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.
Agents can’t agree on Clear Cooperation.
Real estate professionals have a lot of thoughts about whether the National Association of Realtors should keep, change or repeal a policy that seeks to prevent private listings by requiring brokers to provide listing data to their multiple listing services within one business day of marketing the property.
FIND OUT WHAT READERS SAY ABOUT CLEAR COOPERATION
The rule, known as the Clear Cooperation Policy, was first enacted in 2020. Four years later, titans of the industry have launched an all-out battle over the future of the policy. It is under scrutiny by the Department of Justice and, more recently, by industry players themselves.
Compass and Anywhere are the biggest players lobbying NAR to repeal the policy, while Zillow and Redfin make up the largest groups to publicly defend it.
Inman asked its readers last week to weigh in on what they thought about the policy and whether it should be kept in place, tweaked or repealed outright. The outlet received nearly eight dozen responses from agents and brokers who had a lot to say.
On the whole, more readers said NAR should repeal the policy, calling it anti-competitive, difficult to enforce and ineffective.
Sixty-six respondents took a clear side in favor of keeping or repealing the CCP. Of those, 40 were in favor of outright repeal.
WHERE THE MAJOR PLAYERS STAND ON CLEAR COOPERATION
Twenty-six respondents were in favor of keeping the policy in place, with some saying the policy helps to prevent housing discrimination among agents and consumers, and others saying repealing CCP would benefit the largest players in the industry at the expense of smaller, independent businesses.
The responses, while informal, provide some insight into why a NAR committee tasked with updating the rules that govern the industry initially balked at making a decision in September.
The answers show why Clear Cooperation, just the latest major policy debate for an industry that feels like it’s under siege, is the latest issue to divide the real estate community against itself.
All those in favor of repeal
Readers were split about who would benefit most if Clear Cooperation was repealed. Some said that big brokerages were already at an advantage over small and independent ones, and others said that big brokerages would benefit most if Clear Cooperation was repealed.
“The workarounds in place by large brokerages put the small brokerage firms at a distinct disadvantage,” one reader wrote. “This is the least logical rule I think I’ve ever seen.”
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR SEPTEMBER
Another reader wrote that the biggest businesses were already capable of skirting the rule and therefore that it should be repealed to make things fair for smaller businesses.
“Some clients want their property to be marketed privately for many reasons,” the reader wrote. “The workarounds big brokerages use to get around Clear Cooperation are not possible for small brokerages or sole proprietors, leaving an unleveled playing field.”
Many of those who were in favor of repeal appeared unaware that Clear Cooperation allows sellers who don’t want their listing publicly marketed on the MLS or a portal like Zillow could waive the requirement.
Among the repeal camp, there was a relatively clear consensus that the policy removes consumer choice from the equation, creating potential issues for sellers who might not want their properties publicly listed.
“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,” one reader wrote. “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.”
On the whole, the group in favor of repeal seemed to believe the industry would find balance on its own if the Clear Cooperation Policy was repealed.
All opposed
On the other hand, agents can’t agree on whether Clear Cooperation is in the best interest of seller clients. Those in favor of repealing the policy said some clients might prefer less exposure for their listing, while others said the policy helped lead to higher sales prices.
“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,” one reader wrote. “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.”
A relative handful of responses pointed out that Clear Cooperation helped to tamp down discrimination.
“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,” the reader wrote. “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 unthoughtfulness. 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.”
Others feared that repealing the policy outright would lead to multiple new listing services that would fragment the industry further and potentially drive up the costs of doing business.
At the end of the day, another reader wrote, they’d just like to see the existing policy work as intended.
And like many others, there was a tinge of resentment about the recent changes brought on by NAR’s agreement to settle the antitrust litigation targeting the industry.
“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.”
In the weeds (and potential fixes)
A group of respondents told Inman that things are far from cut-and-dry, and help to highlight the quagmire the industry faces as it gears up for a potential vote on the matter in October.
Their answers also included a handful of changes that some said could be made to improve the policy, if it’s kept in place.
One reader left a 1,280-word response that would be equivalent to a lengthy Inman article. They provided a nuanced view on the matter.
“Some argue that it restricts marketing strategies and limits the flexibility that sellers and agents need to navigate the market effectively,” the reader said. “But is removing it really the answer? Or could thoughtful changes make the policy work better for everyone?”
The lengthy response included a handful of potential changes that some readers said could improve the policy and address opponents’ concerns while fostering a competitive marketplace.
- Allow office-exclusive listings without triggering the MLS requirement
- Invitation-only showings
- Consolidate MLS systems, including creating statewide systems
- Lower dues
- Expand the Clear Cooperation requirement from one business day to two
Others offered their own specific reforms that NAR could consider.
“If the seller doesn’t want people coming into their home because of health issues, this should be an exception,” another reader wrote. “If the seller has some kind of notoriety, there should be an exception.”
