NAR communications continue to lack accountability and true transparency, and real estate agents deserve better recognition, writes coach Darryl Davis.
I’ll admit, I had high hopes when NAR released its 2025 annual report. After everything our industry has been through – lawsuits, settlements, public scrutiny, leadership changes – I thought it might finally be the moment for organizations to step up and show their members exactly where their money is being spent.
Participate in the INMAN Intel Index Survey
After 40 pages, I’m still waiting.
Let’s start with what they got right.
Commendable: The report is beautifully produced. The design is clean, the photography is professional, and CEO Nykia Wright’s letter strikes the right tone about change and accountability.
There is clear evidence that leadership is listening to its members, with 79 percent of real estate agents surveyed saying they want NAR to help them succeed on a day-to-day basis, and the organization appears to be rebuilding around that feedback.
I hear they achieved back-to-back balanced budgets. They reduced expenses by $50 million (14%). We reduced our headcount by 14%. Reserves are expected to exceed budget by $50 million by the end of the year.
Impressive, isn’t it?
The problem is: What should we cut from?
All of these numbers mean nothing without context.
If I told you that I cut my household budget by 14%, your first question would probably be, “What did you use before?” Did I go from reckless to rational? Too efficient? Is it the minimum required? Without a baseline, percentages don’t tell you anything.
NAR’s report provides percentages and projections, but the audited financial statements are nowhere to be found beyond page 40. There is no detailed revenue breakdown. There are no expense categories. No disclosure of executive remuneration. There is no clear explanation of where membership fees will actually go.
This is not an annual report. This is a press release with improved graphics.
What does an actual annual report look like?
I’ve been running businesses for decades. I know what responsibility is like. When a member organization publishes an annual report, members should expect the following:
Audited financial statements that show exactly where your revenue comes from and where it’s going Executive compensation so you can assess whether leadership costs align with membership values Membership numbers and trends so agents know when colleagues stay or leave Full legal costs, including settlement costs and litigation defense An honest assessment of mistakes, not just highlights.
NAR’s report does not include any of this.
The elephant they barely recognize
Perhaps most telling is the almost complete absence of any substantive discussion of the Sitzer-Barnett reconciliation. This case fundamentally changed the way buyer agents are compensated. The lawsuit required NAR to pay significant damages and change industry practices nationwide.
NAR is mentioned only once, in passing, as being “compliant.”
that’s it. The impact on members is not discussed. No costs disclosed. There is no acknowledgment of how we got here. For an organization that claims to prioritize transparency, this silence is deafening.
What the report actually does
Reading between the lines, this document serves three purposes, none of which involve true accountability.
That justifies the existence of NAR. The report repeatedly emphasizes the organization’s “value proposition” and cites survey data showing that members find value in NAR’s priorities. This is the truth about organizations. When you have to ask for an investigation to prove your worth, you’ve already lost the argument. Organizations that provide demonstrable value don’t need to prove it. It’s about managing expectations. Notice how 2025 is framed as “foundation building” while the actual deliverables are postponed until 2026 or later. All sections follow the same pattern: Strategic Initiatives, 2025 Progress (Plans), 2026 Priorities (Results). It’s an organizational cover. Take credit for your intentions now and defer responsibility for the results. The report proudly announces that NAR communicates with members before issuing press releases to the public. The fact that this is presented as an achievement shows how badly they lost in the battle for “first voice.” Organizations that are confident in their relationships with their members will not tout the basic order of communication as a strategic victory.
What does transparency actually look like?
I’m not looking for anything radical. I’m asking what all legitimate membership organizations provide to their stakeholders.
Please show me your complete financial situation. If you are in good financial shape, prove it with numbers. Give your members the ability to see exactly where their dues are going. Don’t just say you “cut expenses,” look at what you’ve been spending and what you’re spending now.
Disclose executive compensation. If leaders believe their pay is fair, let members evaluate it themselves.
We will publish member trends. Is there an agent present? Are you leaving? Growing? Let’s take a look at the data.
Details of litigation costs. Members deserve to know about settlements, lawsuit defenses, ongoing legal revelations, and more.
Own your mistakes. Let’s talk about what didn’t work, not just what worked. In this way, trust will be rebuilt.
How is trust built?
Every real estate agent in America pays membership dues to this organization. We have a right to know exactly how our money is spent, who makes the decisions and what we get in return.
This report does not answer those questions. I don’t even try.
CEO Wright writes that the company is on the “edge of a new era defined by transparency, innovation, and unwavering service.” Chairman Kevin Brown is asking members to help “bring NAR back to business.”
I believe them. I think they want to rebuild trust. I believe the organization is trying to pivot.
But trust is not built through strategic communication. It is built on transparency. This is especially true when transparency is uncomfortable.
NAR can do better. We deserve better. And until organizations publish books and treat their members as stakeholders who deserve to know the truth, rather than an audience that needs to be managed, all talk of change will ring hollow.
That is what true accountability looks like. Everything else is just a pamphlet.
