Chris Kelly examines the myth of “toxic transparency” in today’s real estate industry and why the industry should focus on fundamentals over data presentation.
There is a pervasive theory in our industry that showing days on market and price history somehow hurts sellers. It weakens your bargaining position, suggests a predicament, or places you at an unfair disadvantage.
It sounds intuitive. It’s just not supported by reality.
What the data actually shows is much simpler. Homes that have been built longer tend to sell for less. Homes that need a price reduction tend to sell for less.
But those results are not driven by the visibility of that information. These are the result of underlying issues around pricing, terms, and demand, all of which are information that a competent real estate agent should communicate to the seller.
Somehow, providing relevant and actionable information has become the “boogeyman.”
Because, let’s be honest, the presence or absence of a data field does not change the fundamentals of the market. Homes that are too expensive will not be priced accurately because their history is hidden. Homes that are not generating demand will not suddenly attract buyers because it is difficult to predict how long it will take to go on the market.
Sellers and their advisors must have the ability to make thoughtful decisions about how their property is positioned and how certain information is presented. That flexibility isn’t inherently a bad thing. In fact, it can be an important part of your strategy in professional advisory relationships. Of course, every situation is slightly different.
But we should not confuse choice with outcome. Providing sellers with options on how to display information does not change the fundamental reality of the asset or the market’s reaction to it. Overpriced homes will be overpriced, regardless of whether the information is displayed or not.
At some level, this drive to limit information may be a substitute for something else: an unwillingness to have difficult conversations upfront. Reluctance to set appropriate pricing from day one.
The hope is that reduced visibility will buy time or maintain leverage that wasn’t there in the first place. They’re hoping for a mystery buyer who’s willing to pay top dollar for the house.
It’s not a strategy. It’s avoidance and wishful thinking.
Furthermore, it ignores important realities that are often left out of current discussions. Every transaction has two sides. We don’t just represent sellers. We operate on a system that also serves our buyers, and that comes with a fiduciary responsibility.
How is that responsibility affected by intentionally keeping relevant information hidden? Are we really serving consumers if we are selectively deciding which data points can be seen? Transparency is not just a seller’s problem. It’s a market integrity issue.
More realistically, the idea that this information can be meaningfully hidden in today’s environment is questionable at best. Don’t forget the internet. Your listing history is cached, indexed, syndicated, and stored across countless platforms.
If you want to know how long a property has been on the market or whether there have been price adjustments, you can usually piece together the information without too much difficulty.
So what are we actually accomplishing, other than possibly creating a disadvantage for both buyers and sellers?
Price adjustment itself is also misunderstood. They are not inherently negative. They are often a strategic tool to reintroduce a property to the market, reset attention and generate new interest. Markets react to movements. Buyers notice the changes. It’s not a flaw in the system. That’s how the system works. And it was successful.
The more important question is not whether that history is visible or not. That’s the reason the adjustment was necessary in the first place.
The heart of this conversation comes down to a simple truth. Visibility is not the cause of bad results. It’s a reflection of them. It’s good to choose. Having flexibility in how you arrange your lists can be a valuable tool. But choice is not blindfolded. It does not change the fundamentals of pricing, demand, or market response.
As an industry, we would be better off focusing less on whether the data shows up and more on the basics that actually deliver results, such as accurate pricing, property preparation, effective placement, and advising clients clearly and frankly, even when the conversation is uncomfortable.
Everything else is noise that is useless to either the seller or the buyer. The market values consistency with reality, and no amount of hiding will change that.
Chris Kelly is President and CEO of HomeServices of America.
