Supporters of the policy outnumber detractors by nearly 3 to 1, according to new data from the Inman Intel Index survey. According to Intel, agents at large brokerage firms were found to be more tolerant of criticism.
This report is available exclusively to subscribers of Inman Intel, Inman’s data and research division, providing deep insight and market intelligence into the residential real estate and proptech businesses. Subscribe now.
Compass CEO Robert Refkin is trying to convince the industry to plan a path forward without clear cooperation, which helped make the industry’s largest trade group a target of the Justice Department. He is the latest prominent real estate figure.
But the rest of the industry isn’t lining up behind him.
Brokers and brokerage leaders responding to the November Intel Index survey expressed support for the National Association of Realtors’ policies by a nearly 3-to-1 margin, but the beleaguered industry group’s own endorsement. Many people withheld it.
Most real estate experts told Intel they think policies aimed at delivering more properties to the MLS remain attractive.
Still, Mr. Refkin and others like him have very real grievances about how the policy could tie the hands of some customers — some who support the policy. Many agents, including those in , agree that this is a real downside.
And agents at particularly popular types of brokerage firms are particularly susceptible to such criticism, Intel’s research found.
Read the full breakdown in this week’s report.
Struggling but popular
A sizable majority of 715 securities industry professionals, including agents, brokers, executives and investors, who responded to Intel’s November survey supported the policy.
Sixty-five percent of all agent and brokerage leader respondents said Clear Collaboration was good for the industry, compared to 22% who said it was bad for the industry and 13% who had no opinion. .
Many in the brokerage world believe that this policy, which requires all listed products to be listed on the MLS within one business day of being on the market, will also improve the interests of clients.
63% of all respondents said the policy was good for customers, while 24% said it was bad for customers and 13% had no opinion.
Most real estate experts have a consistent opinion on this policy: it either benefits both the industry and consumers, or it is harmful to both.
However, some people were divided on this question.
7% of respondents believe this policy is good for the industry but bad for consumers. Only 4% said the policy was bad for the industry but benefited consumers.
Yet, despite this widespread support, Intel’s research shows that many of Clear Collaboration’s supporters are at least partially conflicted, and that some of the arguments against Clear Collaboration are not persuasive. I realized that I feel that there is.
Cracks in the foundation?
Agency and brokerage leaders held largely similar views on policy.
However, Intel found that agent respondents who worked more closely with their customers were more sensitive to the downside of the Clear Commission, especially for consumers.
27% of agents said clear collaboration is bad for customers, compared to 19% of brokerage leaders who said the same. A relatively small number of agents (57%) said this policy was good for their clients, compared to 76% of large brokerages.
And Intel has found that agents who oppose this policy are more likely to work with intermediaries like Levkin. Brokers like Levkin are large, publicly traded real estate companies that don’t offer franchising as part of their business model.
Breakdown: Agents say CCP is good for clients
44 percent — Franchise intermediaries 14 percent — Non-franchise listed companies 42 percent — Private indies
Breakdown: Agents say the Chinese Communist Party is bad for their customers
27 percent — Franchise intermediaries 36 percent — Non-franchise listed companies 37 percent — Private indies
It’s not clear from these findings alone whether agents at publicly traded independent brokerages are following Mr. Refkin’s guidance or whether they simply prefer that approach to their brokerages.
What is clear, however, is that there is a divide on “explicit cooperation” between large traditional franchises and large companies that eschew the franchise approach.
Why most agents support Clear Cooration, but some don’t
Additionally, agency and brokerage leaders told Intel that the arguments related to the Clear Commission, both for and against the policy, were the most persuasive to them.
In the “yes” category, agents were broadly influenced by the positive effects associated with having more listing information available in the MLS.
Arguments in favor of CCP that are widely considered persuasive by agents and brokerage leaders:
This policy will result in more properties being delivered to the MLS — 60% agree It will provide better data about the local market — 59% will benefit from more comprehensive public data to inform customer decisions in a way that benefits consumers — 56% This promotes transparency around domestic transactions and benefits MLSs Industry — 55% Promote transparency — 51%
These arguments were more persuasive to real estate professionals than other, more abstract arguments.
For example, survey respondents were generally unimpressed by claims by some proponents that the policy would help prevent discrimination and fair housing violations.
About half of agents also agreed that promoting transparency and making more comprehensive data available is good for consumers, but brokerage leaders are less likely to agree on this issue. No consensus was reached.
Notably, most agents in particular rejected the idea (though somewhat more common among broker owners and executives) that pocket listings are not an effective tactic for their clients in most cases.
Only 33% of agents surveyed in November agreed that pocket listings are generally not an effective tactic, compared to 50% of brokerage leaders. As many as 38% of agents agreed that one of the drawbacks of clear collaboration is that the policy significantly limits pocket listings, even when that strategy is in the best interest of the client. said. Only 33% of brokerage leaders shared that opinion.
While clear cooperation policies continue to enjoy broad support, the Intel Index results showed that many of the arguments against this rule resonate with real estate professionals as valid criticisms.
Unsurprisingly, intermediaries were particularly sensitive to the idea that large listing portals benefited from this policy more than the securities industry.
The arguments against CCP that are most acceptable to agency and brokerage leaders are:
This policy benefits listings on portals like Zillow more than it helps brokers and agents — 42% agree Difficult to enforce fairly and consistently — 38% The strategy is in the best interest of clients Significantly limit out-of-pocket listings, even when they have the potential to result in — 36% Receives unwanted attention from the Department of Justice – 36% Customers are not prepared to fully expose their home to the market before gauging buyer interest Need to arrange – 33% Benefits the MLS more than it helps brokers and agents — 30%
Methodology note: This month’s Inman Intel Index study was conducted from November 18th to December. As of April 4, 2024, 751 responses were received. The entire Inman reader community was invited to participate, and a rotating selection of randomly selected community members were encouraged to participate via email. Users answered a series of questions about their self-proclaimed niche in the real estate industry, including real estate agents, brokers, financiers, and proptech entrepreneurs. Results reflect the views of our passionate Inman community, but do not necessarily align with the views of the broader real estate industry. This survey is conducted monthly.
Email Daniel Huston
