I don't understand your question. If a person is trying to sell their house privately then I respect that and don't solicit that business. What do you mean by " serious discrimination and collusion?" If a house is for sale by owner and the buyers have not signed a Buyer Agency Agreement, the buyers can choose to offer on that house if they want to.

http://condochris.ca/2012/02/the-grain-of-salt-factor/

I think you anwered your own question Ming when you said " I think the commisions Realtors make are outrageous!" .. Yet you want to use the service of a Realtor to sell your home? It is illegal for a Realtor not to show your home if asked to do so by a client because we are bound by a feduciary duty to do so (you on the other hand - are not)however - Its a simpler matter of economics - If a Realtor has taken the time to find a buyer, and qualify them, and help them look at listings and make a decision, why would they help that client purchase a home with no commision being offered? In that case - the buyer owes the agent a commision which adds to the cost of the house so it makes no sense for him either... I think what you will find is that it has been very easy to sell a house in the sellers market we have been experiencing for the lasr few years, but as this market becomes a buyers market and it becomes difficult to sell your home; top-quality Realtors will become a necessity and the general public will not have a feeling that they are being over-payed.

Ming I didn't realize you were referring to selers that post their house on MLS. Nevertheless I agree with everything Chris says in his video. 

Chris your videos rock.

@Ming Lam @Josie Stern @Condo Chris Good question Ming!
Here's my opinion... Chris's comment that agents are not incentivized to promote listings that's don't pay a commission is logical and fair. But, what about FSBO listings that pay 2.5% to the purchaser's agent? If these listings are being shunned as well then Ming's reference to discrimination and collusion has validity.

Chris's Darth Vader video is entertaining (A+ for production) but I have issues with some of the so called "inherent flaws". Flaw #1 states that mere listings are overpriced because an agent isn't being paid and seller is pocketing the savings - but how does that equal an overpriced listing?

Flaw #2 states that mere listings are priced according to the most expensive comparables. This is just a statement of opinion, not sure it can be considered a flaw without evidence to substantiate it.  

Flaw #3 is interesting, however, studies have shown agents are more interested in making a deal happen as opposed to getting the best price for their clients http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck . That considered, the FSBO seller is paying the buyers agent to ensure a deal gets made.

@Ming Lam @Condo Chris @Josie Stern @Cbeny Chris said in his video that seller's who pay 2.5 percent to the buyer agent do not have their own representation and that is short sighted. He also said the seller who represents himself has less credibility than if he were making representations through a realtor that would represent him. This is logically true which is why each and every time I have sold my own property, I used
another agent to represent me as my listing agent. It is difficult for anyone representing themselves to be objective and therefore have credibility.

How can anyone make a blanket statement that "studies have shown agents are more interested in making a deal happen as opposed to getting the best price for their clients"? What studies are you referring to? How does this data get compiled? Let's see. A study is conducted and the following question is posed to the listing agent. " When you act as the listing agent do you attempt to get the highest sale price for your client or not?" Who is going to reply anything but yes to this question? Now let's ask the seller this question " Mr Seller do you believe your listing agent attempted to get you the highest sale price?" If the seller responds "no" how can the seller possibly prove this? So what studies exactly can you be referring to?

I am not denying there are agents who do not try to get the highest price possible for their seller clients. I am saying it is impossible to prove this through a study. 

OK.. This debate touches on many factors that we aren't addressing but I will answer the Flaws issue:

#1 The reason a seller chooses not to hire a listing agent is to save some money. If his neighbor sold the same house for $350k using a realtor and he payed a 5% commision.. He actually netted $332500k after he pays for the cost of his sale.. A FSBO is never going to list his house at 332500k because he didn't have to pay a Realtor and pass that savings on to the buyer.. What would be the point? No.. A FSBO wants to feel like he has "beat the system" and put more in his pocket than he wouldhe chosen to use a Realtor. Always.

Flaw #2 FSBOs always use the highest comparable.. I can substantiate this through my own experience. FSBO's are a big part of my business. I subscribe to a service that sends me a weekly list of every FSBO in the GTA. Often I have buyers for these but whether I do or don't I usually contact the sellers to introduce myself for when they finally decide to use an agent.. Determining value and pricing real estate is a very fine art at the best of times but I can tell you that the rationale I hear from these owners in defence of their listing price is usually nothing short of comical. The mindset of a FSBO is oriented towards one thing - saving money. This mindset seems to absolutely prevent them from listing at anything less than what they feel is the best price for their property..Of course it's never correct to generalize and there may be odd exceptions but in my experience I would be willing to bet on it in most situations..

Flaw#3 .. I have read "Freakonomics" .. Statistics can be manipulated to show any result but the argument freakonomics presents is "average days on Market" .. An agent leaves their house on the market longer to get a better price... why?... Simple. Because someone who hires an agent to sell their house expects it not only to be sold for the top price - but also quickly. There is absolutely pressure on an agent to work FAST.As an agent, I have sold hundereds of properties and I have an inherent built-in patience towards my deal.. The only person who will be critical with my performance is me so if I turn down a lesser offer I understand why and I'm not criticizing myself as to why I couldn't have the offer improved... Take the example in the video: "I listed my house at 300k and got an offer for 290k which the agent told me take but if I waited another week I would have got 300k... Maybe. Its the agents job to assess risk, turning down an offer of 290k to hold out for 300k is a risky manouver.. There are costs associated with staying on the market longer including mortgage and tax payments.. A Realtor also has a duty to not only get the best price but also to actually sell the house, if a seller turns down 290k and it turns out there isn't another 300k offer waiting in the wings, the relationship between the agent and seller deteriorates as the seller wonders why the agent can't sell his house...Also, studies show that the longer a house sits on the market - the more it becomes "stigmatized" and the less its worth, so a quick sale usually means more dollars for the seller - not less... You've probably said it before yourself " Oh this propertys been on the market for 30 days so we should low-ball them.."

OK - Here's my final thought on what may actually be concieved as "COLLUSION AND DISCRIMINATION BY REALTORS" - and it goes like this:

The general public feels Realtors make too much money - The FSBO thinks that just because an agent met a buyer yesterday and brought him by the listing, he doesn't deserve the 5 figure paycheque he gets.. What the FSBO doesn't see is all the hours of education, marketing dollars, desk fees, association fees and general hard work that allowed the agent to be in a position to meet that client in the first place.. Realtors have to put up with a LOT of shit and the meager lifestyle that they have to live for many years of sustaining on just commision to get to the point where they can call themselves successful. These are the dues they pay to command that commission and when the general public feels like they don't deserve it - Realtors take it as a sign of disrespect.

Its pretty tough to do a business deal with someone who doesn't respect your profession or the money you make. How well do you think your dentist would look after your teeth if you told him that you thought he made too much money? I think the FSBOs attitude that he thinks a Realtor should work for free because it looks easy to him causes a general lack of enthousiasm amongst Realtors and that is why they don't work as hard to sellFSBO'S - and why should they?

Actually, my point of view can be simplistic :-)

If I were to sell my place myself, would realtors take their clients to see my home if they know that I'm selling this myself?

If no, why not?

Are you offering a commission Ming?

@Ming Lam Would you be offering a commission to the Realtors if they brought the deal? If so, then yes. If not, why would they show it?

Pretty typical FSBO behavior anyway... Not really listening to (or caring) what a professional tells them...

Yes I will I think but not that big as sellers would be doing the prep work (or at least most of them) ... what is FSBO?

FSBO = for sale by owner. Ming, I think it comes down to this: realtors work on commission. If they bring someone wanting to buy your property to you, and as a result that client buys your property, the realtor wants to get a cut. I agree with you that their cut is too high, but there are agents that offer low commission sales work. You might want to look into that. The future of real estate commissions in my opinion is heading down due to competition in not only the fsbo market but also the online sales options. Realtors may actually have to struggle to make a living soon. lol

@Condo Chris- I read Freakonomics also and I think Levitt and Drubner hate agents for their own personal reasons. Levitt had a investment property deal go poorly, and I think he started with his own conclusion and worked backwards with the data, and the conclusion that a home that sits on the market longer will sell for more is completely his own construct. He never normalized the data for distress, such as divorce or REOs (which typically fly off the shelf and sell for less), and he never heard that a stale listing actually sells for less.

I said in 2004 and I still say that licensees selling their own homes are less hung up on granting extensions to buyers who ask, and that they probably sell for a little more simply because they take their own advice, unlike many consumers who, shockingly, don't do things like tidy up, stage, allow showings on short notice and other better practices.