For many high-achieving real estate professionals, stress sneaks in quietly, even in the midst of what looks like success. Author Stacey Soleil offers insights designed to help you enjoy your top-producer status.

For years, the real estate industry has leaned on “transparency” as both a shield and a sword. Whenever innovation threatens the status quo, gatekeepers quickly rally behind consumer protection. But who’s really being protected?

Let’s take a step back.

Not long ago, Zillow led the charge into iBuying, buying homes from sellers directly, often at steep discounts. Many large brokers followed suit to compete, launching their own offerings. These were one-on-one transactions with zero exposure to the open market. The justification? “Convenience.” It was fine, we were told, because sellers knew what they were getting into and there were disclosures if they didn’t.

Fast forward to today, and some of the same players now declare that listing a home anywhere but the MLS is dangerous. So dangerous, in fact, that they block those listings from their platforms entirely.

How did we go from “it’s fine to advertise to one buyer” to “if your home isn’t exposed to every buyer, it’s malpractice”?

The answer isn’t transparency. It’s economics.

Zillow earns billions through referral fees, up to 40% of an agent’s commission, by controlling lead flow from the MLS. Private listing networks (PLNs) threaten that funnel. So the message has changed. What was once a legitimate consumer choice is now framed as a public danger.

To be clear, selling a home off-MLS can mean fewer buyers and lower offers. But here’s the thing: sellers already understand that. eXp Realty, one of the largest brokerages in the country, created a one-page disclosure that clearly outlines the risks of limited exposure. It’s simple, straightforward, and readable at a high school level. It was widely lauded by the industry’s largest players as a great step to protect consumers.

My teenage daughter gets it. She knows that if she wants top dollar, she’ll sell on Depop which she prefers for its perfectly targeted teen audience, not at a garage sale. But sometimes, she still chooses the simplicity of a local sale. Less hassle, quicker outcome and no fees. Should I scold my daughter for leaving money on the table? Should we mandate that she also pay to list on eBay because it has a larger audience and more name recognition than Depop?

Let’s consider the industry stance on dual agency. This is arguably one of the most structurally conflicted relationships in real estate, and yet, it remains legal in many states. The industry’s solution? A simple disclosure form.

Even though dual agency forces agents to step back from fully advocating for either party and often leads to vague, compromised negotiations where “meeting in the middle” replaces aggressive representation, the disclosure is sufficient. Why? Because it often doubles commissions. 

To be fair, not all intra-brokerage deals present this kind of conflict. Many firms use designated agency models where each party has a separate representative. But if the industry is comfortable relying on a disclosure for something this structurally complex, why isn’t the same standard acceptable for a seller deciding how broadly to market their home?

When competition enters the picture, such as listing outside the MLS, the public is suddenly too naive to understand the risks. That’s not transparency. That’s a double standard.

What’s rarely discussed is that the industry doesn’t just restrict where agents can list, it confiscates the most valuable asset in every transaction: the data.

In other platform economies (Facebook, YouTube, even retail media) creators exchange their data or content for meaningful benefits: reach, monetization, or free access. In real estate, agents are told the same thing: give us your listing data, and in return, you’ll get exposure. But here’s the difference – agents also pay for the privilege. They fund the MLS through dues, then watch their data flow to portals and platforms that monetize it again, often through referral fees that further reduce their earnings.

If the data is this valuable, why aren’t agents sharing in the upside? Why can’t they choose platforms that reward their contribution, or pass along savings to their clients? Instead of being empowered participants in the data economy, agents are treated as vendors feeding a system they’re also forced to subsidize.

Some in the industry now want the MLS codified into law, a “utility” in name only, without oversight, price regulation, or accountability. In reality, this would entrench control while continuing to exclude over a million licensees who either can’t afford dues or choose not to join NAR. And with straight faces, these same voices claim that not using their system is malpractice.

The Department of Justice saw the problem. As part of its settlement talks, the DOJ pushed to open MLS access to all licensed agents, not just those paying Realtor dues. NAR refused. That disagreement helped derail the deal. If MLS access were truly public and affordable, participation would likely double, increasing competition and driving down costs for consumers. But that would mean letting go of the velvet ropes.

Which brings us to another form of selective framing: the way sale prices are measured and promoted.

Industry studies frequently claim that FSBO and off-MLS homes sell for less than those listed on the MLS. But these analyses nearly always focus on gross sale price, ignoring what actually matters to consumers: net proceeds. A FSBO seller might accept a lower price, but if they save 5–6% in commissions, they may come out ahead, or at least even. Net proceeds, not just top-line price, should be the benchmark for consumer outcomes.

Zillow’s own recent study, for example, found that off-MLS listings sold for 1.5% less on average. What it didn’t mention is whether those sellers paid a fraction of the commission, or any commission at all. By omitting that context, the message becomes misleading: as if any seller who tries something different is simply losing money.

If the industry truly believes consumers can’t grasp these trade-offs, then presenting top-line numbers without mentioning commission costs isn’t just incomplete, it’s disingenuous. At best, it’s selective framing. At worst, it’s a polished form of gaslighting dressed up as consumer protection.

If we truly care about consumers, let’s prove it:

• Require clear disclosures, not mandates.
• Prohibit double-ending a transaction by the same agent to remove the most egregious conflicts of interest, while preserving intra-office designated agency where each party has separate representation.
• Outlaw or at least bring transparency to hidden referral fees that quietly extract up to 40% of every commission.
• Let sellers decide how to sell, with plain-English disclosures, not gatekeeping.

Transparency isn’t the problem. It’s the pretense that consumers need to be saved from choices that are easy to understand. If a seller wants broad exposure, they’ll choose it. If they want privacy, speed, or discount commissions, let them have it, with eyes wide open.

Don’t weaponize transparency. Honor it.

Dean DiCarlo is the CEO of Homing.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.To contact the editor responsible for this piece: zeb@hwmedia.com.

CEO Hoby Hanna sent a letter to NAR and the more than 70 MLSs the major real estate brokerage belongs to informing them that it will no longer consider itself bound by the policy.

DIY automation pitfalls/myths: It’s time to rethink your strategy

In today’s mortgage industry, nearly every organization is battling inefficiencies caused by manual processes. Whether it’s a loan officer pulling data from one system to enter it into another, or underwriting teams relying on endless email threads and spreadsheets, the day-to-day operations behind most lending workflows are still shockingly analog.

These fragmented, repetitive tasks don’t just slow things down, they also operate in the shadows. Because they aren’t digitized, we don’t have access to performance data that would allow us to analyze, refine, and improve them. That means valuable opportunities to increase margins, shorten cycle times, and better serve borrowers are often missed entirely.

 So, where does automation come in? 

These types of hidden manual workflows are ideal candidates for automation. But solving them is rarely simple and rarely cheap. While it’s tempting to view automation as a silver bullet, the true cost of implementing it, especially in the mortgage space, is far more complex.

Custom development: Tailored… but at what cost?

Some lenders turn to custom development to build in-house automation solutions. While that offers the potential for tailored tools, it comes with heavy trade-offs:

• High upfront costs: From design to development and testing, custom projects require large capital and time investments.
• Tech debt and maintenance: What works today may not scale tomorrow. Teams often find themselves constantly retooling or rewriting codes to adapt to changing needs or regulations.
• Integration headaches: Legacy loan origination systems (LOS), CRM tools, and document management systems often don’t play nicely together, requiring extensive custom interfaces.
• Security and compliance risks: In a heavily regulated industry like mortgage lending, the burden of ensuring compliance falls squarely on your team.
• Innovation lag: As technologies like AI and process mining evolve, custom tools can quickly become outdated, requiring more investment to stay relevant.

In short, while custom development gives you control, it rarely delivers agility something lenders need now more than ever.

RPA, IDP, and OCR: Powerful but piecemeal

Point solutions like Robotic Process Automation (RPA), Intelligent Document Processing (IDP), and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) have surged in popularity. Each can automate specific tasks like pulling data from PDFs or copying information between systems.

But in isolation, these tools often fail to deliver true operational transformation.

• High total cost of ownership: Licensing, infrastructure, training, and maintenance add up quickly.
• Limited ROI in dynamic environments: Mortgage processes are fluid, regulatory environments shift, and loan products change. Tools built for static workflows struggle to adapt.
• Fragmentation: Relying on a patchwork of automation tools often leads to more complexity not less.

Without strong process governance and a unified strategy, these solutions become expensive Band-Aids.

Automation platforms: The gold standard, if you’re ready

Low-code automation platforms promise a broader, more strategic approach. And they can deliver but only if you have the right foundation.

Here’s what many lenders don’t anticipate:

• Ramp-up time: These platforms require skilled resources. It can take months for internal teams to become proficient enough to build meaningful solutions.
• Professional services costs: Most vendors offer services to help build your first automations but at a cost. In some cases, the cost of that first project matches or exceeds your original licensing investment.
• Hidden dependencies: If your project still requires RPA or IDP components, those licenses and integration efforts stack up quickly.
• Return on investment (ROI): Without a 3–5-years automation roadmap and dedicated internal support, most organizations struggle to realize meaningful ROI.

A smarter path forward: Strategic partnership

So, what’s the solution?

For mortgage lenders who want to automate but don’t have the time or resources to build out an entire automation practice, partnering with a trusted expert can be the best path forward.

A strategic automation partner brings:

• Domain expertise: Deep understanding of mortgage workflows, regulatory concerns, and operational bottlenecks.
• Prebuilt accelerators: Templates and tools tailored to the industry that reduce development time.
• Technology agility: The ability to blend AI, custom dev, low code automation technologies, BPO, RPA, IDP, OCR, and broader platforms into a cohesive solution—without the technical debt.

Sometimes the right partner can help you avoid the pitfalls of DIY automation while accelerating time-to-value. Whether you’re a credit union, independent mortgage bank, or fintech lender, automation should enhance your business and not bog it down.

Danny Torbett is the Director of Technology Sales for Moder.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of HousingWire’s editorial department and its owners.

To contact the editor responsible for this piece: zeb@hwmedia.com.

Some New York City renters could gain a path to buying their apartments under legislation passed in the whopping $254 billion New York state budget last month.

The budget lowers the number of renters or would-be-buyers that would need to agree to convert some newer, large apartment buildings from rental to condo. It’s one of a handful of initiatives—including a new statewide housing voucher program—that could have major impacts on NYC housing in the coming years.

The budget includes some big wins for owners and would-be-buyers: it blocks large investors from buying single- and two-family homes for 90 days, funds a program that helps owners fight off scams and foreclosure, and provides $50 million in funding for the Housing Access Voucher Program (HAVP), which would subsidize rent for low-income, homeless New Yorkers or those at risk of homelessness.

But the budget does not include Governor Kathy Hochul’s proposed $50 million in funding to help would-be-buyers make a down payment, despite both the state legislature and assembly initially supporting the idea, New York Focus reported. Nor does the budget include a state ban on price-fixing software that sets rents for landlords—which Hochul pitched in January.

Read on for how the state budget impacts NYC’s renters and would-be-buyers.

Easing condo conversions

Residents in large, newer apartment buildings across the city could vote to convert their rental buildings into condo buildings and buy their units, if just 15 percent of tenants or would-be buyers agree. 

If that number sounds familiar, that’s because rental buildings could be converted into condos if 15 percent of tenants voted in favor of the move before 2019, when the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act raised the portion of tenants who had to agree from 15 percent to 51 percent. This law, the Affordable Housing Retention Act, brings back the old 15 percent margin for certain properties.

Still, most NYC buildings aren’t eligible to go condo under the new legislation. Eligible properties must have 100 or more units, built after 1996, and contain rent-stabilized apartments because the developer benefited from state or local tax breaks in exchange for those units. (Think the 421-a program or federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program.)

Under the law, a non-profit would need to buy the building’s rent-stabilized units for a conversion to go forward, and those apartments would become permanently rent-stabilized. Or, regulated tenants could buy their units to create a limited equity housing cooperative, such as a Housing Development Fund Corporation, within the same building.

“For tenants that are living in those low income units, if the building is converted to condominium, those units would remain protected forever, so they would be able to stay in their home,” said Erica Buckley, a partner with Nixon Peabody who leads the law firm’s cooperative and condominium team. 

If rent-stabilized tenants choose to create an HDFC within the condo building, both have to be managed by the same property management company, and all residents need to have equal access to the building’s amenities, Buckley added.

Any tenant who decides to buy would have an exclusive right to purchase their units for three months after any conversion plan is accepted by the State Attorney General’s office, which is charged with overseeing conversions under the law. Those who don’t buy within that window will have another six months after that to make a deal on the same terms of another purchaser who is in contract for the apartment.

And tenants who don’t buy their apartments can’t be evicted just because they didn’t sign on the dotted line. Elderly and disabled tenants, even those that don’t live in rent-stabilized apartments, also receive additional protections against eviction and rent increases under the law similar to those under the state’s new Good Cause eviction law.

Vouchers for those at risk or experiencing homelessness

The budget secures $50 million in funding for a housing voucher program that advocates intend to be a lifeline for homeless New Yorkers or those at risk of becoming homeless.

Homeless New Yorkers, or renters who have received an eviction notice, are living in hotels or motels, and even those who are forced to ditch their apartments because of an asbestos infestation are eligible for the Housing Access Voucher Program, which will help subsidize their rent regardless of their immigration status.

The budget allocates $50 million in funding for the first year of HAVP, with future years up for negotiation, City Limits reported. But that funding is just a fifth of the $250 million advocates hoped to secure over three years, which would have served roughly 13,760 households, according to New York University’s Furman Center estimate. 

Based on some back-of-the-envelope calculations, that $50 million would serve just under 3,000 households. 

“We want to make sure the program continues to grow, expands, and is further implemented,” said Logan Phares, political director of Open New York, a pro-development nonprofit. “This is a really important first step.”

HAVP is launching just as President Donald Trump’s administration proposes slashing federal housing programs, including Section 8, a subsidy that nearly 123,000 NYC households rely on to help pay their rent, according to the Furman Center. This spring, Section 8 payment delays rattled voucher holders, landlords, and advocates alike, and the latter warned that late payments and growing uncertainty over Section 8’s fate could worsen housing discrimination. 

Bebhinn Francis, an organizer at United Tenants of Albany and a longtime campaigner for HAVP, said she feared those cuts will drive up homelessness across New York. 

“I’m very concerned we’re going to see eviction and homelessness rise between now and when this program is implemented,” Francis said. “But at least we have a safety net to look forward to,” Francis added, referring to HAVP.

No money for first-time buyers

New Yorkers hoping to score some cash to make a down payment will be disappointed by this year’s budget.

In January, Hochul proposed spending $50 million to create a statewide assistance program to help first-time buyers make a down payment. But her January pitch, which came with few details, didn’t make it into the finished budget. 

“We need resources for down payment assistance,” said Kevin Wolfe, deputy director for advocacy and public affairs at the Center for New York City Neighborhoods. “It’s important, and we want to work on that in the next budget.”

Buyers can currently get up to $100,000 in a forgivable loan to buy their first condo, co-op, or one- to four-family house through the city’s HomeFirst program. But few New Yorkers are selected; HomeFirst provided loans to 1,149 New Yorkers in the past decade, though additional funding will serve another 1,000 first-time buyers over the next five years.

The budget also failed to ban software that sets rents for landlords, something Hochul pitched in her State of the State address in January. The U.S. Justice Department sued six of the country’s biggest landlords for allegedly colluding by using the software to artificially raise rents after a ProPublica investigation exposed the trend.

Caption

New Yorkers can score up to $100,000 in a forgivable loan to buy their first condo, co-op, or one- to four-family house through HomeFirst, though the NYC program is very competitive.

Credit

iStock

A delay on large investors

Big investors looking to scoop up some of New York’s one- and two-family houses will need to back off—for about three months—under new legislation enacted in the budget.

Investors who own 10 or more single- or two-family properties and have at least $30 million in assets under management will have to wait 90 days before they can make an offer on those types of properties. Nonprofits, land banks, and community land trusts are exempt from the rule.

Large investor-owners exacerbate “existing scarcity and [drive] up prices,” for would-be-buyers statewide, according to a press release from the governor’s office.

“That’s one of the things that’s putting pressure on affordability for first-time buyers,” Wolfe said. “This is a step in the right direction.” 

Hochul originally proposed a 75-day waiting period for these purchases in her January State of the State address, but upped the timeline to 90 days in the final budget. But the legislation does have one notable carveout: houses sold in foreclosure are exempt from the new law, according to a press release.

Owners can still get help with scams

Owners behind on their real estate taxes, facing foreclosure, or dealing with a deed theft scam will still be able to get one-on-one help from a network of 89 nonprofits statewide funded by the Homeowner Protection Program, which scored $40 million in the budget.

“This is a tremendous win for the homeowners of New York state,” said Wolfe of CNYC, one of the partners that helps administer HOPP throughout the state. “By providing the $40 million in funding, the state is paying for the nonprofit attorneys to represent owners in court, to provide financial counselors to give advice for homeowners who may be in debt, and to help them get out of debt.” Wolfe said.

The funding is even more crucial today, Wolfe said, given the federal government’s cuts to offices that traditionally protect owners, such as a drastic 90 percent reduction for staffers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Owners can also get assistance in getting their properties off the tax lien sale list. Private investors can purchase these liens, tack on high interest and fees, and go after owners for the inflated amount—even forcing them into foreclosure. Mayor Eric Adams’s administration is gearing up to hold a tax lien sale on June 2nd, and as of late March there were 21,372 residential properties on the list citywide. 

If you’re a New York City resident who needs help, you can also call 311 and ask for the Homeowner Help Desk, a CNYCN program that assists residents in Central Brooklyn, Southeastern Queens, and the North Bronx. You can also get help from the HOPP website, Homeowner Help NY.

More money, more development

Last but not least, Governor Hochul dedicated a whopping $1 billion to the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity—a key commitment that helped get the landmark legislation passed last year.

The proposal aims to create over 80,000 new housing units in NYC over 15 years to address the affordable housing shortage. The legislation rolled back mandatory parking requirements and created new zoning districts to allow for taller towers that include affordable units.

The budget also secures $50 million to fund low-interest loans for developers to build housing outside NYC.