{"id":335311,"date":"2025-12-08T19:02:57","date_gmt":"2025-12-08T19:02:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/uncategorized\/bcfsa-aims-for-greater-transparency-agents-flag-challenges-in-proposed-ideas\/"},"modified":"2025-12-08T19:02:57","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T19:02:57","slug":"bcfsa-aims-for-greater-transparency-agents-flag-challenges-in-proposed-ideas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=335311","title":{"rendered":"BCFSA aims for greater transparency; agents flag challenges in proposed ideas"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

The B.C. Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) has started a discussion on new approaches pertaining to real estate commissions, disclosures, bidding wars and more, and while there\u2019s a consensus around the goal of protecting consumers, professionals in the field are skeptical about how some of the ideas would play out.<\/span><\/p>\n

BCFSA, the provincial Crown agency that regulates the real estate sector, recently published <\/span>Strengthening Confidence in Real Estate Services<\/span><\/a>, a discussion paper that describes potential new regulations with the purpose of building transparency and trust with consumers.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

A \u2018180\u2019 on performance-based commissions<\/span><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Tony Joe, a Victoria, B.C.-based Realtor, trainer and coach, told Real Estate Magazine that the proposals that most surprise him are ones dealing with commissions, particularly one that would allow agents to base their payment on the difference between the list and sold price.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThat has been a practice that has been frowned upon. It has always been a thing in B.C. that you\u2019re not allowed to earn a commission that is based on performance,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is a complete 180 from what we have been told all this time.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

BCFSA says the rules were once created to protect consumers with limited access to information, but given the availability of property pricing and assessment information today, \u201callowing commission structures that reward real estate agents for successfully negotiating a lower or higher price may encourage new commission models,\u201d said the regulator in the discussion paper.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the varying consumer risks on the buyers\u2019 and sellers\u2019 sides, BCFSA may consider different proposed approaches for agents representing buyers and sellers, it said.<\/p>\n

Vancouver Realtor Keith Roy said it\u2019s an odd proposal, but he generally supports different compensation models.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cRealtors with 20 years of experience might be better than new Realtors and should be compensated accordingly,\u201d he said in an email to REM.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\u201c<\/b>As long as transparency exists, it\u2019s up to the (consumer) to make the decision\u201d<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The paper also brings up the idea of prohibiting agents from claiming commissions when they are a principal in the transaction (buyer or seller).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThis is one of the benefits of being a licensee. I feel that one will be problematic,\u201d said Joe.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Joe said he believes claiming commission should still be allowed, provided all the disclosures are made.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cBCFSA is talking about transparency, and as long as transparency exists, then presumably the consumer will be happily made aware, and it\u2019s up to them to make the decision.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u2018This will be a hot spot\u2019<\/span><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The paper opens for discussion the idea of banning \u201cdouble ending,\u201d a practice that sees the seller\u2019s brokerage retaining the entire commission paid by the seller when the buyer is unrepresented.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cDouble ending may make offers from unrepresented parties more lucrative for agents and can result in misaligned incentives as benefits accrue to a listing agent, not the seller,\u201d it reads.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

While data suggests only up to two per cent of buyers were unrepresented in 2025, said BCFSA, \u201cdouble ending can erode trust and confidence in the industry since consumers expect that any cooperating commission is intended for buyer representation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Joe noted that BCFSA already banned dual respresentation, which according to him, \u201cseems to be doing well.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>I don\u2019t really have an issue with banning double ending, said Joe. \u201cBut I do know that this will be a hotspot for licencees because it\u2019s an opportunity for them to earn both sides of the commission.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

BCFSA tackles bidding wars<\/span><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The discussion paper looks at supplying buyers with additional information when bidding goes into a second round. This change would require the seller\u2019s agent to disclose to any buyer who is invited to make a new offer, or consider a counteroffer, the price of the highest active offer from the last round of offers.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another approach the paper puts forth is a post-transaction reporting of multiple offers, which would require a seller\u2019s agent to provide an anonymized report listing such information as the number of offers, the date of each offer, and the names of competing brokerages to all bidders, including the successful buyer.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSellers, of course, want the best outcome. To expose, the highest offer price on a second round kind of limits where the seller could end up,\u201d said Joe. \u201cThis is a point that consumers should be weighing in on.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Changing building since self-regulation ended<\/span><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

In 2016, former premier Christy Clark <\/span>ended self-regulation<\/span><\/a> for the real estate sector. BCFSA became the sole regulator for B.C.\u2019s financial services sector, including real estate, in 2021.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0Joe says the changes proposed in the new paper don\u2019t shock him as they build on the changes of the last number of years since the industry came under tighter government regulation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cThey have taken on a very clear mandate of consumer protection, and I understand that. I don\u2019t think that\u2019s a bad thing necessarily,\u201d he said.<\/span><\/p>\n

Some of the proposed approaches would bring B.C. in line with regulations in other jurisdictions across Canada. For example, the paper proposes mandatory buyer service agreements, which were <\/span>introduced in Nova Scotia<\/span><\/a> in 2017.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

What happens next?<\/span><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

BCFSA says the paper is not a formal consultation on changes, but rather an \u201copportunity to highlight key issues and invite dialogue on a proposed path forward.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

BCFSA has put out a call for feedback and pledges to publish a summary of what people said.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIf we decide to move forward with any of the proposed approaches, we will further engage industry and the public, including formal engagement on potential rule changes to help guide our decisions,\u201d it said.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n