03/13/2026
Curious about public thoughts. Here’s mine:
If a brokerage-controlled listing strategy prioritizes internal distribution over full-market exposure, there is a legitimate question as to whether that approach is designed primarily for seller benefit or BROKERAGE benefit.
In 10 years I’ve only had ONE seller want a private listing. Some brokerages market it and specialize in privates, to get their own buyer’s agents the deal…getting both sides of the commission income, often referring only their in-house lenders and vendors.
This is a trend coming with other companies. A seller’s best interest should mean:
-The broadest reasonable exposure
-The easiest access for qualified buyers
-The strongest competition possible
-The best chance at highest net and cleanest terms
Any strategy that limits visibility, creates friction for outside agents, or prioritizes internal control over competition deserves scrutiny. Consumers deserve transparency. Sellers should fully understand whether a strategy is designed to benefit THEM or the brokerage.
Compass and a few other brokerages have been moving in that general direction too: more emphasis on private exclusives, office exclusives, in-house first exposure, and brokerage controlled listing pipelines before or instead of full MLS/public market exposure.
When you shrink the buyer pool, you shrink the seller’s opportunity. Fewer eyes on a property usually means less competition, less leverage, and a greater risk that the best buyer never shows up.
Howard Hanna debuts HannaList in April in Ohio and Pittsburgh, offering an early access phase alligned with local MLS rules.