The latest shiny object in the real estate industry is the rise of “office exclusives” — listings that are not placed in the MLS and do not offer unilateral cooperation. Compass, the company most associated with this strategy, promotes benefits such as testing aspirational pricing, pre-marketing exposure, engagement insights, and data control. They claim:

“Eliminate Days on Market & Price Drop History Risk. Extend your marketing runway by controlling when the property is put on the MLS, helping minimize public days on market or price drop history. Excessive days on market and price-drop history can devalue your property in the eyes of buyers.”

But the reality is more straightforward: buyers in the market won’t pay aspirational prices. Motivated sellers typically reduce their prices to attract offers.

Many have already commented on the risks of office exclusives, including:

• Potential Fair Housing violations
• Increased likelihood of dual agency, limiting independent representation
• Exclusionary practices that reduce market transparency
• Withholding critical data, denying market participants the information needed for informed decisions

These risks can negatively impact sellers, buyers, and agents.

Impact on Sellers

As an experienced broker, I value being able to tell my seller:
“We’ve fully marketed your home, it has been shown, and this offer represents the best price, terms, and conditions currently available.”

In multiple-offer situations, I’ve advised sellers to accept better offers from competing brokers—even when one came from my own office. A “secret” listing only benefits the agent who controls it—not the seller.

And when sellers become buyers, do they want access only to their company’s office exclusives? Of course not—they want to see the entire market.

Impact on Buyers

Buyers often fear missing out on “the perfect house.” They usually form strong, trusting relationships with their buyer agents and don’t want to be forced into dual agency situations. They deserve independent representation and an agent who evaluates homes objectively and advocates for their interests.

Impact on Agents (and Appraisers)

Let’s consider the appraiser’s perspective. As someone fluent in both appraisal and real estate practice, I can confirm that appraisers hesitate to use comps that only appear in the MLS as “pending.” Why? Because market value assumes reasonable exposure on the open market—and a listing that never appeared publicly doesn’t meet that standard.

In one example, a seller using the Compass strategy nearly sold her home for $100,000 less than she ultimately received once it hit the open market.
_{(Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/a-real-estate-giant-wants-sellers-to-list-their-homes-privately-will-homeowners-benefit/ar-AA1E8smb)}

Agents already operate in a litigious environment. Why invite more risk?

Beyond legal concerns, office exclusives harm the agent’s ability to perform basic tasks. Our CMAs rely on MLS data—sold comps, active listings, expireds—all of which build market context. Without that data, how can we properly price homes? How can appraisers confirm the details of sales? Especially in non-disclosure states, verifying sale terms without an MLS record becomes an exhausting (and often fruitless) task.

Most of us have faced pricing a unique home with no good comps. It’s not fun—and office exclusives only make it harder.

Conclusion

MLS systems and cooperative broker networks in the U.S. have long supported transparency, open markets, and informed decision-making. This system was never broken. While the industry has adapted to DOJ/NAR changes, we don’t need to dismantle a structure that benefits all parties.

The MLS is still the best tool we have for ensuring that buyers and sellers make well-informed decisions and that agents and appraisers can do their jobs with confidence—all of which directly support the definition of market value.