When I attended a national real estate conference last month, the Clear Cooperation Policy — the provision requiring listings to be published on the MLS within 24 hours of marketing a property — predictably surfaced as a hot-button issue. At one point, a poll asked the hundreds in the audience: “What are your thoughts on Clear Cooperation? 1) Support it, 2) Eliminate it, 3) I don’t understand it, or 4) I have no opinion.”
On the one hand, I was eager to see the results. After all, this has been an issue dominated by the loudest voices in the room, most of them executives for major corporations and brokerages. It’s easy to lose touch with what matters to the people that are much closer to the buying and selling process. As it turned out, a significant majority of the audience favored Clear Cooperation.
On the other, I was frustrated to see it presented yet again as a binary choice. What was still missing was an option for a middle road — a thoughtful revision of the policy that serves the best interests of consumers and real estate agents. In such a people-focused industry that’s never been one-size-fits-all, why are we trying to force a one-size-fits-all solution that lacks flexibility and transparency for the people that stand to be impacted by it?
With all this attention on the rule over the past year – in a housing industry that’s facing crises of supply, affordability and trust – you’d think that the debate might have evolved to account for some problem-solving and compromise. You’d hope that the dialogue might spring ideas that offer some balance between the very real concerns for seller flexibility with the need to preserve broad transparency in the for-sale market. Not so much; there’s been lots of punditry, but little effort to find common ground.
Consumers and agents deserve solutions over self-interest
I have been vocal about the Anywhere stance that we should reform, rather than repeal the rule, and hoped that more leaders in our industry would join a good-faith dialogue to strike a balanced result for an issue that has significant potential to change how housing transactions are done. Instead, the conversation has been twisted and contorted, often to serve the self-interest of those that are siding with one of the extremes.
Instead of discussing a potential compromise like a one-to-three-week grace period for posting to an MLS, we’ve seen the repeal proponents bang the drum about how the policy hurts sellers by showing days-on-market and price reductions. Yet, those same companies show that data on their own listings (as they should, since that data is important information to potential buyers).
Instead of talking about solutions, like introducing exceptions for real-life circumstances that would justify greater seller privacy, we’ve seen those same proponents spout skewed talking points implying that a seller would be foolish not to test the property in their private listing network — even though data shows that listing on an MLS typically leads to upwards of 15% higher sale prices.
And, instead of contemplating a middle ground about providing sellers with flexibility for the expansive amount of property information they’re required to display on a listing, certain companies are simply trying to concentrate listings for the express purpose of benefitting their business — at the expense of a consumer base that is already struggling with high prices and low inventory, not to mention the potential impact to agents if certain brokerages are attempting to hoard listings.
It’s not just the repeal proponents that are stifling progress, either. There are numerous Clear Cooperation absolutists that refuse to advocate for greater flexibility for the seller, ignoring the fact that the overly restrictive nature of the rule is a problem for our industry.
If we want an outcome that truly balances the needs of agents and consumers, we aren’t going about it the right way. More brokers, agents, and industry leaders must join us on the sensible middle ground, especially if we want to preserve the aspects of Clear Cooperation that help make ours the most transparent housing market in the world.
Otherwise, if this continues to be framed as a binary choice, we can’t be surprised if NAR chooses one side — one that likely won’t be best for everyday people.
Sue Yannaccone is President and CEO of Anywhere Brands and Anywhere Advisors.
