Clear Cooperation, Pixar, and Compass Private Exclusives
BFFR, everyone. BFFR.
Newsroom
“Clear Cooperation” is the new big thing in the real-estate-antitrust-DOJ space. It is a NAR policy, which means it is most relevant to non-NYC real estate, since REBNY governs more of the city than NAR and has its own policies. But it’s important, even if you live in NYC, because the fight will have broad impacts, and NYC brokerages are deeply involved.
What is it? Clear Cooperation mandates that when an agent who is a member of NAR (decided at a brokerage/market level, not individually at this time) begins marketing a property, they must put it on the MLS within 24 hours so it is shared across all brokerages and (sometimes) aggregators like Zillow. They cannot keep it as a “pocket listing” internal to their brokerage for more than one day. This has always been a contentious policy, and now, under DOJ scrutiny, the industry is fighting it out.
Note: We actually have a reverse sorta version of this in NYC where StreetEasy/Zillow insist you list on their site(s) within 24 hours of launching on RLS/MLS or they will block it from their site in perpetuity.
Are there exceptions? Yes: commercial properties, rentals, and new development (with multiple units under one listing agreement).
Where do I stand? I’m the first to critique orgs like REBNY and NAR for demanding dues and then using the money to do questionable things. But I see NAR’s argument here and think that allowing pocket listings could be problematic given the recent commission structure changes. And I think that most agents and sellers have no idea what any of this means, so I am not particularly moved by what they say they want. And I think brokerage heads/aggregators may mislead to push their own agendas, on both sides. I like how Brian Boero put it: “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” I actually like a lot of what he says here; I only found his post after writing my own.
Detractors see “clear cooperation” as forcing sellers to accrue days on market and sell their property in a specific way, removing their right (and the right of their agent) to choose how a home is marketed. They also claim it opens the industry up to more litigation/scrutiny from DOJ.
Champions see it as a way to ensure that individual brokerages don’t keep their listings private to themselves, something that disadvantages smaller agencies or those without central offices. Only showing listings to buyers who hire agents from a specific brokerage (or can otherwise find these homes through private networks) could violate fair housing law and harm buyers without significant capital. It could open the door for discrimination.
I can definitively say that removing Clear Cooperation would disadvantage smaller firms and limit what buyers are able to see unless they’re incredibly savvy and/or hire an agent from a specific firm.
Now that sellers aren’t in charge of buy-side commission, a company could demand high % commission agreements with buyers if said buyers want to view these private listings (which would be allowed; within-firm policy is not a violation of antitrust). The more pocket listings, the more they’re able to charge for access to those listings, and the more agents/listings they will bring in. Maybe this is the flywheel we heard so much about.
These facts, along with other buyer access issues, have me on the side of keeping/modifying the policy rather than removing it.
And look, I’ll get pretty in the weeds on this with Compass because I know the company well and they’re one of the loudest anti-Clear Cooperation voices, but I think that everyone in this situation has a motive, including me, which is why I’ve provided the links below.
BFFR!
Neutral: Plummeting Support for NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy
Should NAR Modify Clear Cooperation Policy? WAV Group Releases Study Findings
Pro: Don’t End Clear Cooperation
Con: The battle lines have been drawn (scroll down)
Watchlist
The only things I watched this week were Inside Out 2 and Soul, which don’t have obvious real estate angles. However, they do both have a clear anxiety angle, which I feel is relevant given the temperament of many agents (myself included).
Soul also has a whole “growing up in NYC” flashback that I find incredibly cute, and they do a great job of portraying the city in general. I love that movie. Watch it. Watch it now.
And apparently Inside Out 2 was “too gay” for the network executives despite being not at all gay — other than the fact that the main character is a middle school girl playing hockey.
BFFR, network heads!
The Socials
Robert Reffkin is the CEO/co-founder of Compass, where I spent the first six years of my career. So I have a bit of insight into this post he shared coming out strong against clear cooperation.
As some commenters pointed out, one of Compass’s main selling points — to the agents it recruits and the clients who work with said agents — is the “Coming Soon”/”Private Exclusive” feature where they can share listings exclusively to other Compass agents rather than the full market,