When I attended the National Real Estate Conference last month, a clear cooperative policy (a provision requiring that it be made public to MLS within 24 hours of real estate marketing) emerged as a hot button issue, as expected. At one point, the poll asked hundreds of people in their audience: “What do you think about clear cooperation? 1) support it, 2) eliminate it, 3) I don’t understand it, or 4) I have no opinion.”
On the other hand, I wanted to see the results. After all, this is the loudest voice-controlled issue in the room, mostly executives of major companies and brokerage companies. It’s easy to lose contact with things that are important to those who are far closer to the buying and selling process. After all, the majority of the audience supported clear cooperation.
On the other hand, I was frustrated to see it being presented again as a binary choice. What was it still? Missing was a centrist option. This is a thoughtful revision of the policy that will serve the best interests of consumers and real estate agents. In an industry that focuses on people like this, perfect for all, why is we trying to force a one-size-fits-all solution that lacks flexibility and transparency to those who are supposed to be affected by it? Is that the case?
With all this attention to the rules of the past year, I think the discussion has evolved to explain problem-solving and compromise in the housing industry, which is facing a crisis of supply, affordability and trust. Masu. You hope that there may be a dialogue that balances the need to maintain broad transparency in the sales market with very real concerns about seller flexibility. Not that much. There were many critics, but little effort was made to find a common basis.
Consumers and agents deserve solutions rather than self-interest
I’ve been speaking up about it Anywhere We believe that we should reform rather than abolish the rules, and issues with important potential for more leaders in our industry to participate in good dialogue and change the march of housing deals. I was hoping to hit a balanced result for. Instead, the conversation is twisted and distorted, and often serves the self-interest of those siding in one extreme.
Instead of discussing potential compromises like a 1-3 week grace period to post on MLS, abolitionists say how policies sell by showing market day and price reductions I hit the drums to see if it hurt. However, these same companies show data about their lists because their data is important to potential buyers.
Instead of talking about solutions, We have seen the same supporters who imply that sellers are stupid distorted the point of a distorted story, as introducing exceptions to real-life situations that justify the privacy of larger sellers. Ta it’s not Test the properties in a private listing network. Data shows that MLS listings usually lead to a selling price of 15% or more.
And instead of pondering the center When it comes to providing sellers with the vast amount of real estate information flexibility they need to display on their list, certain companies are saying they will benefit their businesses at the expense of their already struggling consumer base. You are trying to focus your list for a clear purpose. High prices and low stocks not to mention the potential impact on agents if a particular broker is trying to stock up on the list.
Abolition supporters aren’t the only ones that are restraining progress. There are many clear, supportive absolutists who refuse to defend the greater flexibility of sellers, ignoring the fact that the overly restrictive nature of rules is a problem for our industry.
If we want results that really balance the needs of agents and consumers, we’re not going the right way about it. More brokers, agents and industry leaders should take part in the wise halfway point, especially if we want to maintain a clear collaboration aspect that will help us become the most transparent housing market in the world .
Otherwise, if this continues to be framed as a binary choice, then it is not surprising that NAR chooses one side.
Sue Yannaccone is president and CEO of Anywhere Brands and Anewhere Advisors.
