The other day I posted some Unsolicited Advice About Clear Cooperation and, in this post, I want to follow-up on my promise to address some of the tired arguments trotted out in favor or against Clear Cooperation. Here we go:
- Sellers Want Privacy — Sure, some incredibly tiny fraction of sellers do, and, as James Dwiggins advocates, they should have it. However, the truth is that the vast, vast majority of sellers expect to see their listings on the popular portals and, when they don’t show or don’t show correctly, they are quick to call their agent and the agent calls the MLS to find out what the problem is. And I’m not talking about the general question of when the listing simply is missing entirely. These days, consumers expect real-time listings, which is one of the reasons that’s been a priority for FBS. If a listing isn’t updated nearly immediately on all the popular portals, our MLS customers hear about it, immediately. So, the idea that sellers want to wait days and days for their listings to show up on those portals is some fanciful thinking. I can just hear the phones ringing right now . . .
- Off-MLS Listings Is A National Problem — Private listings certainly have been a trend in many markets but the truth is that they are much more substantial in some markets than others. It is true that most markets across the country have been seller markets for the last decade or more, which exacerbates the prevalence of private listings (and FSBOs), but this isn’t equally true in all markets across the country and so the problem isn’t the same in all markets. Having been in the industry for decades, there usually are business cycles that make alternatives to the MLS (FSBO, exclusive listings, etc.) more or less popular, but those cycles come and go and the long-term benefits of the MLS remain.
- Without CCP, Big Brokers Will Wipe Out Small Brokers — If this were true, wouldn’t it have happened already? First, CCP has only been around since May of 2020, so why didn’t the big brokers wipe out the small ones before then? Were they less competitive or less knowledgeable and only now realized they could wipe out competitors without the MLS? Or why does CCP keep them from wiping them out today? The truth is that there are many MLS markets where there are dominant (I’m talking 30-40% market share in some cases) and they still participate in the MLS. Why? Because they know it benefits their customers. Could they pull out of the MLS and likely beat up on some of their competitors? Sure, but they don’t because it’s not a completely zero sum game and the overall stronger market from the MLS lifts all boats enough to justify the cooperation.
- Days on Market Should Be Hidden — This is the most bizarre claim of all. Of course, I get it, sellers get nervous when their house stays on the market too long and, certainly, there are bargain hunters out there that will search for listings that have been on the market too long. But the idea that hiding that data is going to change the overall market price for that property is just silly. To the contrary, showing the days on market will drive more traffic to laggard listings that will help price discovery, because the primary reason properties stay on the market too long is that they’re over-priced. Getting some offers will help discover the market price, and days on market can help bring offers to listings that are sitting on the market without them.
These are the big ones but I’m sure I’m missing some other arguments, so let me know your thoughts in the comments.