Most Architectural Advantages Support Clear Collaboration, Intel Index Finds

This report is only available to subscribers of Intelthe data and research arm of Inman that provides in-depth insights and market intelligence on the real estate and proptech business. Register today.

Compass CEO Robert Reffkin is the latest prominent real estate figure to urge the industry to chart a way forward without Clear Partnership, a law that has helped put the industry’s largest trade group in the crosshairs of the Justice Department.

But the rest of the industry is not standing well behind him.

By about a 3 to 1 marginagents and brokerage leaders who responded to a November Intel Index survey showed support for the National Association of Realtors’ policy, even as many withheld approval from the frustrated trade association itself.

For the most part, real estate experts told Intel they still see the appeal of the policy leading to more listings hitting the MLS.

Still, Reffkin and others like him run into real frustration with how the policy can tie the hands of some clients — which many agents, including some who support the policy, acknowledge as a real contradiction.

And agents of one popular brokerage are particularly receptive to this criticism, Intel found.

Read the full description of this week’s report.

Embattled, but popular

Of the 715 brokerage employees — including agents, brokers, managers and investors — who responded to Intel’s November survey, the vast majority supported the policy.

• 65 percent of all the agent and brokerage leader respondents said that Clear Cooperation is good for the industry, in comparison. 22 percent who said it was bad for the industry as well 13 percent who had no idea.

The realtor world is also of the opinion that this policy — which requires all listings to be posted on the MLS within one business day of marketing — makes clients better off as well.

• 63 percent of all the respondents said that the policy is good for customers, in comparison. 24 percent who said it’s bad for customers too 13 percent who had no idea.

Most real estate experts have a mixed view of the policy — whether it benefits both the industry and consumers, or whether it’s harmful to both.

But others are divided on this question.

• 7 percent of respondents believe that the policy is good for the industry, but not good for consumers.
• Just a 4 percent he said this policy is not good for the industry, but it benefits the consumers.

However, despite this broad support, the Intel survey found that many supporters of Clear Cooperation were at least partially opposed, admitting that they found some arguments against it persuasive.

Cracks in the foundation?

Agents and brokerage leaders had very similar views on policy.

But Intel found that agent respondents, who work most closely with customers, are more sensitive to Clear Cooperation’s downsides – especially for consumers.

• 27 percent are agents he said Clear Cooperation is not good for customers, in comparison 19 percent of brokerage leaders who said the same.
• A relatively small majority of agents – 57 percent – said the policy is good for customers, relatively speaking 76 percent of brokerage leaders.

And Intel found that policymakers are more likely to work with brokerages like Reffkin’s: large, publicly traded firms that don’t charge fees as part of their business model.

Distinction: Agents say CCP is good for customers

• 44 percent – franchise brokerage
• 14 percent – publicly traded non-franchise
• 42 percent – private indie

Splitting: Agents say CCP is unfair to customers

• 27 percent – franchise brokerage
• 36 percent – publicly traded non-franchise
• 37 percent – private indie

Whether agents with publicly traded independent brokerages were leading Reffkin, or were more inclined to choose that style of trading, is not clear from these survey results alone.

But what is clear is that there is a divide in Clear Cooperation between the big traditional franchises and the big firms that avoid the payment method.

Why many agents return Clear Cooperation – and others do not

Brokerage agents and leaders also told Intel which arguments related to Clear Cooperation – both opposing policies – were the most persuasive to them.

In the “for” category, agents were largely influenced by the positive effects associated with having information about listings available to them in their MLS.

The arguments in favor of CCP agents and brokerage leaders found convincing:

• The goal is to ensure that most listings reach the MLS – 60 percent he agreed
• It leads to better data about my local market – 59 percent
• It enables extensive public data to inform customer decisions – 56 percent
• Promotes transparency about domestic work in a way that benefits the industry – 55 percent
• Promotes transparency about domestic work in a way that benefits consumers – 51 percent

These arguments were more persuasive to real estate professionals than other, more abstract ones.

Survey respondents were generally unmoved by arguments made by some supporters that the policy helps prevent discrimination and fair housing violations, for example.

And while nearly half of agents agreed that promoting transparency and enabling comprehensive data is good for the consumer, they reached less consensus on the subject than brokerage leaders did.

Notably, the majority of agents rejected the view – very popular among broker owners and managers – that pocket listings are not an effective strategy for clients in most cases.

• Only 33 percent of agents surveyed in November agreed with the statement that out-of-pocket listings are not a generally effective strategy, compared 50 percent of brokerage leaders.
• As many 38 percent agents agreed that another disadvantage of Clear Cooperation is that the policy limits the investment of the fund, even if that strategy can be beneficial to the client. Only 33 percent brokerage leaders had that feeling.

Even though the Clear Partnership Policy continues to enjoy broad support, the results of the Intel Index showed that many of the arguments against the law resonate with real estate professionals as valid criticisms.

Unsurprisingly, agents were more sensitive to the idea that major listing sites were benefiting from the policy even more than the brokerage industry.

Arguments against CCP that agents and leaders of brokerages were most receptive to:

• The policy benefits listing portals like Zillow in addition to helping sellers and agents — 42 percent he agreed
• It is difficult to enforce properly and consistently – 38 percent
• It significantly limits out-of-pocket listings, even when the strategy may be in the best interest of the customer — 36 percent
• It drew unwanted attention from the Department of Justice – 36 percent
• Require clients to have their home ready for full market exposure before valuing interest from buyers — 33 percent
• It benefits the MLS beyond helping sellers and agents – 30 percent

Methodology Notes: This month’s Inman Intel Index survey made Nov. 18-Dec. 4, 2024, and received 751 responses. The entire Inman student community was invited to participate, and a rotating, random selection of community members was encouraged to participate via email.. Users answered a series of questions related to their own corner of the real estate industry – including real estate agents, brokerage leaders, lenders and proptech entrepreneurs.. The results reflect the views of Inman’s engaged community, which may not always be the same as those of the broader real estate industry. This survey it is done every month.

Email Daniel Houston