6 hours ago
3
In the ongoing debate over NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy, one question looms large: who really benefits when a single agent or brokerage represents both sides of a real estate transaction? Many private listings ended up being double-ended deals.
Proponents of exclusive listings argue that consumers gain a streamlined process and increased privacy. They point to programs like Compass Private Exclusives, which allow sellers to “pre-market” their homes to an internal network before listing publicly. However, Compass itself acknowledges in their disclosure that limiting exposure by not listing on the MLS can reduce the number of showings, offers, and the final sale price.
Critics, meanwhile, argue that exclusive listings, especially at scale, create an uneven playing field. They contend that private networks disproportionately benefit the brokerages and agents who control the listing pipeline, while also giving the largest firms the greatest advantage in agent recruitment and retention. Many also point to the fact that private listings essentially lock out lower-income buyers who rely on open MLS access. The result? A narrowing of opportunity and reduced market visibility that runs counter to the spirit of fair housing.
Adding to the concern, some critics suggest that double-ended deals, often a byproduct of these exclusive environments, may result in lower sale prices for sellers. In this light, the strategy is seen by some as a way to maximize control for firms while potentially limiting upside for consumers. Now, new data provides an empirical lens through which to evaluate these claims, and the results are eye-opening.
The market performance of double-ended deals
Analyzing thousands of transactions from 2018 to 2024 across major firms, one key trend emerges: on average, double-ended deals underperform.
- Double-ended deals sold for 6.36% over list price on average.
- Non-double-ended deals sold for 8.06% over list price.
That may not seem dramatic at first glance, but it equates to a 21% lower price performance in relative terms for consumers using the same agent for both sides. And while there were isolated outliers, in the vast majority of company-year combinations, double-ended deals fetched less than their non-double-ended counterparts.
The data also reveals a troubling pattern: the more frequently a firm works on both sides of the transaction, the more likely those deals are to yield below-market outcomes. In firms with double-ending rates consistently above 30%, the performance gap widened even further.
A case study in scale and strategy
In select markets and certain years, one large, well-known firm has exhibited a significantly higher share of double-ended deals; roughly double the average observed among the top 10 brokerages we examined across multiple markets.
Despite its size and scale, the firm’s double-ended deals underperformed its non-double-ended deals in nearly every year of the analysis. Even during the ultra-competitive markets of 2021 and 2022, when bidding wars were common and many homes sold far above list price, double-ended transactions showed more muted gains.
To understand how this dynamic unfolds, it’s important to examine where certain firms hold dominant listing market share. In Boston, for example, one firm controlled 17.1% of total market volume and an industry-leading 11.3% of all listings. Similar patterns emerge in markets like Fort Lauderdale, San Francisco, and Saint Petersburg, where concentrated listing control gives firms a strategic advantage in facilitating in-house transactions and internal matchmaking.
That’s not necessarily bad, until you look at the price data. The findings suggest that high double-ending rates correlate not with stronger results for sellers, but with the opposite. In many cases, double-ended deals sold closer to list price or even below, especially in firms that had greater control over listing inventory.
Policy in context: what happens if Clear Cooperation fades?
This is more than a data issue — it’s a policy issue. The Clear Cooperation Policy was designed to ensure that publicly marketed properties reach the widest possible audience via the MLS, enhancing competition and consumer visibility.
Some companies are now challenging that policy. Their approach centers on private listing networks and internal exclusivity, aiming to deliver speed, control, and convenience. But these benefits may come at a hidden cost.
The data poses a difficult but important question: if double-ended deals, which are more common in exclusive listing environments, routinely yield lower sale prices, are we truly serving the consumer?
The path forward: transparency and competition
A more private process may appeal to certain clients, but it should not come at the expense of market outcomes. When fewer buyers see a listing, fewer offers are made. Less competition often means lower final prices.
While no policy is without flaws, the principle of broad access and transparency remains foundational to a fair marketplace. And based on years of transaction data, open competition continues to produce stronger results than controlled exclusivity.
As the industry debates the future of Clear Cooperation, one thing is certain: the best outcomes arise not from behind closed doors, but from an open market where every buyer gets a fair shot.
Diana Zaya is the founder and CEO of Maverick Systems.
English (US) ·