Here’s why you do (or don’t) want to see Clear Cooperation repealed

Inman

3 months ago

Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.

Pulse is a recurring column where we ask for readers’ takes on varying topics in a weekly survey and report back with our findings.

Now that the terms of the commission lawsuit settlement has been implemented, it seems that everyone’s attention has turned to questions around Clear Cooperation.

From meetings at NAR to potential lawsuits and calls for change in the media, the controversial policy generates questions around legality, ethics and professionalism.

via GIPHY

We want to hear from you: Why do you (or don’t you) want to see Clear Cooperation repealed? Do you think it serves positive purposes, or do the drawbacks far outweigh the positives? Do you find it problematic from a legal perspective? Code of Ethics perspective? Client perspective? Should it be altered or ended altogether? Here’s what you said:

WHERE THE MAJOR PLAYERS STAND ON CLEAR COOPERATION

Editor’s note: These responses were given anonymously and, therefore, are not attributed to anyone specifically. Responses were also edited for grammar and clarity. Inman doesn’t endorse any specific method and regulations may vary from state to state.

When you represent a CLIENT in a fiduciary relationship then clear cooperation should not be enforced. However, if you are representing a CUSTOMER in a transaction broker relationship then Clear Cooperation should remain in force. If you read the Reffkin article, see how many times he mentions CLIENT, never customer. For smaller companies, this would be anti-competitive as the larger companies with greater market share in a particular area would be able to sell within their system, therefore not providing sellers with the highest amount of exposure to the highest bidder. Our listing agreements already give a seller in a transaction relationship the checkmark to not be included in the MLS. Let’s truly work in our clients’ or customers’ best interest and via a hybrid model we can accomplish this.
I believe it limits my ability to service my seller. It defines how I have to do business and I believe is a restraint of trade. I also believe I am obligated to work in the best interest of my Seller. By requiring my listing to be entered into the MLS within 24 hours of any public marketing does not allow me look out for my Seller’s best interest. I believe it was a bad idea in the beginning and continues to be a bad idea.
Clear cooperation involved putting the offered BAC in the MLS. Not having it there is completely ridiculous. It should be on the MLS sheet for both buyer and buyer’s agent to see. NOT having it there makes everything muddy and confusing. A buyer wants to know up front if they will be responsible for a commission and if so, how much. They have many closing costs to cover so adding an additional amount is often detrimental to their buying power. Not having it in the MLS encourages less cooperation.
Don’t repeal. It keeps the playing field level amongst different brokerages. Compass is the king of pocket listings, so they don’t want to play fair
I feel it should be repealed. In my small market, all it’s done is create agents that go around timing 24 hours from one another agent put a sign in the ground. It’s gotten ridiculous. AND. I have had several sellers in a recreational market that do NOT want their properties on MLS. THEY said they didn’t want them on MLS, not me as their agent. When I explained to them the rules, they ask … ‘who says NAR can tell ME what I can or cannot do with my own property?” I think we’ve forgotten that an owner of a property SHOULD have the right to do what they want with their own place … Clear Cooperation took that away. Our MLS no longer allows them to sign a form to state they don’t want to be included on MLS … another MLS rule … another MLS fine..
It violates our ethical obligation to obey our clients’ wishes when listing their property. For many reasons, they may not want widespread public exposure and we must honor that wish.
While there are some exclusive properties that would benefit from having Clear Cooperation repealed, my sense is that the great majority of agents who favor repeal simply want to get both sides of the transaction. They want what is best for them, not their clients.
A seller should not lose their individual rights when contracting with a Realtor. NAR also infringed on member’s First Amendment rights with their social media rules. NAR is a disaster.
The whole concept of forming our National Association was to bring about cooperation. It says so in the preamble of our Code of Ethics. Brokerages and Agents who are pushing for the elimination of Clear Cooperation are interested in only one thing – Pocket Listings that they can sell without the participation of the rest of their colleagues in the Association.
Do not repeal!
We see agents in our market use this as a way for them to advertise the property but they don’t cooperate with other brokers. They say no showings but mean only they can show it. There’s no cooperation there!
I believe Clear Cooperation should absolutely stay in place because it’s crucial for maintaining transparency and fairness in the real estate market. By requiring listings to be shared on the MLS within one business day of marketing, it ensures that every buyer has an equal opportunity, which is especially important in highly competitive areas like ours. This rule prevents off-market deals that tend to favor certain buyers, agents, or brokerages, and I’m committed to making sure my clients always get the exposure they deserve. From a client’s perspective, Clear Cooperation is a no-brainer. Maximum exposure on the MLS can mean more interest, more offers, and ultimately, a better sale price for the seller. Off-market sales often don’t give the property the visibility it needs to bring in top-dollar offers. Too often, these transactions only benefit the agent or brokerage at the expense of the client. From a Code of Ethics standpoint, it’s about doing what’s right. Off-market deals can easily go against the principle of putting the client first. The lack of transparency can make it seem like agents are serving their own interests, which isn’t something I stand for. My clients trust me to act in their best interest, and that means giving their listing the exposure it deserves. Legally, Clear Cooperation helps protect against potential claims of steering or favoritism, which can lead to bigger ethical and legal problems. It’s a safeguard that helps keep the playing field fair and keeps us in line with the legal standards we’re expected to uphold. While I understand that some sellers may have privacy concerns, there are other ways to handle that, like restricted listings, without going off-market. Clear Cooperation should stay because it’s all about making sure clients are treated fairly, with full representation and maximum exposure. The idea of repealing it only opens the door for more off-market manipulation, and that’s not something I want to see for the industry or my clients. If anything, we can fine-tune the rule to offer more flexibility, but I’m strongly against ending it.
It should be repealed! I have had several sellers who do not want their listing on MLS but rather want it quietly marketed in-house. But this is against the rules of our MLS and some sellers are very upset about this!
Allowing pocket listings is wrong. Listing a house on the open market is the way to attract the most buyers and drive the price upwards. Pocket listings only help the agent.
Don’t repeal.
Maintain Clear Cooperation policy for the benefit of consumers, giving them the ability to know everything available that meets their needs before they make a buying decision
Our duty is to the seller, not NAR
Not fair to everyone to keep homes private to potential buyers and the sellers will never get the offer they deserve. Getting rid of this is a strategy to get higher rankings on Google not for their sellers’ benefit
I want it repealed. It’s definitely a Code of Ethics problem at this point. People have still been doing pocket listings anyway.
Who wants to see Clear Cooperation go away, but the large brokerage firms who wish to fence off the market against smaller independents. Clear cooperation helps to create a level playing field and supports diversity within our industry.
I do want Clear Cooperation. It brings the property for sale to the whole public/widest audience, not just a few real estate agent/broker friends. This brings all of the purchase opportunities to the Buyers and brings the highest selling prices for the seller through the widest competition.
Because it goes against the idea that the customer/seller should get to drive the bus as far as how their home gets presented to the public.
I believe the arguments for canceling the policy are flawed. The #1 argument I hear is giving the seller privacy or a choice. If you are a member of the MLS and use all the service’s then you should not be able to circumvent offering your listings to all agents and potential buyers. If you have a seller with a unique situation then take an exclusive listing and market within your brokerage, network or whatever other marketing platform that may be in use.
I have always found this policy to be overly restrictive and not in the best interest of consumers. Marketing a home should be approached like any other product launch. No new product is marketed just 24 hours before it becomes available to consumers. Additionally, limiting marketing efforts to a single platform is far too restrictive. Imagine if you could only promote a new movie through physical newspapers or roadside billboards. Such limitations would severely hinder its reach and impact. While I understand the intent behind the policy, aiming to create a fair and orderly process, I believe it was poorly conceived and executed. Effective marketing requires a multi-channel approach to reach a broad audience and generate interest. By restricting marketing efforts, the policy fails to leverage the full potential of modern marketing strategies, ultimately doing a disservice to both sellers and buyers. In conclusion, a more flexible and comprehensive marketing strategy would better serve the interests of all parties involved, ensuring that homes are marketed effectively and reach the widest possible audience.
I’m just here hoping to see the other survey responses once I submit this
In all of the articles that I have read, I have yet to see the real danger of eliminating clear choice. As an African American Broker of over 40 years, I have seen and experienced the struggle with fair housing. Removing this just opens a back door to return to those old ways. If the industry really wants to move forward and not end up in another lawsuit with the DOJ we must think and police ourselves in a way to avoid such un thoughtfulness. Despite what some may do, there are always going to be those who bend the rules, but the industry should not be at risk because of them.
The Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) is beneficial for home sellers because it promotes wider exposure and competition. Here’s a breakdown of why: Increased Exposure: More Eyes on Your Listing: When your listing is shared through the MLS, it reaches a broader network of potential buyers, increasing the chances of finding the right match. Enhanced Visibility: MLS listings are often featured on popular real estate websites, making your property more accessible to a wider audience. Healthy Competition: Multiple Offers: With more agents and buyers seeing your listing, you’re more likely to receive multiple offers, potentially driving up the price. Fair Market Value: Increased competition can help ensure your property is priced at fair market value. Efficiency and Convenience: Centralized Platform: The MLS provides a centralized platform for managing and sharing listings, saving time and effort for both sellers and agents. Streamlined Process: The CCP helps ensure a more efficient and standardized process for buying and selling homes. Consumer Protection: Transparency: The CCP promotes transparency by requiring listings to be shared openly, protecting consumers from potential undisclosed deals or hidden fees. Fair Practices: By fostering competition, the CCP helps maintain fair market practices and prevents sellers from being disadvantaged.
There are solid points on both sides when it comes to the Clear Cooperation policy. As a fiduciary, not every client is best served by listing their property on the MLS—some may need the privacy that a private listing offers. On the flip side, there’s the concern about fair housing and ensuring all buyers have access to available homes. Plus, for smaller brokerages, private listings can make it harder to reach a wide audience, putting them at a disadvantage compared to larger firms. It’s really about finding the right balance that serves everyone fairly.
I don’t think that the National Association of Realtors should have the ability to tell agents and companies how to conduct their everyday business. When we take a listing, we advise them to get a home inspection, schedule a meeting with a stager, order professional photography and drone shots as well as a professional floorplan. This cannot be accomplished in one day nor should we have to have that pressure. Coming soon is a poor substitute for this issue. Many times good buyers for the property that now must be shown as “coming soon” are only in town for a short period and it is beyond frustrating that even the listing office cannot show the property. This is not in the seller’s best interest. Why does the NAR get to interfere with our day-to-day business practices to the detriment of our sellers, buyers and agents? Also, requiring that agents must put the offer of compensation in MLS is stupid. In our MLS and, I’ll bet, 99 percent of the rest of the country, that’s what agents were doing anyway.
I think it is necessary to see that all listings are visible and available to all buyers. not having it will lead to pocket listings and agents more focused on selling houses directly.
Having both buyers and sellers sign a disclosure that explains how commissions work in addition to language in the listing and buyer agreements would be a far superior way to inform and educate consumers.
It puts the needs of clients last. It’s time to break the NAR vice grip and allow for innovative and custom-tailored ways to sell a home.
Sellers should be able to decide how they want their homes sold
Because as a fiduciary I should be doing with the sellers asking me to do and if they ask me not to put the property on the MLS and sell it privately, it is their right to do so
I’m indifferent about it but if it is repealed we will see a number of brokerages use this to try and double dip on their listings.
It is putting buyers at a negotiating disadvantage and there is no value to the transparency, the seller should have to reveal what he is providing to the seller agent and if he is offering a buyer-broker commission.
Don’t repeal Clear Cooperation. Over 25 percent of current sales are off-market and very few. if any, agents have the opportunity to show them to potential buyers. Repealing Clear Cooperation will just lead to more pocket listings and off-market sales and will limit the inventory for a majority of buyers. Unless there is a compelling reason for a seller not to publicly list their property, the only person (s) truly benefiting from a repeal of Clear Cooperation are large brokerages and their agents.
Property values have increased over 150 percent in the last 5 years, so while homeowners have waited for interest rates to come down, it can behoove them to sell for a higher price off-market to a buyer who does not want the sales price disclosed in MLS. We are a non-disclosure state in Texas and this saves on property taxes.
The rule meant nothing at the start.
I believe clear cooperation is the most transparent. It’s unfortunate that NAR had to fold by agreeing to not post buyer agent compensation, which takes our industry backwards. If clear cooperation is removed, we would best serve our clients by having them sign a disclosure on the risks of not promoting to all.
Clear Cooperation enforces the exact anti-competitive practices we got sued for. Look at the dates on the lawsuits, most of them started after Clear Cooperation was first proposed!
Some clients want their property to be marketed privately for many reasons. The work around big brokerages use to get around Clear Cooperation are not possible for small brokerages or sole proprietors, leaving an unleveled playing field
Get rid of it … stop telling agents and sellers how to sell property … besides, agents ignored the policy and pockets were advertised. Furthermore, the DOJ did away with CC
MLSs should make the case for sellers to not even consider listing with a broker who won’t put their listing in the MLS – instead of forcing their members to enter their listing. It is also cumbersome to enforce the policy.
I think there needs to be some specific “carve-outs” for Clear Cooperation. If a buyer approaches a seller prior to home coming on the market and the price works for all parties – that is doing the right thing for the seller. If the seller doesn’t want people coming into their home because of health issues, this should be an exception. If the seller has some kind of notoriety, there should be an exception. The benefit of CCP is that the RE professional has all of the information about homes on the market. There was a time when consumers had more information about what was on the market because they could find homes on Zillow that weren’t on the MLS. CCP also provides a mechanism to create a more equal playing field for buyers. It was so frustrating to have buyers bring you an address and then find out an offer was already accepted and it just happened to be double-ended.
Now, instead of the percent being offered to the buyer agent printed on the MLS, I have to call the agent and ask and write it on the MLS. When it is not disclosed upfront, how is that clear to the buyer??? Also, the commission has ALWAYS been negotiable. Just because 2.5 percent-3 percent was offered doesn’t mean that’s what I ended up with. Or if a lower commission was being offered, I would have the same conversation I’m having with my clients now about covering the difference.
I believe it is a restraint of trade issue. How can any organization dictate how a consumer can sell their property? Even NAR’s own policy on Clear Cooperation states that there are reasons why someone may want to sell off market, i.e. privacy, Celebrity, Divorce, etc. The whole NAR membership is being punished for what the minority of agents did by not cooperating with others.
Very dumb rule from the beginning. Whatever a broker and an owner decide is best for the seller, they should be able to do. This rule turned the attention away from sellers and what’s best for them, to trying to help agents to be “fair” and give them a shot to sell it. NARs attempt at leveling the playing field.
Because it is easy for agents to game the system. Take out the rules that give consumers (and the other agents) the impression that it is fair.
I do not want to see it repealed because consumers do have the ability and right to not have their market in the MLS and/or published on the internet thereby protecting their privacy. The reason new home builders sell so many homes without putting them on the market is two-fold: 1. New homes are much more desirable for the majority of buyers and buyers can easily locate them from their marketing as well as the home builders have their own in-house real estate agents representing buyers. At times when the economy is not favorable to new home sales, the builders do use the MLS to access the larger exposure to agents and clients. Since a home is not a blouse or a shoe that many consumers like to see, touch, feel and try on before purchasing that explains why Amazon is a poor example to support Mr. Teflon’s argument. Clear Cooperation protects consumers by giving them the choice “how” to market their property and informs them of the effects of limiting exposure. Mr. Refkin, obviously, has a financial interest in his argument and is pulling every string possible to create what can only be described as pure monopolistic position by ensuring he will be a dual agent on every listing possible which prevents the sellers from experiencing the sentiment of greater market exposure as well as preventing agents of smaller brokerages to bring buyers. Removing Clear Cooperation will be a definitive attempt to monopolize brokerage listings into the largest brokerages driving the smaller brokerages out of business.
Clear restriction of consumer choice, Leads to more MLS control and costs consumers money.
The Clear Cooperation Policy: Challenges and Solutions for Agents As real estate professionals, we all know that the Clear Cooperation Policy has been a subject of debate ever since its introduction. While many recognize its importance in ensuring transparency and fair competition, there are growing voices in the industry pushing for its removal. Some argue that it restricts marketing strategies and limits the flexibility that sellers and agents need to navigate the market effectively. But is removing it really the answer? Or could thoughtful changes make the policy work better for everyone? Let’s break down the arguments against the policy, examine potential consequences if it were removed, and explore some solutions that could improve how the policy functions without dismantling it entirely. Arguments Against the Clear Cooperation Policy There are concerns that the Clear Cooperation Policy limits agents’ ability to market properties privately, often forcing listings onto the MLS too quickly. Some argue that this might prevent agents from fulfilling their fiduciary duty to sellers who prefer more discreet marketing strategies. Why the Policy Works: While it’s true that the policy requires publicly marketed listings to be added to the MLS within one business day, sellers still have the option to keep their property off the MLS under certain conditions. For example, office exclusives allow properties to be marketed privately within the brokerage, providing a balance between transparency and privacy. This option allows sellers to maintain discretion while still ensuring that the real estate market remains competitive and accessible. Proposed Solution: Increase Flexibility for Office Exclusives: One solution could be to allow limited marketing of office exclusive listings without triggering MLS requirements. For instance, agents could send private emails to select clients or advertise properties internally within the brokerage network. Examples of strategies agents could use: Private Marketing Within Brokerages: Listings could be shared internally without exposing the property to the general public. Limited Brokerage Website Listings: Properties could be featured on the brokerage’s internal platform with restricted access to select buyers. Invitation-Only Showings: Private, invitation-only events could allow select buyers to view the property without full MLS exposure. These approaches give sellers limited exposure while maintaining the privacy they desire. The Consequences of Removing the Policy Some industry leaders advocate for creating alternative real estate associations and dismantling the Clear Cooperation Policy altogether. While this idea might sound appealing, the reality is that it could lead to unintended and damaging consequences. What Would Happen if the Policy Were Eliminated? Increase in Pocket Listings: Without the policy, we could see a surge in pocket listings. This would reduce market transparency and limit the number of properties available to all buyers, creating a system that favors those with insider access. Disadvantaged Buyers: First-time homebuyers or underrepresented buyers could find themselves shut out of many listings without a central system like the MLS to ensure equal access. Market Fragmentation: The real estate market could fragment, with agents using a wide variety of disparate listing platforms. This would reduce competition, complicate the buying and selling process, and likely lower sale prices for sellers. In short, eliminating the policy could create confusion and inefficiency, hurting both buyers and sellers and undermining the integrity of the real estate market. What Removing the Policy Could Mean for Agents One of the primary concerns is that removing the Clear Cooperation Policy could lead to the emergence of hundreds of competing listing services, forcing agents, buyers, and sellers to navigate a tangled web of platforms. This would make the real estate industry more fragmented, increase operational inefficiencies, and drive up costs. Key Issues to Consider: Lack of Competition and Transparency: Without a centralized MLS, sellers could lose the competitive advantage of exposing their property to a broad audience, potentially resulting in fewer offers and lower sale prices. Confusion and Inefficiency: Multiple listing services across regions would make it harder for agents to manage listings and might require them to join several platforms, driving up operational costs and complicating their workflows. Addressing Realtor Costs: A Major Factor Driving Frustration One of the biggest reasons many agents are frustrated — and even considering leaving established associations like NAR — is the overwhelming cost of dues. Membership fees for national, state, and local boards, combined with the added expense of MLS fees, have left agents feeling financially burdened. This is especially true for agents working in multiple markets who are forced to pay for several local MLS systems. These rising costs are making the real estate industry harder to navigate and less financially sustainable for many professionals. A Key Driver for Change: Agents are tired of these ever-increasing dues, and this is one of the primary reasons they are pushing to get rid of the Clear Cooperation Policy and join new associations that promise lower fees. However, the real danger in getting rid of the policy is that it could result in the emergence of multiple new listing services, which would fragment the market even further. This would force agents to join and pay for numerous platforms, creating even more costs and confusion in the long run. Multiple fragmented services are not the answer to the problem. Why Can’t NAR Just Fix It? Rather than dismantling the Clear Cooperation Policy and creating chaos with multiple competing listing services, why can’t NAR simply address the core issue? Agents aren’t asking for the policy to be eliminated—they are asking for a system that makes financial sense. By consolidating MLS systems or offering one membership that covers more comprehensive services, NAR could drastically reduce the financial burden on agents, simplifying costs and maintaining market cohesion. Proposed Solutions: Consolidate MLS Systems: Creating a national MLS with a single membership fee would simplify the entire process and reduce costs for agents. This would eliminate the need to join multiple local MLS systems and ensure that all agents have equal access to listings across regions. Statewide MLS Systems: Another alternative is implementing one MLS per state, which would reduce the administrative and financial burden associated with maintaining numerous local MLS systems. This would allow agents to focus more on serving their clients rather than managing multiple memberships. In the end, fixing the system is the better path forward. Agents shouldn’t have to jump ship to new associations with promises of lower dues and more flexibility. If NAR can address these core issues—particularly the overwhelming cost of dues—it can keep agents happy, maintain a unified marketplace, and prevent the industry from splintering into confusing and costly competing services. The solution lies in reforming the current structure, not abandoning it. Additional Solutions to Improve the Clear Cooperation Policy Rather than eliminating the policy, there are several ways to enhance it to meet better the needs of agents, sellers, and the market: Extend the Time Frame for MLS Submission: Increase the submission window from one business day to two business days, giving agents more time. Expand Educational Efforts: Provide more training and resources for agents to understand better the benefits of the Clear Cooperation Policy and how to comply with it. Clarify Guidelines on “Public Marketing”: Narrow the definition of public marketing to clarify what constitutes a public promotion. For example, “coming soon” announcements could be excluded. Establish a Transparent Fine System: Create a uniform, tiered penalty system for policy violations, ensuring fair and consistent enforcement. Conclusion The Clear Cooperation Policy is essential to maintaining a transparent, competitive, and fair real estate market. While the policy has its critics, thoughtful modifications can address their concerns while preserving the benefits that make the policy valuable for agents, sellers, and buyers alike. By making these improvements, the policy can better serve the industry, ensuring that real estate transactions continue to be fair, efficient, and open to all.
Repealing would be a HUGE mistake – leaving consumers exposed to double-enders and getting poor or non-existent representation. The ridiculous uncoupling of the Buyer Broker Fee will already force some Buyers to forego representation in their most significant financial transaction in their lives.
Why would we tie all of the rules to MLS when clearly over 40+ percent of homes are sold “Off market”? This makes no sense for our sellers. The workarounds in place by large brokerages put the small brokerage firms at a distinct disadvantage. This is the least logical rule I think I’ve ever seen.
Clear cooperation is not always in the clients best interests
Clear Cooperation works against everything we strive for for our client’s best interest.
It’s a completely insane policy. It makes clients feel like they’re held hostage from communicating plans and timelines to friends/families. It’s also nearly impossible to “gag” someone from communicating they are putting their house on the market.
Yes
Get rid of it. Let sellers decide how they want their property marketed.
I do not want it to be repealed. It affords access to all agents. It serves the highest purpose to your seller client with the broadest exposure.
The availability of all listings to both consumers and Realtors is critical to a balanced industry and consumer protection.
Yes!
I don’t want it repealed, I want it enforced. We no longer enforce cooperation when the listing broker refuses to answer the amount of the buyer side commission in the listing agreement when they disclose a value over zero exists.
Nar has gone from our guardian to our prosecutor. The less they’re involved in the better.
In the luxury market that’s how many sellers want to discreetly sell their home. They should have the choice.
Clear cooperation limits the flexibility of representing my sellers to the best of my ability, based on their unique, custom needs when marketing their properties.
Clear cooperation is an oxymoron. Clear cooperation cannot exist when the policy excludes brokerage listings. It was created by the MLSs to preserve their jobs.
All it has done is create more paperwork and hassle. It has allowed “bully” agents to become violation police. There are agents that would withhold listings to try to sell themselves and that shouldn’t be allowed. However there are times when a seller thinks they will be ready and need more time and then the extra paperwork etc makes them nervous
How a home is marketed is the seller’s decision. Full stop.
Clear cooperation serves consumers and small brokerages. If repealed it would hurt consumers and small brokerages. I can already take a listing and not put it on the MLS or the internet. This is an obvious strategy to double end all transactions and build Compass into a bigger brokerage and help Mauricio Umansky capitalize on an antitrust private listing network that is also designed to pad his pocket and also to help him undermine N.A.R. And MLSs.
It prevents us (me) from doing what our clients ask us to do at times.
Don’t. This policy allows listings to be marketed to ALL consumers and generally helps the sellers get the most money for their sale. I think it helped get rid of “pocket listings” where unethical agents just wanted to double end and fill their pockets versus the fiduciary duty to their clients. We as realtors all have access to a form that allows the sellers to determine when to put “on market” versus just the one-day rule. There are times where the home needs cleaning or tenants are moved out, etc. Easy to accommodate your sellers wishes as to when to publicly market. Maybe the big brokerages just want to raise this issue so they can fill their pockets by double-ending. I think it’s sad where our industry is going.
I believe that Clear Cooperation brings transparency to the market. It serves all stakeholders very well (sellers, buyers, brokers, appraisers, lenders and more) by creating a transparent, nearly complete marketplace where all participants have the same access and the same data. I feel that repealing Clear Cooperation is a move that would benefit some brokers that feel their competitive edge exists in creating inventories of listings that the rest of the market does not access, and that this would lead to widespread situations of under-represented home sellers, who never get the benefit of fully testing their properties in the market in order to ascertain true value. Our industry already suffers from a perceived lack of mistrust by consumers, but our existing system of cooperation aids the effort to combat it and it would be a massive step backward to end Clear Cooperation.
Having presented the alternative of private exclusives to all of our clients, all have liked the option that THEY get to make, especially during the pandemic. We don’t practice dual agency, so this isn’t about “double siding” a deal – it’s about giving options to our seller clients and they get to choose what’s best for them. Period.
It should be the sellers choice how to make their property
Repealed! It is up to the Seller how they want to market and sell their home not NAR.
I think it’s transparency and a good thing
How a home is marketed is at the discretion of the Seller, not NAR. Once they are presented with different marketing strategies the owner of the property has the right to use that one that is most favorable to them.
It interferes with sellers choices
It should be in place, period. The consumers have the right to know how the money is distributed.
It is in the seller’s best interest..consider changing the one day to approximately 7 days.
It will harm buyers who won’t think they need representation. The liability for both the Agent and the Seller seem to be increased as the buyer is now at a “Buyer Beware” status. If material damage is sought, it will be much easier to go after the represented party
I can’t imagine a seller not wanting their property to go on Zillow and the other feeds through the IDX via the multiple listing service. I’m sure there are exceptions for exclusive clients but that option already exists in the listing paperwork. No seller is required to market their property publically. Seems like a lot of noise.
Things aren’t meant to be “fair” for Realtors. They need to be fair for consumers
I do not want it repealed
Access to ALL listings for consumers! Comes only through clear cooperation
I believe it should be repealed. Years ago we were able to have open listings – with the recent changes in favor of client flexibility and choice this should be one more option of how to market and sell their property.
I do want it to be repealed.
I want the CCP to be repealed

What did we miss? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.