The Problem w/ Clear Cooperation (and how to replace it with something better)
Feb 04, 2025
The Debate Around Clear Cooperation
Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP) is one of the most hotly debated topics in real estate today, with strong opinions on both sides. Some brokers, particularly those who champion office-exclusive listings, view CCP as an anti-choice policy that restricts sellers' flexibility. Meanwhile, real estate portals argue that CCP is essential for maximizing exposure and serving consumers’ best interests. The problem? Both arguments are self-serving and fail to address the real issue: Clear Cooperation doesn’t work.
The Problem With Clear Cooperation
At its core, CCP is nearly impossible to enforce. The reality is that off-MLS inventory exists because there are valid situations where it is in the seller’s best interest to keep a listing off-market. Yet, MLSs and NAR continue to push CCP as a universal solution, despite its widespread circumvention. Rather than an outright ban on off-MLS listings, a better approach would be to create a framework that addresses the fundamental reasons why these listings exist in the first place.
Why Off-MLS Listings Exist
The most common reason sellers opt for off-market listings is simple: they want to test the market without creating a price history or accumulating days on market (DOM). If a seller starts at an aspirational price on the MLS and later reduces it, that price reduction history becomes visible to buyers, potentially hurting their negotiating leverage. By starting off-market, sellers can gauge interest and adjust pricing without those repercussions. This strategy works, and it’s why off-market listings persist despite CCP.
In Austin, for example, we have organized off-MLS marketplaces that serve precisely this need:
This confirms that off-MLS transactions are prevalent, reinforcing that CCP isn’t solving the problem—it’s merely creating an incentive to move these listings into private networks.
The Bigger Picture: Data Integrity and Transparency
One of the most compelling arguments in favor of CCP is data transparency. The highest value local MLSs provide is accurate, complete market data, which benefits both consumers and the industry. When listings stay off-market, we lose valuable data, leading to gaps in market transparency. This is a real issue, and while CCP fails as an enforcement mechanism, the goal of keeping data within the MLS is still valid.
Sean Soderstrom recently wrote an excellent piece on the MLS as an "unsung hero" of real estate innovation, which is well worth citing: Read it here.
A Better Solution: "Coming Soon" Status
Instead of enforcing a policy that isn’t working, we should look at incentivizing agents and sellers to use the MLS. The best way to do that? Implement a "Coming Soon" (CS) status.
A well-designed CS status would provide sellers with the flexibility they need while keeping data within the MLS. The key elements of this approach:
- Listings can be entered without a set list price, similar to how many off-MLS networks allow price ranges or "unknown" pricing.
- CS listings do not syndicate to portals, maintaining exclusivity while ensuring that market data stays within the MLS.
- Days on market (DOM) rules can be adjusted so that when a listing transitions to active, its CS period doesn’t count against its DOM.
This approach preserves data integrity while offering sellers the ability to test the market. Most importantly, it creates a system where off-market listings naturally migrate back into the MLS, rather than disappearing into private networks.
Enforcement: Making Data Work
One potential concern with a Coming Soon status is that it still allows for some level of hidden history. However, the reality is that CCP has failed at preventing off-market listings altogether. The better enforcement mechanism lies in data auditing.
Many local MLSs already have systems in place to track sales that occur outside the MLS. When a listing is withdrawn but later closes via public records, MLS boards can cross-check the transaction and require the listing agent to provide the data. A CS status would facilitate this process by ensuring these transactions start within the MLS, making them easier to track and report.
The Path Forward
Clear Cooperation was a well-intentioned policy, but it doesn’t work as intended. Instead of trying to enforce a broken rule, we should create an environment where agents and sellers naturally want to keep listings within the MLS. A Coming Soon status does exactly that, ensuring that market data remains accurate while providing sellers with the flexibility they need.
The industry needs to shift away from the binary debate of "MLS vs. off-MLS" and focus on a practical, middle-ground solution that serves both consumers and the market. Implementing a thoughtful Coming Soon status would be a major step in that direction.