By Connie Adair

When you are a parent and your child takes an interest in something, you indulge them. You chauffeur them to ballet class, the hockey rink or the karate dojo. Corbin Seligman’s mom drove him to open houses.

“I have always been interested in real estate, even as a kid. I like architecture, and that real estate is physical, not like the stock market,” says Seligman. His love of real estate, and lots of hard work, has paid off. After just 2 ½ years as a Realtor, the 27-year-old recently sold a house in Toronto’s Forest Hill neighbourhood for $13 million.

The 12,000-square-foot mansion, which has five bedrooms, 10 bathrooms, an elevator, staff quarters and six custom fireplaces, fetched one of the highest prices for a spec home in Toronto, he says.

Relatively new to the business, he proved his critics wrong, selling the house for more money and in less time than they thought. When he got the listing, some were happy for him. “Others were resentful because they didn’t think I could sell it,” he says. It took about two months to sell.

Although he knew the owner and got called in to do a listing presentation, “when he called, he didn’t expect me to get the listing,” Seligman says. “It was more like ‘let’s hear what the young guy has to say’.”

Five other agents made presentations. “They were old school, talking about who they know and what houses they have sold,” he says.

Seligman took a different approach, putting his business background and experience in construction to work. He prepared a business and marketing strategy and made a one-hour presentation.

The candidates were narrowed to two. However, the owner told Seligman that his “presentation blew him out of the water.” About a month later, Seligman got the listing and the real work began.

It took a month to create all of the custom marketing materials, from a For Sale sign with big black wood posts and a sign with a picture of the house in the background, to a special logo for the house to go on business and advertising cards. “I got a lot of calls from the sign,” he says.

No ordinary feature sheet would do. Seligman created a 60-page magazine. “Each room has a spread, with a high resolution photo and a description. The appendix at the back lists mechanical systems and includes floor plans. You walk into the house, it’s fabulous. Every single detail is high end. There’s crystal and gold….”

It’s a comprehensive package, he says. At the listing presentation, he told the owner he was willing to spend more than anyone else on advertising. “It costs a lot of money to market internationally,” he says.

Five years ago, he would have marketed to wealthy families in the city, but he says things have changed. “The international market has taken notice of Toronto. I’m not going to have an open house, do a feature sheet and call a few friends,” he says.

Instead, he reached out to agents in Beijing, Hong Kong, the Middle East and Europe. His brokerage, Harvey Kalles Real Estate, “has allegiances of brokerages and each network has its own relocation specialist,” Seligman says. Before the listing presentation, he researched the 2,100 brokerages around the world, taking note of their relocation specialists. When he went into the presentation, he told the owner, “Here’s a list of 50. I have 2,000 more.”

He started at the end and worked back, thinking about who would buy the house then figured out how to get it noticed. He exposed it to agents and high net-worth individuals.

“I like being creative and thinking outside the box. I’m nimble and can change if need be,” he says, adding it’s important to be flexible.

Prior to becoming a sales rep, he studied urban planning at McGill. He worked for property managers at a construction company. When that company folded, he made the leap into real estate.

He says he was never afraid of going after higher-priced properties, reasoning it would be easier to get a listing for a lower-priced property if he had sold higher priced ones. So far this year, he has done $30 million in business.

His also learned about the importance of networking from his father, an insurance broker. Networking has been an important part of Seligman’s success. His friends have also started to buy and sell homes of their own, and his parents’ friends are doing the same.

Asked for advice for new agents, he says, “I put lots of time into every single project and focus on the client. It’s a competitive business. Find a way to differentiate yourself.”

Seligman adds, “Go for it even if you think it’s a long shot, but do your research and be prepared.”


  1. I have not had/made the time to read all of the below. Just the last post about people being allowed in (or not). My biggest “beef” is that so many people are hiding behind fake names. Why ? What do you have to hide ? Why not come out and say who you are and stand behind your words. It’s so easy to be mean, bad, negative or whatever other word comes to mind, when people don’t want to reveal their identity. Time to grow up and stop hiding.

    • Sabine,

      Some people (REALTOR’s) use REM as a means to promote or indirectly advertise themselves, when they use their given and surnames to accompany their posts — while the less conspicuous submitter’s can not. Some fully identifiable submitter’s recite anecdote after personal business anecdote — not to enforce a point, but to indulge and bask in what they see as their own glory. Some non-practitioner’s use REM to indulge their lonely writing hobby or promote a new career that is perhaps linked to this industry and yet some other’s use REM to unofficially promote an industry that tries to compete with organized real estate. I do take exception to sock-puppets being used to try and falsely steer consensus.

      Sabine, if your “biggest beef” is that some people are using an alias (“fake names” in your vernacular), you are clearly more focused on the innocuous little calf than you are on the large and powerful Bull that has jumped over our stadium walls and is attempting to inflict the final goring blow to those of organized real estate and even Agency itself! Mean and bad are good words for the schoolyard and the governing of children, and for those who want to avoid purposeful debate for whatever reason they may want to hide behind, but the grown-ups among us should know what’s important and what’s not — while those who really need to “grow-up” will complain about the style of the debate and not its substance.

  2. Who is Alan M? And why Jim do you continue to allow someone to come into this forum with the sole purpose of belittling others simply to prop himself up. His contributions are clearly self serving and do little to challenge the way we think or see our industry. Alan M you might enjoy reading and rereading your contributions and thinking your words to be intelligent or even eloquent, but I know they just expose you for who you really are.

    • HWR,

      I wasn’t optimistic that my comments would challenge you, in a positive way. Consequently, you should’ve said, above: His contributions are clearly self serving and do little to challenge the way “I” think or see our industry — which is what I had anticipated.

  3. You meant it that year, when you said and celebrated HAPPY NEW YEAR! Ross.

    What a way to start the new year!

    Congratulations were in order; both then and now. Consumers generally are not stupid, and when agents slow down and take the time to explain processes, EVERYONE BENEFITS.

    Our industry, as complicated and convoluted as it gets at times, is not rocket science.

    A lot is to be said for ATTITUDE! If some colleagues treat their clients/customers the way they treat their colleagues with such distain, disrespect, it’s no wonder the industry has become in need of a face-saving effort.

    Utopia – our industry the perfect world, it is not. Days when it seems more to be dystopian atmosphere.

    But many of us have lived through lots of ups and downs in the market, and nothing stays the same (for long). We live in an atmosphere of permanent motion.

    But sometimes REM participants need a bigger sandbox? Someone sometimes needs to say to curmudgeons “play nice or go home.”

    Carolyne L 🍁
    (Disqus wouldn’t let post go as a reply)

  4. I find this article confusing and inconclusive. First of all, it isn’t clear what the credentials are for the subject Registrant are. Take the following quote: “Seligman took a different approach, putting his business background and experience in construction to work.” What is Seligmans business background; what degree did he graduate with? Urban Planning study can be purely administrative in nature. Working for Property Managers is quite different than working for Construction Managers.

    The article doesn’t address even whether the home was on the MLS System (it is assumed that it was) but more importantly the reader is left wondering what role did Seligmans marketing play in the eventual sale. The article wants to imply that the MLS System was more incidental in this instance, to the final outcome. It is acknowledged that Seligman knew the owner, but the nature of their relationship isn’t disclosed.

    Some of the respondents turned this into a discussion about commission, and communication around the subject of commission, when that wasn’t even a topic within the article. However the subject of commission is a very important element of the MLS System, and a successful sale.

    This article is a good example of what the value of certain limited information is, without it being put into a full context. This article strikes me as being more advertorial than informative.

  5. Marketing and creating connections are crucial in selling this or any other property. It’s all about creating the right buzzz. Congratulations! All the best, may you prosper!

    • Agreed.

      To the old adage: advertising doesn’t sell houses, people do…

      Who created that saying in the first place obviously didn’t understand the definition and real meaning attached to the word ‘advertising.’

      Advertising is a walking, talking, in permanent motion mechanism; we are each and every one, living, breathing advertising.

      There are registrants who do not understand that writing an ad to promote a property is only one method of getting out the word.

      They don’t acknowledge that their base of operations website in and of itself, even without a house advertised on it, is a form of advertising. Their private site and the corporate site.

      That MLS, initially designed as an information sharing mechanism, with the concept being to share listings’ information among colleagues, and provide a split portion of sharing the related commission (or fee) assigned, as designated and contracted for by the seller.

      Yet at that time, in the initiation days of MLS, the Boards actually decided who would get paid how much; not the listing brokerage or the listing sales rep, or even the seller. It all was carved in stone in the Board rules and regs and actual bylaws. Yes. True. Older folks will have no difficulty recalling.

      One day, seemingly out of the blue, all those rules and regs changed, rather abruptly.

      This “advertising” system had been set up during sub-agency days, as a means of communicating and sharing listing information. That was the initial pure purpose of MLS. Is that so, today?

      It was decided in the late 80’s, for those who were not yet registered, that rather than the full contract commission and its division being broadcast in the MLS system, that only the co-op portion would be “advertised.”

      The amount paid to the listing brokerage no longer appeared in the MLS system. Only the amount agreed to be “offered” to the (new term) co-op was published.

      This new “advertising” methodology seemed to the unknowing, to happen almost overnight with little or no forewarning to the membership at large, back then.

      The public, who had been used to seeing tear-sheets and MLS catalogues that showed in the bottom right-hand corner, the full amount of commission, suddenly saw only a portion, in print.

      BUT they certainly didn’t know “it was only a portion,” so the reader presumed the shown amount was the full commission. Regardless that “co-op” was designated and marked as such. Never an explanation was offered up to the public, accounting for what the advertising visual now represented. Consumers, all consumers, are creatures of habit. Just the way it is.

      That’s when suddenly the public started negotiating to pay less and less commission. They just knew that their friends and neighbours were now paying much less (because they could see it with their own eyes; wrong). Right there on the MLS printout pages. Bottom righthand corner.

      There are many registrants who know nothing of this background information. No one talks about it.

      Offices posted warnings (old and new). Do not “ever” get caught talking with colleagues about how much commission “your office charged.” Remember the Prohibition Order that struck fear into all industry participants.

      Then along came buyer agency specific.

      What is interesting in retrospect is that inch by inch accommodations were made, piecemeal, to the old wineskins, and new wine continued to be added. It is well known what happened to old wineskins.

      The powers that be failed to recognize that although the pants “pattern for size 44 waist” could be tailor-adjusted to fit a size 24, the drape of the fabric would never completely fit right. Close but not exactly right.

      The pockets would not sit just right, and the crotch may not move with the body exactly right; not until all the seams were opened, material pressed flat, and the whole fabric re-cut to fit a new pattern. Almost not doable. And hardly worth the cost.

      Better to scrap the original item or give it away to someone who could use it as is, or design:create a new pattern and start from scratch, completely.

      An old plan will always be what it was designed to be; nothing less and nothing more. Adjusting it piecemeal will never entirely make it fully consistent, much less cover all the new needs.

      To accommodate how the real estate industry works “today,” whole new systems need to be put in place, and stop trying to ‘fix’ the initial system by changing parts and pieces of it that do not suffice to make the old system work by bending and twisting it to try to make it fit the new paradigm.

      We live in a different time and a different place. Our industry can’t be fixed by merging the new with the old. It will never work.

      New systems must be developed, created brand new, from scratch; we must start again.

      The old must give way to the new. But the philosophy of being a “service” industry must never change. Service is the foundation upon which our industry functions first and foremost.

      Carolyne L 🍁

      • Carolyne I agree. I have been an advocate of removal of the pillar of remuneration for a long time. Why should a seller decide what a buyer agent should get? Better yet, why should a seller be forced to pay FORCED to pay cooperating fees? The buyers agent should do that on their own.

        You mentioned sellers were in a way deceived by what was posted on older MLS sheers. So to are they today. Today agents are required to sign a buyer agency agreement before presenting an offer. In it describes compensation, but it doesn’t discuss what’s done when the posted compensation doesn’t match the compensation requested by the buyers agent. I know for a fact agents are saying to their buyers, Mr and Mrs Buyer, my fee is 2.5% but don’t worry, the seller covers my fee. End of conversation.

        Then the agent presents an offer and tells the selling agent that I have a a buyers agent agreement in place and it requires you match my fee.

        The problem is we continue to not fully open with the public and our clients. The industry might think that this is the method to counter brokerages who are offering less than what we deem to be traditional fees, but consumers will catch on. It may work in a buyers market, but once it becomes a sellers market that strategy will fail.

        We do need to start from scratch. And true the MLS System was designed for Realtors, but we made it a public system and it has to be a system Canadians trust, and until competing models can function without the industry looking for ways to restrict their growth we will continue to struggle and worry about change being imposed on us.

        • HWR: I have not encountered your reference herein, as you state – “Then the agent presents an offer and tells the selling agent that I have a a buyers agent agreement in place and it requires you match my fee.” (Where is that practised?)

          When I explained to my buyer that if we encountered a property they wanted to buy and the co-op fee did not cover the designated buyer agency fee in my contract, the buyer would be responsible for the difference, they understood completely.

          The apportionment would appear in their lawyer’s statement of adjustments. That’s what the contract says. The buyer is responsible, and how the system collects and pays out seems to vary.

          To cover my com pension as per my buyer agency agreement, an invoice would be submitted to their closing lawyer’s office along with a copy of their buyer agency contract.

          At first buyer rep lawyers had no clue and I got calls saying there must be some mistake (obviously the law office had not “read” the supporting paperwork). That j should be “invoicing” the seller side. (Read my contract.)

          Now there’s another topic requiring education. No one thought to explain the buyer agency contract world to the legal profession.

          How many years have passed and still there are lawyers practising real estate on a daily basis who have never received a buyer agency invoice; not for a full commission amount or an apportionment.

          Now why would that be, and whose fault is it? The topic seemed not to have been built into office accounting systems? Or even discussed.

          The first time I charged the buyer directly, according to my buyer contract, the listing office broker nearly had heart failure, accusing me of messing up his Acctg. dept. and said that I was paid by the buyer directly and he had never heard of that – well it messed up their seller’s lawyer’s bookkeeping too, because the listing brokerage had billed the seller’s lawyer for the “full” commission – whatever that was – I was not privy to that information. And they had intended to pay me the co-op assigned portion.

          They didn’t need to do that, of course. But the situation was not explained properly to the Seller and it, in fact, caused a big problem for the listing brokerage. Their seller thought he was paying twice.

          Obviously that was many years ago; but in some cases continues to be a bone of contention. Why?

          Did someone fail to explain how buyer agency contracts work, as to who pays, what and how much – to the people designing acctg tech systems?

          To the law office bookkeeping depts? And oh, yes – to the banks and mortgage companies – and oh, yes, yet again – to appraisers? Still after all these years?

          Carolyne L 🍁

        • Well, jurst cheked that thur REEKO intern net site. Saw this. Maybe that theres why my buyers ur confuzed.

          “It’s also important to note that in a typical real estate transaction where both the buyer and seller have representation, the seller pays the commission to both brokerages. In most cases, there is no additional cost to the buyer and hence there may not be a financial benefit in going it alone.”

          • And in a recent publication RECO also has this:

            “In most
            situations, THE SELLER pays
            the real estate commissions
            to both the buyer’s and
            the seller’s brokerages…

            If the commission listed in the BRA is greater than what
            THE SELLER’S BROKERAGE will pay to your brokerage, you may be on the hook for the difference.”

            cap emphasis mine to show the disparity. Is it any wonder consumers are confused?

          • Petey yur shootin with a loaded barel thur. Old Joes contrdictin evrything I lerned in reatler shcool. Girlz use BRAs but us men use BAAs so im guezzin old joe mustu nevr sold a cabin befur.

            Geezum. my briars ur all payin me and thur bank is lendering them the cash in thur mortgauge. Wait. loaded barel and gauge we must be talkn shotguns. No I gidress frum you sity folk.

            rnt cabin prizes includin comicsun any mur. Du my briars get a lowr price thun?

            furgut that traidmurk thing in the cod I agreed tu. sury thur Al

          • Ross,

            So you’ve decided that if you couldn’t get the attention/ results you’ve sought in your attempts at being serious, you’d switch gears and become a clown? This strategy might only work if readers can see a meaningful difference!

          • PED – is this not tantamount to saying there is a “standard” commission? Alluding to “in MOST situations???”

            You posted as per the publication: “In most
            situations, THE SELLER pays
            the real estate commissions
            to both the buyer’s and
            the seller’s brokerages…


            As is often the case: we are not permitted to use such discretionary terms as “standard” or “expert,” or in this case “in MOST situations.” WE would not be permitted to say such to a member of the public. It would be misleading, counterproductive, much less “influencing” and how is that different than saying “most people pay XYZ commission so you are expected to follow suit, Mr and Mrs Public.”

            Yet the rules makers and administrators do say such, in reference to us and how our industry business is MOSTLY conducted.

            Isn’t that directive misleading to the public, perhaps? And therefore making it awkward at best to practise buyer agency as per the contract when stated that in fact the buyer will pay? And here the public is told outright that this is MOSTLY not so.

            Representation agency and how one gets paid have nothing to do with one another – EXCEPT that the compensation IS stated in the buyer contract. ALWAYS! Not MOSTLY.

            You are so right: no wonder the confusion.

            Is this another example of rules and regs being created, designed, instituted, discussed, talked about, made reference to, and processed – perhaps by people who are not familiar with the real life applications of industry life in daily business practice and real life application?

            Anyone care to address the opportunity of forfeiting the commission differential? Eating it? Has this happened to any REM readers?

            There are, I understand, cases where the co-op was only $1.cad and the buyer rep was working without a buyer agency contract, and in real life got paid the $1. and could not seek recompense by any means. His own fault.

            But that is not what is represented in the instructed words point of reference publication is it?

            Again – respectfully. Not looking to debate. Just commenting.

            Carolyne L 🍁

          • PED, At 12:01 am January 1st 1995, one of my past clients allowed me to meet him and sign what I believe is the first ever Buyer Agency Agreement legally signed in the Province of Ontario. That was the proudest day of my career and the day I expected the entire home selling infrastructure to change.
            The next 18 years saw each and every Buyer Client who entered a BAA with my brokerage using me as their exclusive designated agent ( my contracts included this exclusivity and out for the buyer should I ever had been forced to change brokerages) had 2.5% plus GST listed in the remuneration portion of that contract. None of that “per mls” or “per co-op” fee excuse used by others to cover up their incompetency on the topic of buyer agency.

            The entire MLS infrastructure remains fully rooted in Seller Agency from the monthly press releases issued by ORE on selling prices to false claims that real estate is a great financial “investment” to claims of a market being “HOT” or “supply low” when in fact it is the incompetence of Buyers Agents that allows this nonsense to continue.

          • PED and Ross:

            I don’t pretend to be an expert, but my system worked for me, for more than twenty years, (and believe it or not – I thought everyone worked like I did) following the advent of buyer agency specific contracts being available for our use in Ontario, attributed by some, to the then Sarbanes-Oxley situation Stateside.

            It’s all in how it is explained to the buyer.

            I simply state this is what I charge. This is how it works. Are you comfortable with that? If so, sign here. (Not much different at a listing presentation.)

            I am gentle, kind, caring and explicit. I speak in a soft but measured, direct no nonsense manner and tone. I found clients appreciated that.

            And in the end that’s all that mattered. My clients got full representation and they understood not just agency representation, but also their role in my compensation spelled out clearly.

            Truthfully I never had anyone walk away. A couple of people asked a few extra questions and that was fine, too. But they always signed the contract. Just lucky, I guess.

            I confess my strength was largely in listing properties but when called upon to act for a buyer I left no stone unturned in my effort to please them and create a win:win for them.

            I couldn’t understand why colleagues kept saying they had such difficulty getting buyer agent contracts signed.

            I didn’t use the contract to “collect” buyers. They came to me, and when they did, it all just seemed to happen automatically. No muss, no fuss; and certainly no pressure, not ever.

            I explained how the billing was done. And one that might have been difficult turned out not to be.
            And he wrote me a quite wonderful testimonial, saying I had told him I earned my commission, and in fact I did. That I was expensive but worth it.

            In particular coming from him, a very quiet, methodical professional businessman who could have been difficult, was appreciated.

            YES!!! No wonder the public is confused.

            Carolyne L 🍁

          • To Jim Adair,

            It’s also important to note the following CREA rules regarding the use of their trademarks:

            “6. NEVER combine the marks with any other words or designs.

            7. NEVER use adjectives with the marks.”

            Both of these deep thinkers (author and recipient) are in violation of both of the subject rules, as the preceding word or words are used as adjectives. Why does REM indulge this practice when you want to portray your magazine as being Organized Real Estate’s Premier Publication? We know that from time to time you do sensor what you feel is inappropriate, so how is that you don’t see the blatant abuse of CREA’s trademark rules as being inappropriate?

        • HWR (Habitually Wrong Reasoning),

          Organized real estate is a virtual wonderland to you — even the fundamentals. Your main problem is that you don’t, can’t or won’t understand the concept of “value added” and consequently you wouldn’t be able to determine whether or not you provided any, in any given circumstance. You maintain an outside looking in perception, of this industry — which is most peculiar since you claim to be a part of it!

          Consider your following quote: “Why should a seller decide what a buyer agent should get? Better yet, why should a seller be forced to pay FORCED to pay cooperating fees?” You can’t even follow one sentence with another and have them reason against each other. Were it the case that: “…a seller decide[s] what a buyer agent should get?”, a seller could not: “be forced to pay FORCED to pay cooperating fees?” Your aforesaid sentences don’t even jibe with each other! A Seller can’t be forced to pay any amount — they are obliged to pay what they’ve agreed to pay pursuant to the terms of their Listing Agreement.

          HWR, regarding your claim: “I know for a fact agents are saying to their buyers, Mr and Mrs Buyer, my fee is 2.5% but don’t worry, the seller covers my fee. End of conversation.” Were the aforesaid true, you are welcome to the extent this would impact your clients to file a formal complaint, and likewise any such buyer’s who felt so used could approach RECO. Surely you must understand that REM doesn’t amount to a RECO conduit. It’s remarkable that you would bring your formal industry complaints here, instead of making them where they would count, if they are true.

          Regarding your following statement: “…and until competing models can function without the industry looking for ways to restrict their growth we will continue to struggle and worry about change being imposed on us.” You seem to be the one expressing the worry here, that some Buyer’s Agent’s (Registrants) are still able to charge what they want for their services, and that this is creating a problem in terms of what change you were seeing as should be imposed on them. You seem to resent the financial autonomy of some of the Buyer’s agents because it conflicts with your idea of how: “competing models can function [in keeping with your notions] without the industry looking for ways to restrict their growth”

          Perhaps, it is actually yourself who hasn’t made it clear enough to your Seller’s, how a represented buyer’s interest in their property will play out — when the Buyer’s Agent has contracted for a higher level of commission than what you’ve advised your Seller’s to offer. Apparently you haven’t advised your Seller’s of the difference between when a Buyer(s) is able to include the applicable real estate commission as a part of their financing, as opposed to part of the equity, but then again, someone on the outside looking in, wouldn’t think of this.

          You seem to like to bang on the “competition drum” but you seem to be anti-competitive, when it comes to your Seller’s having to compete for the Buyer’s who are working with Agents who will be remunerated at a level that doesn’t work with your plan or idea of “change”!

    • It was a local Realtor but I’m not sure if they too were working with an external broker or investor. Beyond Seligman’s spending of marketing dollars which couldn’t have been cheap, he was prepared and had a plan going in. Anyone could spend thousands on advertising but without a solid methodology of where and how a property will be marketed few will be successful. Congratulations are in order.

  6. This is an intelligent fellow who has a relevant educational and hands-on background in the real estate world, unlike the vast majority of registrants. He was immediately able to distinguish himself from the old-school sales types because of his background and intelligence, unlike the vast majority of registrants. He also obviously had enough financial resources available to enable him to invest in effective outreach procedures, unlike the vast majority of registrants. Ergo, the vast majority of registrants could not have honestly influenced this particular skeptical seller to place his trust in them. Why was that so, in addition to the reasons mentioned? The answer is simple: the vast majority of registrants are still old-school razzle-dazzle sales types with naught to offer but handed-down stories without foundations and promises without the underlying substance to follow up on.
    Corbin sounds more like an advocate than a sales person to me. He is not a risk-taker because he had complete confidence in his abilities and financial wherewithal to get the job done in a scientific manner, unlike the vast majority of registrants who spin a cheap line, throw it out there over and over again and hope that enough potentials will bite, and that thereafter enough of those will sell, allowing them to continue on with that never-ending old-school behaviour pattern of spin, spin, spin.
    Old-school types are like worn-out old clothes in an automatic washing machine rinse/spin cycle that gets stuck on that cycle until the motor burns out. Then they are pulled out of the thing, looking like giant battered hardened lumps of twisted spaghetti, suitable only for use as hardened curled baseball bats, unfit for hardball, but possibly for one-hit-only slow-pitch games. Then they are thrown out at first base (if they ever get a hit at all), relegated to the dust-bin of old-school drop-outs. But hey, there are many more ready to be signed up to give ‘er a try and pay their dues/fees…all up front.
    I would like to put forth a suggestion. No new registrants’ dues/brokerages desk fees should be forthcoming to CREA, any provincial associations, local boards OR brokerages respectively ‘until’ new registrants have closed their first three transactions (within one year from being licensed) at which time accrued dues/desk fees would be automatically deducted from their commission cheques. No dues/desk fees forthcoming? FIRED. That would change the game completely because there would be a vested interest in making sure that wannabes would be actually qualified (financially/not desperate and experientially/not a naïve wishful thinker clinging to the false-hope syndrome) to go to real estate school in the first place, and that thereafter brokerages would actually go beyond the mirror-fogging entrance test before hiring someone. There would be many less amateur-hour failures-in-waiting out in the field but a much higher number of professionals who I am sure would be willing to pay higher dues…because…real professionals realize that professionalism does not come easily…or cheaply.
    ORE needs to keep the casino gamblers out and encourage those with the right stuff to become professional Realtors as a ‘first’ choice of vocation instead of a hail-Mary stop-gap job and/or a last ditch money-grab attempt that anyone can buy into to hopefully keep the wolves from the door (with a quick big hit), because, in the latter instance, your stereotypical Realtor in the public’s jaundiced communal eye fulfils its expectation as just another desperate commissioned sales hack…just another product of the CREA/ORE dues/fee-producing professional never-ending spin cycle. This ORE spin cycle motor will never burn out of its own accord; it is too well greased. It needs to be unplugged and thrown into the dumpster.

Leave a Reply