Layla Zulfa
This week, a seemingly simple percentage, 4.6%, has become a focal point in a burgeoning debate within the real estate industry, prompting a significant intervention from the United States Congress. This figure, touted by brokerage firm Compass, represents the alleged premium sellers earn when their homes are marketed through private listing networks. However, this assertion is directly contradicted by research suggesting the opposite, and now, lawmakers are demanding clarity on the truth behind these private listing arrangements and their potential impact on consumers and market competition.
The involvement of the U.S. Congress has elevated a marketing dispute into a matter of national antitrust concern. On July 22, the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee initiated formal inquiries, dispatching letters to Compass CEO Robert Reffkin and Midwest Real Estate Data (MRED) CEO Rebecca Jensen. Both executives were given a deadline of August 5 to provide detailed briefings to congressional staff regarding their nationwide private listing network partnership. The core of the lawmakers’ concern, articulated by Chairman Scott Fitzgerald, centers on whether these private networks are being utilized by real estate companies to "insulate themselves from competition at the expense of consumers." A specific worry highlighted is the potential for these private arrangements to incentivize agents to steer sellers towards private listings, thereby enabling brokerages to represent both sides of a transaction, a practice known as dual agency.
Adding further weight to these concerns, on August 6, Senator Elizabeth Warren also addressed Compass and MRED. Her letter sought comprehensive details on their private listing network partnership and its ongoing national expansion. Senator Warren voiced significant concerns regarding issues such as hidden inventory, the potential for weakened pricing data due to reduced market visibility, increased risks to fair housing principles, and the broader trend of industry consolidation. She requested that Compass and MRED submit their responses by August 21.
Compass, in response to the growing scrutiny, has proactively presented its case directly to sellers. The brokerage firm released findings from an internal study analyzing 70,809 of its own closed transactions listed between April 2025 and March 2026. According to Compass’s data, homes marketed through phased approaches, often initiated as "Coming Soon" or "Private Exclusive" listings before appearing on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), reportedly sold for an average of 4.6% more and 34% faster than those listed directly on the open market. Dave Crosby, Compass’s Chief Data Officer, defended the findings, stating, "The data is consistent. Giving homeowners marketing strategies to build interest in their home and refine the price before listing on the MLS and portals leads to a higher sale price." This narrative positions private listings as a strategic advantage for sellers seeking optimal outcomes.
Zillow’s Contrasting Research and the Broader Data Landscape
However, research from other prominent industry players offers a starkly different perspective. A comprehensive study conducted by Zillow, examining over 15 million home sales from 2023 through 2025, concluded that homes deliberately kept off the MLS typically sold for 1.3% less. This discrepancy, Zillow calculated, translated to a combined loss of $1.36 billion for sellers over the three-year period. The impact was not uniformly distributed; lower-priced homes experienced a more significant reduction in sale price, giving up an average of 2.2%. Notably, homes in communities of color were found to have lost 1.9% in value compared to 1.1% in majority-white neighborhoods when kept off the MLS.
Furthermore, Zillow’s analysis delved into the financial implications of dual agency. Their study found that when a single agent represented both the buyer and the seller in a transaction, sellers collectively lost an estimated $1.49 billion. "Sellers deserve an agent whose only job is to get them the best possible price, and a listing that every buyer in the market can see," stated Zillow Chief Economist Mischa Fisher, emphasizing the importance of dedicated representation and maximum market exposure.
Adding a third, independent data point that predates the current heightened debate is an analysis conducted by Bright MLS in collaboration with Drexel University. This study, which scrutinized more than a million sales, revealed that homes listed on the MLS sold for approximately 17.5% more than comparable homes sold off-MLS. This translated to an average benefit of about $54,000 for a typical seller. This finding aligns with years of independent research underscoring the financial advantages of broad market exposure for listed properties.
Decoding the Data: Incentives and Implications
The apparent contradiction in the data can be understood by examining the underlying business models and incentives of the organizations producing the research. Compass, as a brokerage firm focused on growth, has a vested interest in promoting models that keep transactions within its own network. A reported premium for private exclusives serves as a compelling justification for this strategy, both to attract sellers and to demonstrate value to its shareholders. Conversely, Zillow’s revenue model is heavily reliant on advertising placed against property listings. Consequently, the visibility of these listings is paramount to its business. A significant financial penalty associated with off-MLS sales, as highlighted in their research, serves to protect and bolster this core business model. It is plausible that both studies, while potentially technically sound, are structured to align with and support the commercial objectives of the entities that commissioned them.
Power Fact: The neutrality of a study is often influenced by the entity funding it. Understanding the underlying incentives is crucial before accepting presented percentages at face value.
Analyzing the Research Discrepancies
A deeper examination of the data reveals a critical point of agreement between the independent research and Zillow’s findings: the sellers who are most disadvantaged by keeping their homes off the MLS are rarely those in the luxury market with pre-existing pools of motivated buyers. Instead, it is the ordinary seller, in a typical neighborhood, who relies on broad market exposure to attract the widest possible range of potential buyers and achieve the highest possible sale price.
Power Fact: Maximum exposure for a listing is not merely a marketing tactic; it represents the seller’s financial stake in the transaction. Protecting that investment is the fundamental responsibility of the hired real estate agent.
Navigating the Private Listing Landscape: Guidance for Agents
In the current environment, real estate agents must approach listing appointments with a sophisticated understanding of the competing data narratives. Presenting a single study without acknowledging the existence or findings of others is no longer sufficient. Agents need to clearly articulate the distinction between a "Coming Soon" listing, which signifies a temporary pre-MLS marketing phase that ultimately leads to full market exposure, and a "permanently off-market" listing. The former is a strategic timing decision, while the latter risks alienating potential buyers who might have offered the highest price. Providing sellers with a clear explanation of these tradeoffs, empowering them to make an informed decision, and meticulously documenting that decision in writing is now essential. Given the congressional subcommittee’s focus on potential agent steering for brokerage benefit, such written disclosures transition from administrative tasks to vital forms of professional protection.
Furthermore, agents are urged to conduct a thorough self-assessment of their own motivations. When considering recommending a course of action that might quietly keep a commission within their brokerage’s walls, agents must pause and critically evaluate whether their primary allegiance lies with the seller’s best interests or the brokerage’s internal goals. This moment of introspection is the defining factor that separates a trusted advisor from a mere salesperson.
As this debate unfolds, Compass will likely continue to promote its 4.6% premium figure, and Zillow will persist in quantifying billions in potential seller losses. Lawsuits are anticipated to proceed through the legal system. However, none of these developments directly address the core question that matters most to homeowners at their kitchen tables: How can they achieve the highest possible sale price for their property with the least amount of risk? Agents who possess the ability to explain both sides of the data, communicate the honest tradeoffs involved, and consistently prioritize their client’s needs above all else will not only weather this evolving landscape but will likely become the trusted advisors that sellers seek out, transforming guesswork into confidence.
Darryl Davis, CSP, a nationally recognized real estate speaker, coach, and bestselling author, brings over four decades of industry experience to his insights. As the founder of the POWER AGENT® Program, he equips real estate professionals with the essential scripts, dialogues, and strategies needed to elevate their service and build "Next Level®" careers. Prospective participants can explore a free 30-day trial or join weekly webinars by visiting DarrylSpeaks.com.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.
