Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the power of the Inman Community, and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) made a big decision on the highly debated Clear Cooperation Policy last week, and agents and brokers are continuing to process just what it means.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR MARCH
The trade association decided to keep the policy intact, while adding a new option for homesellers who want more flexibility and privacy when marketing their homes. The new “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy allows sellers to have “delayed marketing exempt listings,” whereby a seller’s agent can delay putting a property on the Internet Data Exchange (IDX) for a time period set by individual MLS’s, during which the listing will still be visible to other MLS members.
Last week, CEOs, agents and listing portal leaders weighed in on the decision, with many saying it was a positive move for the industry, although some were dissatisfied with how far it went in offering sellers more flexibility.
However, agents who weighed in on the decision in Inman’s latest Pulse question, “How do you feel about NAR’s new CCP ruling?” offered much more mixed opinions on the matter. Some Pulse respondents seemed furious about the determination, while others were pleased, especially at the fact that CCP had been preserved. Still, multiple respondents simply expressed frustrated confusion over the new policy.
SEE ALL OF THE PULSE RESPONSES
Content with NAR’s determination
Many Pulse survey respondents who had a positive reaction to NAR’s ruling focused mostly on the preservation of the Clear Cooperation Policy and how it was a win for smaller brokerages. Some went so far as to call out Compass and the brokerage’s founder, Robert Reffkin, specifically, in their push to abolish the policy. With its widespread internal network of brokerages listings across the country, Compass would stand to gain from getting rid of CCP and leaning on the power of its own network — whereas other, smaller brokerages might be crippled.
“Unless we want all of the small brokerages to disappear, we need CCP,” one respondent said.
Another added, “Great decision. This was all BS and a ploy for Compass to continue their secret inventory in an effort to gain market share, cheat sellers out of their money and facilitate more off market deals. Robert Reffkin needs to go back to Wall Street and take his antics out of real estate. He [is] very transparent in what he’s trying to accomplish. Dual agency only and he’s NOT for the public or his seller … only his profits.”
Some respondents also pointed out that the number of cases in which following CCP is not in a seller’s best interest is relatively few and far between. The practice of keeping listings off-market is most often utilized by celebrity homesellers or others who are often in the public eye but don’t want the world knowing their address. The vast majority of real estate agents don’t typically have to deal with such clientele.
Of course, by contrast, some real estate agents also use celebrity pedigree to their advantage when marketing a home, which can help bring more attention to a listing.
“I am a strong believe[r] in the CCP. Sellers get the highest price for their properties by giving them maximum exposure,” said one respondent. “The great majority of Realtors who don’t support it are putting their best interests ahead of their clients, which is shameful. It only makes sense to not get maximum exposure in very isolated instances that are very much exceptions.”
Another respondent said they were “relieved” that CCP was preserved, but added, “I wish they would have dumped the office exclusive carve out.”
Revealing one question that remains for some agents, one respondent said they would be interested to see how portals like Zillow and Realtor.com will handle days on market once the delayed marketing exempt listings are finally shared with them. Each MLS has the discretion to determine whether or not they track days on market and how they report it.
Other Pulse respondents took the opportunity to criticize NAR’s role in the industry overall, even while commenting positively on the new policy.
“It’s good that NAR acknowledges that there is a valid issue (little win). And, that there is more flexibility for Sellers,” said one respondent. “Plus, getting decisions made at the local level is almost always best. However, NAR needs to get out of mandating business practices & re-assume their appropriate role as an advocate for ALL real estate practitioners — Seller & buyer agents, etc.”
Anger and disappointment over the decision
Several Pulse respondents saw the “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy as a capitulation to the big brokerages making a lot of noise about Clear Cooperation in the last several months.
“NAR caved into large brokers,” said one respondent.
Another commented, “It is a bumbled mess and will be totally confusing as the rules for MLS’s all vary. We do need to stop the FRAUD where some brokerages just want to double end for the full commission and they do not care about sellers or the public. You know who you are.”
Others felt that the decision on NAR’s part didn’t do enough, and might even serve as a “non-decision” of sorts in maintaining CCP as-is while offering a new, somewhat middle-of-the-road option.
“This is a milquetoast attempt to appease an increasingly disparate industry,” one respondent said. “NAR has managed to avoid leading or following and established itself as being firmly in the way. Markets, customers, and brokerages are diverse with local norms and expectations. Brokerages must be allowed to innovate and risk the rise and fall that comes with free markets. Clear cooperation in practice is good for consumers, but consumers must be the ones to realize and benefit from that. Restricting consumer choice stifles market evolution. Attempting to mother both customers and brokerages very simply leads to inevitable angsty rebellion.”
Some respondents were frustrated that NAR did not take this time of reconsideration as an opportunity to overhaul Clear Cooperation.
“I feel NAR missed an opportunity to make CCP a meaningful policy. The MLS is a powerful market enhancer that sellers will willingly choose to use. CCP could have been used to strengthen data integrity focusing on sales data being entered into the MLS despite being sold on or off-market. Sellers should be opting into the MLS not being sold on opting out.”
At the end of last week, Inman spoke with an agent based out of Washington, D.C., who mentioned that, since 2024, Bright MLS has created more opportunities for agents to market private listings off-MLS. So, the new NAR rule seemed a bit anti-climactic. Other MLSs in different regions of the country have similar rules as well with more flexibility for marketing private listings where they don’t immediately need to be listed publicly on the MLS.
“The Delayed Marketing Exempt Listing idea is an interesting one, but I feel like most MLSs already have the ability to not send listings to portals and IDX feeds, so it doesn’t necessarily do anything new,” one Pulse respondent said. “Additionally, not addressing the Office Exclusive is disheartening. NAR didn’t let this be a discussion in committee or actively reach out to the associations or members for feedback. They decided this as a small group and didn’t think about the impacts around the country. Definitely a step back in their efforts at transparency. I’m disappointed in NAR and will find it hard to defend.”
A few other Pulse respondents also questioned how NAR’s determination was made and who it would ultimately benefit. One expressed “deep concern” that the new policy undermined fundamental tenets of the profession: “cooperation, transparency and advocacy for the public interest.”
“Who asked for this?” the respondent continued. “There has been no clear indication that this policy reflects actual consumer demand. The policy appears to be a strategic concession to larger brokerages rather than a response to any widespread need among everyday sellers. I question whether this change was driven by seller feedback at all — or instead by pressure from industry players who benefit from controlling listing exposure.”
The respondent went on to argue that the new delayed marketing exempt listings would incentivize in-house exclusive listings and jeopardize the integrity of Clear Cooperation.
Complete confusion
Mixed in with the agents who are either satisfied or furious over the decision are those who are simply perplexed — or feel that it will perplex their clients.
“It’s so confusing I literally have no idea what the policy is,” one Pulse respondent said. “They are complete idiots.”
“I think it overcomplicates the issue,” said another.
Considering the homeseller’s point of view, another survey respondent thought, “I feel it will add more confusion for our sellers. Why would you introduce something new like this. This is [ridiculous]. The one day rule [or, the Clear Cooperation Policy] is not easy to adhere to and should be changed.”
The new policy does require being fairly well-versed in distinctions about how the MLS functions versus what an IDX is, and what exactly constitutes permissible marketing in the case of delayed marketing exempt listings. It will also require a seller to sign a new disclosure form if they choose to go this route. And for homesellers who have not transacted at all before or very often, it might be a bit much to wrap their heads around at first.
But for agents who seem frustrated about the new rule “overcomplicating” things, it may be that they are also feeling some fatigue about all the new changes that have swept the industry over the past several months. Drawn-out lawsuits, scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Justice and practice changes over buyer-broker agreements are already a handful before new marketing options for sellers even enter the picture.
