For investors, the rationale is clear: they’re working in their own best interests. By finding sellers who value speed or convenience over top dollar, investors can purchase properties below market value. But for a listing agent, whose role is to maximize exposure and achieve the best possible outcome for their seller clients, the same approach seems counterintuitive. Why would an agent limit market exposure, potentially reducing competition and sale price, when their duty is to act in the seller’s best financial interest?
Of course, there are exceptions. In rare cases—such as when selling a high-profile celebrity’s home—privacy might outweigh the importance of a bidding war. Keeping the listing quiet in such scenarios can make sense. However, in markets like St. Louis, this isn’t a common occurrence. For most sellers, achieving the highest possible price is the priority, and the MLS is designed to do just that by exposing properties to the widest audience.
This raises questions when we look at the local numbers. As of January 8, in the counties in Missouri that have listings in MARIS, the regional MLS for the area, there were a total of 15,199 active listings on the market, including those already under contract or pending sales. Of those, 1,275—or 8.39%—were office exclusive and excluded from the MLS. Nearly one in 11 listings are excluded, which seems like a surprising number of “celebrities.” Given that only 76 of the MLS-listed properties had prices over $2 million and the median price was $300,000, it’s unlikely that a large percentage of these listings are celebrity homes. For the Illinois market in MARIS, the numbers are better, with 3,568 active listings (including under contract) and only 149 of those—or 4.18%—being office exclusive.
Digging deeper, there are three counties in Missouri with significantly higher percentages of office-exclusive listings. St. Louis County leads with over 17% of listings being office exclusive, followed by St. Charles County with over 11%, and the City of St. Louis with over 10%. These numbers highlight that the practice is more prevalent in certain areas, raising even more questions about whether these exclusions serve the best interests of sellers in those markets.
So, where does this leave us? Should listing agents continue adopting strategies that mimic investor tactics, even if it means potentially sacrificing their clients’ best financial outcomes? And how do we, as an industry, reconcile the increasing popularity of office-exclusive listings with the ethical and fiduciary obligations of representation? These are questions that deserve thoughtful discussion.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we pride ourselves on transparency and always putting our clients’ best interests first. Whether you’re buying, selling, or investing, our team is here to provide expert guidance tailored to your unique goals.
Comments are closed.
