Does this actually help consumers?

Can you explain how the the private listing benefits the listing agent? Why would they want to sell it through their own network rather than on the open market? I would think on the open market they'd have a better chance at a higher commission with an unrepresented buyer who sees the listing, whereas their network will require them to split the commission? Or is the deal that the higher ups at Elliman and Corcoran are pushing these so that they get both sides? I don't see how this helps individual agents or buyers. I can see why a seller might choose this, but it has to be the seller's choice. I don't get why any individual agent would ever push this.

Or is the deal that an unrepresented buyer pays no commission? Whatever the listing agent gets is dependent on their contract with the seller, and a seller can put in that they will only pay the listing agent X% regardless of who else is involved in the transaction.

In any event, I realize I did not answer your question - I can see how it helps the seller because it gives them a basis for deviating from the standard percentage listing fee in their listing contract. BUT, if appears it is having the unintended effect of narrowing the exposure if the listing agents are being pressured by their brokerage to keep the listing away from the eyes of unrepresented buyers.

This conversation confirms, the common layman conception that, the seller's broker works for himself not the seller

value, I was trained back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, but a cornerstone of that was that, during seller representation, the widest exposure would lead to the highest price. Some clients (someone going through a divorce, for example) might prefer to trade off getting a lower price for their asset for the "privilege" of more privacy. But I just don't see how it benefits "most" sellers, and I think the industry is lying to them when it says it does.

mcr, I think the idea that the big firms are having is that they'll keep both sides of the deal in-house. I don't think it benefits the agents; I think it benefits the brokerages.

Ali - I agree. You have now explained to me why various agents we interviewed to represent were pushing for private listing before going MLS. I raised my eyebrows but spent no time pondering the oddity until your post. Now I get it.

Doesn't make any sense to ask for a private listing, it's so blatantly tilted towards enriching the brokerage. With the current commission transparency, if you're a seller and you feel you have a worthy property, simply reduce the commission you're willing to pay to a buyer agent. Who in their right mind would recommend to a seller on Sutton place to list privately and lose an exceptionally large portion of the buyer pool? It's already difficult enough selling over there.

I think in the future you will see more and more successful brokerage teams as well as successful brokers simply moving their business over to a company like Side. For approximately 10% of the deal they supply all the back end support and technical support.

We all seem agreed on private listings. I don't know about teams without brokerage umbrellas though. I do think (and surprisingly, probably, since I'm a boutique broker with many happy clients) there are some arguments for size. The watercooler argument, for instance, that you might get wider and more updated market information at the morning meeting of a big brokerage than you could get from just your team alone.

I find the current situation puzzling on a number of levels. When we sold our not cheap apartment last year, a significant criteria when interviewing brokers was how they would promote the apartment, develop social media strategy, etc. A private listing is counter-intuitive.

I am not sure whether this is a different iteration of the trend Ali raises, but we are now renters, and I got a Streeteasy email a few weeks ago about an open house for a mid- to high seven figure apartment in the same building. We might be buyers in the future, so I hit the "schedule a showing" button on Streeteasy so we could attend the open house. I was instead contacted by a different broker, who told me that the button connects you with an "expert" buyer rep, and no one will show an apartment at that price level to an unrepresented buyer (accompanied by an offer to send info about private listings). I went to the listing broker's website and the listing there said nothing about any open house. I'll keep renting.

@keith - Agree, and again, kudos to you for capitalizing on the nonsense.

@Ali and @nyc sport - Agree with both of your different points.

@nyc_sport - Congrats on selling on your place and on becoming a renter. I will give up on the idea of buying your place. I am also giving up on the idea of selling our place as Mr. MCR has become fond of not only our apartment, but our dysfunctional family that is comprised of our fellow owners. I am not going to lie, I do love the apartment and am not upset that it is still in the portfolio.

*give up on the idea of you buying our place.
*also giving up on the idea of selling our place in general

Yeah that's essentially the old bait and Switch button on the street Easy!. Contact button is simply to connect you with a broker paying for that space. If you scroll through the listing, you will find something that identifies the actual listing agent who provided the listing.

Another thing I'm running into quite a bit, the buyer agreements that big firms are using state that the buyer signing agreement must make up for any shortfall in commission not offered by a seller. Obviously this can be quite significant.. It has become an issue during a few negotiations that we've done recently on some of our listings. Basically if the seller is only offering 2% to the buyer agent, the buyer agent is going to want their client to make up the difference. Pay them 1%.

One advantage to the transparency and who's paying the commission, meaning the seller is individually paying the listing agent and the buyer agent, the ability to use that has leverage to get a deal done. I had a client who was recently maxed out as far as bidding goes and we're told we did not win in a best and highest. We went back offering to accept 1% commissions, meaning the offer was now 2% higher and we adjusted soome terms. Happy to report they're now in their new condo in Brooklyn with their new baby! In some cases, I've accepted a flat fee from a buyer, and when we bid let the listing agent know we were not asking for commission to be paid by the seller, effectively increasing our bid by 3% in this case. Again, it was enough to put us over the top even though we were competing against a cash buyer. It's a brave new world!

Apologies, typing this on my phone, and it's difficult edit!

Keith, congrats on that client. commissions are always negotiable so in theory the big firms, while doing buyer representation, could also flex their commissions down (whether they do in practice is another story).

MCR, congrats on staying put, though I guess you have two apts now? Buy your listing broker something pretty.

nyc_sport, *of course* the listing broker will welcome you as an unrepresented buyer. they'll need you to sign the NYS buyer agency agreement to cover their own butt, but there's a way to fill out to show that you're unrepresented. The NYS department of state is in favor of consumer choice, so if that's the way you want to roll, go for it.

Keith, for the one percent commission, do you still help the buyer complete the Board application for a co op?

@Ali - We are going to let the listing run its course and if we get an offer at asking, we will take it. I just don't think we will get an offer at asking. Frankly, if we get another offer below asking I would be tempted to bludgeon Mr. MCR into accepting it, but I have completely check out of NY and am letting him handle everything, including the fact that yes, we now do have two apartment in NY - one rented and one owned. I have no interest in ever even seeing the rented one, and would like the owned one to go away because I don't know if I really am capable of totally checking out of something I own, but I am going to do my best.

We actually have a rebate schedule, our commission is based on that, you can see it on my website. Yes, we have a dedicated board package specialist, I think he's probably the best in New York City! Unbelievably organized and efficient, formally a broker at a large firm as well. And yes that is included.

https://www.theburkhardtgroup.com/buyers

mcr now you have a nifty landing pad for visiting relatives.

@stache - Ha! We have multiple nieces who would love to upgrade their accommodations, and Mr. MCR may well decide to sublet the newly rented place to the nieces or one of his colleagues if the owned place does not sell. What we have learned in this exercise is that Mr. MCR really values community, and he has zero chance of developing any community in the rented apartment, whereas he has a community that he has known for over ten years in the owned place, and the old place feels like "home" to him because of that.

My hope is that he will get used to the new place and forget all about the old place during the remaining time we have on the listing. Best case scenario for me is that the listing sells; if the listing does not sell and Mr. MCR moves back in, I will go back to being tortured and tempted to move there myself on a daily basis, but responsibilities here in Nowhere really make that not possible with a clear conscience.

I suspect Mr. MCR could use some kind of Pavlovian training to suit your nefarious intent!

Zillow flexing
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2025/04/14/zillow-stands-against-private-real-estate-listings/83081929007/

Well alrighty then. I thought the consensus of this forum was that Zillow was in the pocket of the brokers. Anybody have any additional insight? (along the lines of Navalny/GeorgeConway/FillInTheBlank are playing a more narrow game)

PS - @stache, I believe Mr. MCR is vulnerable to Pavlovian training. I am doing my best to deploy it in Nowhere to have him forget about the larger issues plaguing society. If I prevail, he will not only forget about the old coop, but also NYC, his firm and the future of the country.

As a buyer, I kind of liked being able to browse and compare. I came up with places that didn't align at all with what I had in mind. In the end, the place I bought didn't tick any of my meticulously organized little boxes. I just loved it. And my broker never would have suggested it.

I am entertained by this version of a private listing, whereby you don’t put up a listing yet have the WSJ write a very public “article” / ad.

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/former-howard-hughes-ceo-david-weinreb-asks-75-million-for-manhattan-penthouse-e0491e9a

https://streeteasy.com/building/551-west-21st-street-new_york

I wonder if he's selling because the thing that's going up across 21st to the south (550 W 21st) will block the view from the MBR bathtub? (20 stories, 250')

Ah, that lot is finally getting moving again?

I doubt that’s the reason. As I understand it, the owner never moved in. This is what it looked like in Jan 2022 when he tried to sell for about a year — a shell:

https://streeteasy.com/building/551-west-21st-street-new_york/ph

And an accompanying WSJ article back then too:

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/luxury-homes/a-new-york-penthouse-with-a-private-rooftop-pool-is-asking-49-995-million-11611939616

I think he concluded that he’d have better luck selling if the apartment were built out, so he spent 3 years building it out?

I gotta say, that’s a lotta grief for a place the guy never used. Went into contract in 2015, bought in 2017, sat empty for the next 4 years as raw space, tried selling for a year but didn’t work, started project to build the space for the next 3 years, trying to sell again. 10 years for zero enjoyment — yeesh.

Meanwhile, the neighbor in the PH below has spent two years from trying to sell. They started at recouping their costs ($37M) with a $40M ask and are now down to $29M.

WSJ article, of course, but also a déclassé sales listing:

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/a-west-chelsea-condo-is-looking-to-join-downtown-manhattans-penthouse-craze-c573231b

https://streeteasy.com/building/551-west-21st-street-new_york/ph19b

https://streeteasy.com/building/551-west-21st-street-new_york/ph19

I’d never buy an apartment that is listed — smacks of desperation.

Sounds like this particular area didn't take off. Traffic noise?

One of these could make a very fine next rental for you, Nada?

@stache: I find it to be a sort of meh neighborhood: You're right on the west side highway, overlooking chelsea piers. Late afternoon brings blinding sunset light, and a night time view of... New Jersey, rather than a classic NYC view (skyscrapers, Central Park, etc.). There's not a lot going on over there, though it's easy for David Zwirner to deliver whatever new art you've bought - but it's an apartment with walls of mostly glass, so where's it going to hang? For the money, you could be on/near billionaires row, or have a knockout townhouse most anywhere in the city.

I like that area (being very near the River for running, and the river views, I really don’t care if it’s NJ on the other side) but maybe not for those prices. Looking at the more modestly priced units that have recently sold, they are all selling for a loss compared to what the sellers paid for 5-7 years ago. So I think there was a lot of hype about that area and it really hasn’t lived up to that. But I would prefer a somewhat older condo for less money in the same area or for those prices you should be able to get something similarly very nice in West village, Tribeca, or Soho, all areas I would prefer than than West Chelsea

I'm not sure it was the area. The building was hyped as if it were going to be TNBT and then it wasn't.

original buyers in a new building often sell at a loss, because they paid a new building premium, which does not exit five or ten years later when they sell. Also the second buyer might be more inclined to notice the significant discrepancy between the stated square footage and the actual square footage.

Interesting to have this plot right at the end of 21st Street, Walk East between 9th and 10th and you arguably have one of the nicest blocks in Chelsea. But I would agree with what 30 said and also just not a location for ballers.

>> One of these could make a very fine next rental for you, Nada?

When they tire, I’ll be here.

>> Looking at the more modestly priced units that have recently sold, they are all selling for a loss compared to what the sellers paid for 5-7 years ago. So I think there was a lot of hype about that area and it really hasn’t lived up to that. But I would prefer a somewhat older condo for less money in the same area or for those prices you should be able to get something similarly very nice in West village, Tribeca, or Soho, all areas I would prefer than than West Chelsea.

I don’t think it’s specific to that area; trajectories for this type of thing has been about the same in those other neighborhoods.

I agree my comment was more to the fact that at the current prices for 551 W21, I would prefer to live in those other areas (West village, Soho, etc), which I personally would consider more desirable, for very similar prices, although I am sure I would have to accept an older building with less amenities, but per a discussion on a different thread, these amenity laden buildings don’t make any sense to me as someone who won’t come close to using most of the them.

It seems to me North of 23rd W Chelsea has become more chic compared to area right below that.

This is the third listing that has popped up in my saved search after it has gone into contract, suggesting "private exclusives" are prevalent indeed.

https://streeteasy.com/building/455-east-51-street-new_york/1a?utm_campaign=sale_listing&utm_medium=share&utm_source=web&lstt=p7il0hWaUa4ZqsPvsMwyziPJSLyYAjLEQbKmwujjkjzvTPIMR0ShP1IbjLCcAtydGj0E93ZHjoU6jp5I

That is one nice unit, and looks to be in very good condition. I might only dislike the noise and dirt off the highway.

Terrible location.

That apartment and building in general are both beautiful. It is well above the highway, insulated from both dirt and noise. High ground back in the day when it mattered more than it does today.

Triple glazed windows pretty much take care of all street noise. I looked at the Kensington fairly recently after they replaced their windows with this. It's remarkable.

@mcr: Thanks for the info. I've been by the building several times, but didn't think very closely about traffic noise -- certainly if modern quality windows have been put in, along with central air, that would made a huge difference. I generally like the neighborhood.