pre-launch wine and cheese party, or a “coming soon” sign on the lawn are in the interest of an agent’s seller (all of these and more creative marketing solutions will be limited starting January 2024).
I’d suggest, starting January 2024, Article 3 of the Realtor Code either be deleted or amended to read “A realtor shall protect and promote the interests of CREA and its products and services over the interest of his or her client” to be more accurate and in line with the new policy.
If Article 3 is not removed in January and there is a conflict between Article 3 and the new policy, would CREA rather an agent breach Article 3 or breach the new Clear Cooperation policy? At times it will be impossible to abide by both of these sometimes conflicting rules of the Realtor Code.
Most agents are just trying to help their clients day in and day out and wish to do so within the rules that govern them. CREA can assist in this by amending the code to clarify which of these conflicting obligations takes precedence over the other and communicating that to agents well before January.
Cory Raven
Managing broker/owner
Re/Max Select Realty
Vancouver, B.C.
I couldn’t agree more Cory this is, in
My opinion, a massive overreach by CREA designed to protect boards and associations but certainly not the public
That is not what the public thinks. When advertised prior to being added to MLS, it appears that the Realtor is trying to double end the property where that is allowed or that other gamesmanship such as another Realtor being able to buy a property before others or their clients can ie if a Realtor only open house is held or even a public open house with select advertising.
Realtors can still do open houses with or without wine and cheese once a property is on MLS.
Realtors know very well that advertising ahead of putting on MLS that that has little to do with working in the best interest of sellers and more to do with the listing Realtor working in his or her or their best interest.
Look at the ads in the Globe and Mail under the guise of articles about certain properties. Those articles are advertising and the homes are often not on MLS. Smoke and mirrors – trying to double end and the same Realtors are noted in the articles re their own listings generally not on MLS. That also means that those stats once sold are generally not included in MLS sold information.
I agree as wel. How did they approve such outrageous requirement or guidelines. Goes against everything a realtor has to do for his sellers – ‘in the best interest of the seller’.
I love it. Very clever. Someone has clearly thought this through in terms of practical implications.
Very cheeky, indeed.
However, isn’t it in the best interest of your client seller to have full exposure to the general public/buyers…aka your local MLS and Realtor.ca?
I think you’re confused. The activities you describe, all of which make use of your client’s highly valuable asset purely for your own benefit, are precisely the reason this rule is being implemented. And I guess, your article illustrates they made the right call, and there should likely be regulatory changes to he same or stronger effect.
Cory, well written and I totally agree. Don’t forget your RE Board voted in favour for the elimination of Exclusive Listings.
So, this rule is up to big brother (associations) to enforce. Good Luck with that, especially as some associations which are well known for sitting on their hands on complaints. A similar rule has survived in the USA for the better part of 3 years, with folks wasting time and money on court challenges that have had less success than a Donald Trump lawsuit. For the most part, much ado about nothing. Nada to see here, move on.
The other option is to disallow double ending; but, as Realtors know, there are ways around that (having another Realtor write an offer with money changing hands snecretively after). Gamesmanship.
This could all be solved by simply creating a policy that would require a property to be listed for a minimum amount of time on the mls prior to any offers being presented or accepted. (5 days?) this would be in the clients best interest to know that anyone with an interest in their property had the opportunity to view and present an offer. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to book an appointment to view a listing the same day it arrived on our system and being told it was sold. One has to ask who are they working for, themselves, their Brokerage? I would suggest not their client or they would be wanting to see if there was someone else willing or wanting to pay more. for a property.
Exclusive listings are for the benefit of the realtor not the client. Follow the money. Who benefits the most from exclusive listings or “coming soon” that never hit the MLS? It provides opportunity for double ending. I have had clients that were interested in “coming soon”, but it was sold before I was allowed to book a showing? How is that allowed to happen?? Double ended by the listing brokerage, not always the listing agent. Too many games.
Thanks Cory. It certainly has not been my experiance as a Broker that this leads to double ending. Where pre-marketing or an Exclusive is used, typically we still have another Realtor involved. So I am at odd how we got here…