This report is available exclusively to subscribers of Inman Intel, the data and research arm of Inman offering deep insights and market intelligence on the business of residential real estate and proptech. Subscribe today.
Compass CEO Robert Reffkin is the latest prominent real estate figure seeking to persuade the industry to plot a path forward without Clear Cooperation, the rule that has helped put the industry’s largest trade group in the crosshairs of the Department of Justice.
But the rest of the industry isn’t exactly lining up behind him.
By a nearly 3-to-1 margin, agents and brokerage leaders who responded to November’s Intel Index survey signaled support for the National Association of Realtors’ policy, even as many withheld approval from the beleaguered trade association itself.
For the most part, real estate professionals told Intel they still see the appeal of a policy that results in more listings reaching the MLS.
Still, Reffkin and others like him are tapping into very real frustrations with how the policy can tie the hands of some clients — which many agents, including some who support the policy, acknowledge as a real downside.
And agents from one popular type of brokerage in particular are especially receptive to these criticisms, Intel found.
Read the full breakdown in this week’s report.
Embattled, but popular
Of the 715 brokerage professionals — including agents, brokers, executives and investors — who replied to Intel’s November survey, a sizable majority rallied behind the policy.
- 65 percent of all agent and brokerage leader respondents said Clear Cooperation is good for the industry, vs. 22 percent who said it’s bad for the industry and 13 percent who had no opinion.
The brokerage world is also largely of the opinion that this policy — which requires all listings to be placed on the MLS within one business day of being marketed — makes clients better off as well.
- 63 percent of all respondents said the policy was good for clients, vs. 24 percent who said it’s bad for clients and 13 percent who had no opinion.
Most real estate professionals held a consistent opinion of the policy — that it either benefits both the industry and consumers, or that it’s harmful to both.
But some were split on this question.
- 7 percent of respondents believe the policy is good for the industry, but bad for consumers.
- A mere 4 percent said that the policy is bad for the industry, but benefits consumers.
Still, despite this broad support, Intel’s survey found that many supporters of Clear Cooperation were at least partly conflicted, acknowledging that they found some arguments against it to be persuasive.
Cracks in the foundation?
Agents and brokerage leaders held mostly similar perspectives on the policy.
But Intel found that agent respondents, who work more closely with clients, are more sensitive to Clear Cooperation’s downsides — especially for consumers.
- 27 percent of agents said Clear Cooperation is bad for clients, compared to 19 percent of brokerage leaders who said the same.
- A relatively small majority of agents — 57 percent — said the policy was good for clients, compared to 76 percent of brokerage leaders.
And Intel found that agents who opposed the policy were more likely to work with brokerages like Reffkin’s: large, publicly traded real estate firms that don’t franchise as part of their business model.
Breakdown: Agents who say CCP is good for clients
- 44 percent — franchise brokerage
- 14 percent — publicly traded non-franchise
- 42 percent — private indie
Breakdown: Agents who say CCP is bad for clients
- 27 percent — franchise brokerage
- 36 percent — publicly traded non-franchise
- 37 percent — private indie
Whether agents with publicly traded independent brokerages were taking their lead from Reffkin, or simply more inclined to prefer that approach to the brokerage, is not clear from these survey results alone.
But what is clear is that there’s a split brewing on Clear Cooperation between the larger traditional franchises and the bigger firms that eschew the franchising approach.
Why most agents back Clear Cooperation — and some don’t
Agents and brokerage leaders also told Intel what arguments related to Clear Cooperation — both for and against the policy — were most convincing to them.
In the “for” category, agents were broadly swayed by the positive impacts related to having information about more listings available to them in their MLS.
Arguments in favor of CCP that agents and brokerage leaders broadly found persuasive:
- The policy ensures more listings reach the MLS — 60 percent agreed
- It results in better data about my local market — 59 percent
- It enables more comprehensive public data to inform client decisions — 56 percent
- It promotes transparency around the home transaction in a way that benefits the industry — 55 percent
- It promotes transparency around the home transaction in a way that benefits consumers — 51 percent
These arguments were more persuasive to real estate professionals than other, more abstract ones.
Survey respondents were not generally moved by the argument made by some proponents that the policy helps prevent discrimination and fair-housing violations, for example.
And though roughly half of agents agreed that promoting transparency and enabling more comprehensive data is good for the consumer, they reached less of a consensus on the issue than brokerage leaders did.
Notably, most agents in particular rejected the idea — a bit more popular among broker-owners and executives — that pocket listings are not an effective tactic for clients in most cases.
- Only 33 percent of agents surveyed in November agreed with the statement that pocket listings are not a generally effective tactic, compared to 50 percent of brokerage leaders.
- As many as 38 percent of agents said they agreed that one downside to Clear Cooperation is that the policy significantly limits pocket listings, even when that strategy might be in a client’s best interest. Only 33 percent of brokerage leaders shared that sentiment.
Even though the Clear Cooperation Policy continues to enjoy broad support, the Intel Index results showed that many arguments against the rule resonated with real estate professionals as valid critiques.
Unsurprisingly, agents were particularly sensitive to the idea that big listing portals were benefiting from the policy even more than the brokerage industry is.
Arguments against CCP that agents and brokerage leaders were most receptive to:
- The policy benefits listing portals like Zillow more than it helps brokers and agents — 42 percent agreed
- It is difficult to enforce fairly and consistently — 38 percent
- It significantly limits pocket listings, even when the strategy might be in a client’s best interest — 36 percent
- It has attracted unwanted attention from the Department of Justice — 36 percent
- It requires clients to have their home ready for full market exposure before gauging interest from buyers — 33 percent
- It benefits the MLS more than it helps brokers and agents — 30 percent
Methodology notes: This month’s Inman Intel Index survey was conducted Nov. 18-Dec. 4, 2024, and had received 751 responses. The entire Inman reader community was invited to participate, and a rotating, randomized selection of community members was prompted to participate by email. Users responded to a series of questions related to their self-identified corner of the real estate industry — including real estate agents, brokerage leaders, lenders and proptech entrepreneurs. Results reflect the opinions of the engaged Inman community, which may not always match those of the broader real estate industry. This survey is conducted monthly.
