Whether it’s refining your business model, mastering new technologies, or discovering strategies to capitalize on the next market surge, Inman Connect New York will prepare you to take bold steps forward. The Next Chapter is about to begin. Be part of it. Join us and thousands of real estate leaders Jan. 22-24, 2025.
As real estate professionals, we all know that the Clear Cooperation Policy has been a subject of debate ever since its introduction. While many recognize its importance in ensuring transparency and fair competition, there are growing voices in the industry pushing for its removal.
Some argue it restricts marketing strategies and limits the flexibility that sellers and agents need to navigate the market effectively. But is removing it really the answer? Or could thoughtful changes make the policy work better for everyone?
Let’s break down the arguments against the policy, examine potential consequences if it were removed, and explore some solutions that could improve how the policy functions without dismantling it entirely.
Arguments against Clear Cooperation
There are concerns that the Clear Cooperation Policy limits agents’ ability to market properties privately, often forcing listings onto the MLS too quickly. Some argue that this might prevent agents from fulfilling their fiduciary duty to sellers who prefer more discreet marketing strategies.
Why the policy works
While it’s true that the policy requires publicly marketed listings to be added to the MLS within one business day, sellers still have the option to keep their property off the MLS under certain conditions.
For example, office exclusives allow properties to be marketed privately within the brokerage, providing a balance between transparency and privacy. This option allows sellers to maintain discretion while still ensuring that the real estate market remains competitive and accessible.
Proposed solution
Increase flexibility for office exclusives: One solution could be to allow limited marketing of office-exclusive listings without triggering MLS requirements. For instance, agents could send private emails to select clients or advertise properties internally within the brokerage network.
Examples of strategies agents could use:
- Private marketing within brokerages: Listings could be shared internally without exposing the property to the general public.
- Limited brokerage website listings: Properties could be featured on the brokerage’s internal platform with restricted access to select buyers.
- Invitation-only showings: Private, invitation-only events could allow select buyers to view the property without full MLS exposure.
These approaches give sellers limited exposure while maintaining the privacy they desire.
Consequences of removing the policy
Some industry leaders advocate for creating alternative real estate associations and dismantling the Clear Cooperation policy altogether. While this idea might sound appealing, the reality is that it could lead to unintended and damaging consequences.
What would happen if the policy were eliminated?
Increase in pocket listings: Without the policy, we could see a surge in pocket listings. This would reduce market transparency and limit the number of properties available to all buyers, creating a system that favors those with insider access.
Disadvantaged buyers: First-time homebuyers or underrepresented buyers could find themselves shut out of many listings without a central system like the MLS to ensure equal access.
Market fragmentation: The real estate market could fragment, with agents using a wide variety of disparate listing platforms. This would reduce competition, complicate the buying and selling process, and likely lower sale prices for sellers.
In short, eliminating the policy could create confusion and inefficiency, hurting both buyers and sellers and undermining the integrity of the real estate market.
What removing the policy could mean for agents
One of the primary concerns is that removing the Clear Cooperation Policy could lead to the emergence of hundreds of competing listing services, forcing agents, buyers and sellers to navigate a tangled web of platforms. This would make the real estate industry more fragmented, increase operational inefficiencies, and drive up costs.
Key issues to consider
Lack of competition and transparency: Without a centralized MLS, sellers could lose the competitive advantage of exposing their property to a broad audience, potentially resulting in fewer offers and lower sale prices.
Confusion and inefficiency: Multiple listing services across regions would make it harder for agents to manage listings and might require them to join several platforms, driving up operational costs and complicating their workflows.
Addressing Realtor costs: A major factor driving frustration
One of the biggest reasons many agents are frustrated — and even considering leaving established associations like NAR — is the overwhelming cost of dues. Membership fees for national, state and local boards, combined with the added expense of MLS fees, have left agents feeling financially burdened.
This is especially true for agents working in multiple markets who are forced to pay for several local MLS systems. These rising costs are making the real estate industry harder to navigate and less financially sustainable for many professionals.
A key driver for change
Agents are tired of these ever-increasing dues, and this is one of the primary reasons they are pushing to get rid of the Clear Cooperation Policy and join new associations that promise lower fees.
However, the real danger in getting rid of the policy is that it could result in the emergence of multiple new listing services, which would fragment the market even further. This would force agents to join and pay for numerous platforms, creating even more costs and confusion in the long run. Multiple fragmented services are not the answer to the problem.
Why can’t NAR just fix it?
Rather than dismantling the Clear Cooperation Policy and creating chaos with multiple competing listing services, why can’t NAR simply address the core issue? Agents aren’t asking for the policy to be eliminated — they are asking for a system that makes financial sense.
By consolidating MLS systems or offering one membership that covers more comprehensive services, NAR could drastically reduce the financial burden on agents, simplifying costs and maintaining market cohesion.
Proposed solutions
- Consolidate MLS systems: Creating a national MLS with a single membership fee would simplify the entire process and reduce costs for agents. This would eliminate the need to join multiple local MLS systems and ensure that all agents have equal access to listings across regions.
- Statewide MLS systems: Another alternative is implementing one MLS per state, which would reduce the administrative and financial burden associated with maintaining numerous local MLS systems. This would allow agents to focus more on serving their clients rather than managing multiple memberships.
In the end, fixing the system is the better path forward. Agents shouldn’t have to jump ship to new associations with promises of lower dues and more flexibility.
If NAR can address these four core issues — particularly the overwhelming cost of dues — it can keep agents happy, maintain a unified marketplace, and prevent the industry from splintering into confusing and costly competing services. The solution lies in reforming the current structure, not abandoning it.
Additional solutions to improve the Clear Cooperation policy
Rather than eliminating the policy, there are several ways to enhance it to meet the needs of agents, sellers, and the market better:
- Extend the time frame for MLS submission: Increase the submission window from one business day to three to five business days, giving agents more time to test different marketing strategies before committing to the MLS.
- Expand educational efforts: Provide more training and resources for agents to better understand the benefits of the Clear Cooperation Policy and how to comply with it.
- Clarify guidelines on “public marketing”: Narrow the definition of public marketing to make it clear what constitutes a public promotion. For example, “coming soon” announcements could be excluded.
- Establish a transparent fine system: Create a uniform, tiered penalty system for policy violations, ensuring fair and consistent enforcement.
Clear Cooperation is essential to maintaining a transparent, competitive and fair real estate market. While the policy has its critics, thoughtful modifications can address their concerns while preserving the benefits that make the policy valuable for agents, sellers and buyers alike.
By making these improvements, the policy can better serve the industry, ensuring that real estate transactions continue to be fair, efficient and open to all.
Oscar Mazaba was a Realtor in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from 2021 to 2024. Connect with him on Facebook or Instagram.