Pulse is a recurring column where we ask for readers’ takes on the hot topics of the week and report back with your feedback.
Following months of feverish debate, the National Association of Realtors announced Tuesday it will uphold Clear Cooperation while adding “delayed marketing exempt listings” in an effort to allow homeowners greater flexibility to decide how to market their homes. The length of time in which homes stay off the market will be determined by individual multiple listing services.
TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR MARCH
“The new policy does not change an MLS’s local mandatory submission deadlines or CCP and its requirement to file a listing with the MLS within one (1) business day from public marketing,” NAR said in its statement. NAR also released an FAQ to answer questions about the new policy.
Now that NAR has made its decision, we asked: How do you feel about NAR’s amended policy? What’s your take?
Here’s what you had to say:
For the change
- Great decision. This was all BS and a ploy for Compass to continue their secret inventory in an effort to gain market share, cheat sellers out of their money and facilitate more off-market deals. Robert Reffkin needs to go back to Wall Street and take his antics out of real estate. He is very transparent in what he’s trying to accomplish: Dual agency only, and he’s NOT for the public or seller … only his profits.
- It’s fine. I’m curious to see how days on market are handled by the third parties when they finally receive listings that weren’t initially shared. This is good for small brokerages. And perhaps for some sellers?
- I’m very happy and relieved that they kept CCP, although I wish they had dumped the office exclusive carve out.
- I am a strong believer in the CCP. Sellers get the highest price for their properties by giving them maximum exposure. The great majority of Realtors who don’t support it are putting their best interests ahead of their clients, which is shameful. It only makes sense to not get maximum exposure in very isolated instances that are very much exceptions.
- It was the best decision to keep the Clear Cooperation Policy.
- Far preferable than if they did away with it so that Compass and the other large brokerages could hold all the listings in-house, which does not serve the public.
- I feel that it’s a workable solution.
- Good decision by NAR to keep CCP, but give sellers this option to delay putting it on MLS. I do think it’s best for consumers to have a main IDX, but if sellers prefer to sell it more niche or exclusive, they have that opportunity now. And I do agree with a disclosure to the seller, noting that by not putting the listing on an IDX, you could be limiting the eyeballs on the property. I do think a world where consumers have to think about which sites to go to just to find other listings would be confusing for buyers, and therefore, limit a listing’s exposure. Having everything in an IDX helps with research for comps, trends and other real estate statistics. That is very important to have a good, main source, and that’s what local MLSs provide. Good job, NAR.
- I totally believe in CCP and think that the only people who benefit from Compass CEO’s views are shareholders and private equity. Very glad NAR found a workable solution.
- Happy about it.
- Great decision, but that said, delayed listings are already being abused.
Against the change
- Annoyed.
- It was unconstitutional from the start. Thus, “…consistent with the seller’s needs and interests.” Three-way agreements need to go!
- It’s a bumbled mess and will be totally confusing as the rules for MLSs all vary. We do need to stop the fraud where some brokerages just want to double-end for the full commission and do not care about sellers or the public. You know who you are.
- NAR caved in to large brokers.
- I am for the past policy.
- Don’t like it.
- Ambiguous, self-serving for Realtors and NAR. The homeseller comes in a distant third like a poor cousin hoping for leftovers. If the idea is the highest price, how is XYZ Realty holding the listing just for its Realtors to try to double-end transaction benefitting the seller?
- I think it’s a bad idea.
- Listen to the public. This is crazy.
- I was hoping NAR would improve with new decision-makers. Guess not!
Confused by the change
- Confused!
- It’s so confusing. I literally have no idea what the policy is. They are complete idiots.
- I think it overcomplicated the issue.
- I feel it will add more confusion for our sellers. Why would you introduce something new like this? This is ridiculous. The one-day rule is not easy to adhere to and should be changed.
Other thoughts
- No real change.
- I have always believed that we got to CCP because of agents who did not share listings with others. The industry, as typical, punished the vast majority of agents who were doing the right thing. The consumer should always have the right to sell the property they own the way they want to sell the property they own as per the state statutes. No organization should “force” anyone to sell a certain way. In fact, NAR’s own policy on CCP shares why people may want to sell off-market. Again, the problem was agents and brokers not sharing those listings, which is against the Code of Ethics. And the code says nothing about cooperation being just for properties on an MLS.
- Unless we want all of the small brokerages to disappear, we need CCP.
- It’s good that NAR acknowledges that there is a valid issue (little win). And that there is more flexibility for sellers. Plus, getting decisions made at the local level is almost always best. However, NAR needs to get out of mandating business practices and re-assume its appropriate role as an advocate for all real estate practitioners — seller and buyer agents, etc.
- This is a milquetoast attempt to appease an increasingly disparate industry. NAR has managed to avoid leading or following and established itself as being firmly in the way. Markets, customers and brokerages are diverse with local norms and expectations. Brokerages must be allowed to innovate and risk the rise and fall that comes with free markets. Clear Cooperation in practice is good for consumers, but consumers must be the ones to realize and benefit from that. Restricting consumer choice stifles market evolution. Attempting to mother both customers and brokerages very simply leads to inevitable angsty rebellion.
- I feel NAR missed an opportunity to make CCP a meaningful policy. The MLS is a powerful market enhancer that sellers will willingly choose to use. CCP could have been used to strengthen data integrity focusing on sales data being entered into the MLS despite being sold on- or off-market. Sellers should be opting into the MLS, not being sold on opting out.
- Keeping Clear Cooperation but allowing the seller to delay entry to the various portals was a reasonable accommodation; however, allowing the local MLS to determine the length of time for a delay is just punting the decision, ultimately not addressing the decision
- The Delayed Marketing Exempt Listing idea is an interesting one, but I feel like most MLSs already have the ability to not send listings to portals and IDX feeds, so it doesn’t necessarily do anything new. Additionally, not addressing the office exclusive is disheartening. NAR didn’t let this be a discussion in committee or actively reach out to the associations or members for feedback. They decided this as a small group and didn’t think about the impacts around the country. Definitely a step back in their efforts at transparency. I’m disappointed in NAR and will find it hard to defend.
- I think most of the time it costs sellers money when they don’t open their homes up to a general population.
- A step in the right direction, but CCP will ultimately end up going away. Why have any gray areas for attorneys to go after for future settlements? Makes no sense.
- A step in the right direction but still not enough.
- I am writing to formally express my deep concern regarding the recently announced “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy, which took effect March 25, 2025. While I appreciate the stated intent of providing consumers with flexibility, I believe this change is a misstep that undermines the very foundation of what sets Realtors apart: cooperation, transparency and advocacy for the public interest. Who asked for this? There has been no clear indication that this policy reflects actual consumer demand. The policy appears to be a strategic concession to larger brokerages rather than a response to any widespread need among everyday sellers. I question whether this change was driven by seller feedback at all — or instead by pressure from industry players who benefit from controlling listing exposure. A threat to cooperation and the Realtor brand: The strength of our profession — and the primary distinction between Realtors and licensees — has always been our commitment to cooperative marketing and open access to inventory. Even as the traditional compensation structure is changing, cooperation remains our ethical cornerstone. By allowing listings to be withheld from the MLS under the guise of “seller flexibility,” this new policy incentivizes exclusive in-house marketing, reduces market transparency, and threatens the integrity of the Clear Cooperation Policy, which was created to serve the public and ensure a level playing field. A Trojan Horse for Broker Exclusivity Let’s be candid: This policy benefits large firms that can build internal buyer pipelines, monopolize listing exposure, and eventually reduce their reliance on MLS systems altogether. Once those brokerages normalize this strategy with sellers, there will be little incentive to maintain NAR membership or MLS participation. Ironically, a policy meant to retain these brokerages could end up accelerating their departure from the Realtor community. A call for reconsideration: As a Realtor, broker and advocate, I urge NAR and local MLS leadership to: Provide data showing the consumer demand behind this policy; engage membership in transparent discussions before future major policy shifts; and, most importantly, reaffirm our profession’s commitment to cooperation and transparency, even in a changing landscape. This is not just about listings — it’s about who we are as Realtors and what we promise to the public. I fear this change may be the beginning of the end of what made NAR truly different.
Editor’s note: These responses were given anonymously and, therefore, are not attributed to anyone specifically. Responses were also edited for grammar and clarity. Inman doesn’t endorse any specific method and regulations may vary from state to state.
What did we miss? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.
