The National Association of Hispanic Real Estate Professionals (NAHREP) is warning that efforts to encourage private listings will disrupt efforts to ensure fair access to the housing market.
In an unattributed statement, the organization declared, “Recent developments pertaining to an industry policy known as the Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) lay bare an alarming truth: the real estate market is increasingly threatened by forces prioritizing self-interest over the principles of fair competition and consumer protection.”
NAHREP stated fair housing laws were enacted due to efforts to prevent all people from having access to listings.
“Real estate brokers could exclude sharing listing information with brokers that they simply did not like, or who represented buyers they felt were less desirable,” NAHREP continued. “The remnants of pocket listings, redlining, and race-based zoning policies exist today in the form of substantial homeownership and wealth gaps in America. The fact that major real estate players are actively undermining open access, as evidenced by disputes and evolving practices, underscores the urgent need for formalizing these principles beyond the scope of any single industry organization or platform. These situations reveal the risk of a fragmented marketplace, where access to listings can be dictated by factors other than a buyer’s qualifications, potentially perpetuating systemic inequities.”
NAHREP praised Zillow’s new policy of no longer listing “properties from brokers’ private listings if those properties are being publicly marketed, aiming to curb the practice of withholding listings from broad market exposure.” It also cited Redfin for taking “a stand against delayed marketing of listings” and eXp Realty for “its full support of the Clear Cooperation Policy, emphasizing the importance of widespread listing distribution to ensure fair access for agents and their clients.”
NAHREP also called for “the force of law” to ensure fair access to property information, stating, “The time for voluntary compliance is over; decisive action is required.”
If they mean “Pocket Listings” I couldn’t agree more. Not only does this practice potentially allow for discrimination it excludes competition from the entire market of available buyers potentially harming the seller. Without the property being fully exposed to the majority of the buying pool, how does the seller know they are really getting the best price and terms?
It is the agent’s responsibility to thoroughly explain all relevant considerations and factors involved in choosing a pocket listing, ensuring the seller is fully informed. This comprehensive explanation equips the seller with a clear understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of opting for a pocket listing. However, there are various situations where a seller may remain uncertain about whether they are securing the best possible price or terms for their property. Regarding discrimination, the potential for discriminatory practices exists in any real estate transaction, including pocket listings. The key question is the likelihood of such discrimination occurring and its impact on the transaction.
in my opinion this was a bad move by the National Association of Realtors which I’m a member. However it does give the seller the choice of marketing just through Realtors or marketing on the idx. that’s why everybody’s upset that a seller can say I do not want my property on the internet as such because of crime or other factors. There are many sellers that don’t like the idea of their properties being marketed on the idx because of stalking or other scenarios which endangers the seller . the term idx means internet data exchange and this is what feeds websites such as Zillow Trulia realtor.com and many others. I do not feel that this will cause major problems as most sellers do want their property listed on the idx. there’s also a situation where the seller will not put it in the MLS and only Market it’s through the real estate brokerage as a pocket listing because they don’t want people coming through their house regularly to see a property or those who just want to look at the house to get an idea what they want in a house. it’s a double-edged sword but it’s always the seller who makes that decision just like it’s always been the sellers decision of how a commission is paid.
NAHREP falsely presumes discrimination is the motive for so-called “private listings” then insists the “full force of the law” must be used to force property owners and real estate brokers to comply with NAHREP’s preferred policies.
NAHREP is obviously blind to the irony of accusing anyone opposed to their selfish goals as being driven by self-interests. Or, the hypocrisy of a race-based exclusionary organization accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being racists.
The hyperbole and personal attacks coming from NAHREP and others who insist on dictating the manner in which property owners or the brokers/agents they hire market their real estate, is reminiscent of the psychotic narcissists who cancelled, doxed, fired, attacked and tried to jail anyone who refused to take the Covid vaccine (which has been proven to have limited efficacy and deadly side-effects).
In a business and a country founded on and enriched by individual liberties and freedoms, entrepreneurs and their clients are best served by less regulation or restrictions on how they choose to conduct business. Skin color should never be the deciding factor in the conduct of business or promulgation of regulations. Regulations based on false accusations regarding motives, are divisive, harmful and counter-productive.
I’m kinda’ with David above – the organization reeks of racism then calls down the full force of law and litigation to correct a non-existent problem supposedly directed toward minority agents and buyers……..I’ve run across pocket listings increasingly with the difficult market and limited inventory……….brokers and agents who do not list in a timely fashion into the multiple system, and who come up with extremely lame excuses about having to wait until paint dries or carpet is laid or remodel is complete, while they and their office works the property……some sellers do NOT want traffic through their property unless it’s qualified lookers with agents who’ve done the qualifying……..some sellers are told by their questionable agency not to place the property on the multiple because THEY control buyers and the market niche for the property…..some of these games may disappear when rates come back down and inventory catches up with pent-up demand………meanwhile, grin and bear and remember your ethics!!!
Call them whatever you want: Coming Soon, Delayed Listings, Private Listings, Pocket Listings.
THEY ARE ALL BAD.
1st, they breach our fiduciary duty to a seller by providing less than maximum exposure (reducing their final net sales price.)
2nd, they will open the door for discrimination (in ways we cannot even fathom.)
3rd, they will hurt Buyers everywhere (especially in times of low inventory.)
4th, they will literally destroy all small and mid-sized brokerages (and eventually even the large ones until it destroys the whole industry.)
very interesting to see different point of view and pros and cons on this topic
In my market you don’t need a realtor put a for sale sign out and the buyers will come. You will save on commissions and still get top dollar. The market may change down the road and you may need a realtor put estate agent but for now just retain a good attorney.
There is a REALTOR in my market who is notorious for putting a home on the market on a Saturday but also putting an out-of-office until Monday notice to anyone who is not their own client. This leads to SO MANY double-sided deals for them. A serious detriment to anyone else’s clients who want to write an offer on that property. By Monday, when they are back in the office, it’s already under contract with one of their own buyers.
In our association, they would be in front of the ethics board.