Private Listings Are Hurting Consumers. Here is Why NAR Must Act

The growth of private or off-market listings is one of the most consequential trends in real estate today, and not in a good way. An increasing number of properties are being sold without ever appearing on the MLS, cutting everyday buyers out of the process and undermining the transparency that public listing databases were designed to provide.

Proponents of private listings argue that some sellers have legitimate reasons to keep their homes off the public market. Privacy concerns, security considerations, and the desire to test pricing without committing to a public listing are all cited as valid motivations. And for high-profile sellers, avoiding the circus of a public listing can be genuinely appealing.

But the costs of this trend fall disproportionately on buyers, particularly first-time buyers and those from underrepresented communities. When properties sell through private networks, access depends on who you know, not what you can afford. This creates a two-tier market where well-connected buyers get first pick and everyone else competes for whatever is left.

The data supports these concerns. Research from several academic institutions has shown that homes sold off-market tend to sell for 5 to 10% less than comparable properties listed on the MLS. This means sellers are leaving money on the table, often without realizing it, while buyers who could have offered more never get the chance.

NAR has taken some steps to address the issue, including a policy requiring that listings be submitted to the MLS within one business day of being marketed publicly. But enforcement has been inconsistent, and significant loopholes remain. Truly private sales that involve no public marketing at all are still permitted, and the definition of public marketing remains murky.

It is time for the industry's largest trade organization to take a stronger stand. Comprehensive rules that ensure equal access to listing information would benefit consumers on both sides of the transaction and reinforce public trust in the real estate market. The alternative is a slow slide toward opacity that serves no one except the gatekeepers.