Zillow stopped showing certain home listings in May under new listing policy
Zillow stopped showing certain home listings in May under new listing policy
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Mortgage preapproval first-time homebuyers
If you're a first-time homebuyer, here's how to get a mortgage preapproved.
Starting earlier this month, any property listing that was publicly marketed to consumers but not listed on the local MLS within one business day no longer appears on Zillow.
This step is in line with the National Association of Realtors' Clear Cooperation Policy, which aims to prevent exclusive real estate listings and increase fairness among buyers.
Real estate giant Zillow is shaking up the housing industry with new standards that the company says fall in line with new regulations aimed at transparency, but others believe they represent a power play by the nation's largest residential real estate listing service.
The company announced that any property listing that has been publicly marketed to consumers — whether through yard signs, in social media posts or on a brokerage website — but not listed on the local MLS within one business day, will no longer appear on Zillow or its daughter company, Trulia.
Sometimes agents will make an agreement with a seller that says they'll list the property only on their brokerage website, rather than also on the MLS. The new standards Zillow is following say it won't show those listings. Similar listings that were posted on the platform before these new standards will remain on the website.
In case you missed it: As real estate listings become more private, Zillow fights back
This step is in line with the National Association of Realtors' Clear Cooperation Policy, which aims to prevent property listings from being selectively marketed to certain people and to create an even playing field for all buyers.
"At the core of these standards is one simple principle: A listing publicly marketed to any buyer should be marketed to every buyer. This means in the MLS, on Zillow and even on non-Zillow portals or brokerage sites," Zillow's April announcement reads. "Why is this important? Because consumers deserve fair access to listings without having to get access behind a velvet rope controlled by any one company."
Several real estate brokerages, including West USA Realty, eXp Realty and NextHome, have already vowed to follow Zillow's new standards.
But Homes.com, another prominent real estate company, criticized Zillow's new standards in an email to agent subscribers, saying listing platforms should remain neutral and that this is a "power play of epic proportion."
"Zillow is asserting that they, not NAR, not your brokerage, not you the listing agent — and not even the homeowner whose house it is and is paying the commission — should decide how a listing is marketed," said Andrew Florance, founder and CEO of CoStar, the parent company of Homes.com. "This is not about protecting consumers — it's about protecting Zillow's ability to profit from listings by selling leads to competing agents."
According to a February Zillow investor presentation, 80% of consumers go directly to Zillow for residential real estate. Zillow also attracts 64% of all traffic among users of listing apps, which is more than four times that of Realtor.com, its closest competitor.
Because of that, Zillow said this is a step in the right direction to minimize confusion among consumers and ensure fair access to real estate information for all buyers.
"By requiring timely listings in the MLS and on other sites that receive MLS feeds, Zillow aims to prevent the disadvantages that arise from private listing networks and restricted inventory, which limit visibility and have an added impact for first-time buyers, lower-income groups and communities of color," the announcement reads.
Maddie McGay is the real estate reporter for NorthJersey.com and The Record, covering all things worth celebrating about living in North Jersey. Find her on Instagram @maddiemcgay, on X @maddiemcgayy, and sign up for her North Jersey Living newsletter. Do you have a tip, trend or terrific house she should know about? Email her at MMcGay@gannett.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Silicon Valley's not crying for Musk
Few tears will be shed in Silicon Valley or at Big Tech firms over Elon Musk's precipitous fall from White House grace. Why it matters: Musk's brief alliance with President Trump warped the usual dynamics of the relationship between America's most valuable industry and its center of political power. Between the lines: Musk himself is widely admired in tech's corridors of power for Tesla's and SpaceX's innovations — but also widely disliked for his unfulfillable promises, erratic behavior and social media addiction. Now that Musk is suddenly on the outs with Trump, a lot of tech leaders are quietly crossing their fingers that they can get back to dealmaking and policy-setting without worrying about a key competitor whispering in the president's ear. Tech giants can't be sure that whoever replaces Musk as Trump's favorite geek will bring stability or regulatory relief — but Musk wasn't delivering on those fronts either. On the other hand, any follow-through on Trump's threat to strangle the flow of federal dollars to Musk's firms would demonstrate that vendettas are the new normal. Such targeting of one person's business empire with the full force of presidential power would send a chill down any CEO's spine, pro- or anti-Trump. The big picture: Tech leaders see huge opportunities in Washington and government work right now. AI is exploding, defense tech is booming, and crypto firms are chomping at the bit. Plenty of CEOs resented what they saw as the Biden administration's hostility to deals, dedication to strict regulation and aggressive stance on antitrust. Yes, but: The long Republican tradition of business-friendly regulatory positions has mutated into a Trumpian realpolitik. The Trump administration has been forthright in its intention to help friends and punish enemies. Help comes as contracts and preferential treatment by regulators; punishment comes via canceled contracts, fines and even prosecution by the Justice Department. The terms of this week's Trump-Musk feud made starkly clear how serious Trump is about these carrot-and-stick moves. Losers: Musk himself obviously faces not only financial losses but a reputational reckoning. He has already alienated his liberal-left fans, who'd once been drawn to his electric vehicles. If Trump's MAGA loyalists abandon him too, he might be left with a thinned social media fan base, a pile of sinking shares, and not much else. Winners: Virtually any tech leader not named Musk can find satisfaction in his misfortune. Musk's businesses are all deeply entangled with one another but rarely partner with non-Musk-owned firms. His empire is a mostly self-contained Muskiverse, meaning its woes aren't likely to prove contagious. There are plenty of MAGA-friendly tech firms — think Palantir and Anduril in defense tech, Meta under a newly MAGA-fied Mark Zuckerberg, or the Andreessen-Horowitz portfolio in startups — ready to step in to the Musk void in D.C. if he and the president don't patch things up. U.S. leaders may decide it's time to broaden the supply of rockets that can launch satellites and astronauts into space beyond SpaceX — and that could benefit Jeff Bezos and his Blue Origin firm. One of the biggest winners, even though he has largely stayed mum on the Musk/Trump fireworks, is OpenAI's Sam Altman. Musk's role in the Trump administration gave his company an inside track on federal contracts. Altman, who wasn't ever known to be close to Trump, surprised Musk by repackaging his giant Stargate datacenter project as a Trump deal and winning an Oval Office photo op with Trump the day after the new president's inauguration. Altman and Musk have their own feud. Both were among the nonprofit's cofounders, and Musk has sued OpenAI, claiming that under Altman it has abandoned its original AI safety mission. Another winner: Vice President J.D. Vance, who during Musk's White House days seemed to fade into the woodwork, has a chance to reassert his primacy as the Trump administration's ambassador to tech. Still to be seen is where some of the other key tech players in Trumpworld — like White House adviser David Sacks — land when the firestorm subsides. The intrigue: You won't read expressions of tech leaders' relief at Musk's D.C. exit in their posts or interviews. There's nothing to be gained and lots to lose for most executives or investors to take sides in the Trump-Musk war of words. That's why the only sound from tech's normally boisterous social-media gallery has been an occasional wan plea of "be nice and make up." What's next: Trump White House dramas never end, they just go into new seasons.
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
Why the U.S. tax bill's Section 899 could push European firms to list in the U.S.
The decision by U.K. fintech firm Wise to move its primary stock listing to the U.S. is the latest in a series of blows to the London market — and a new provision tucked inside a U.S. tax bill could make things even worse. Section 899 of President Donald Trump's spending bill, which passed the House of Representatives in May, threatens to penalize foreign-owned firms domiciled in countries with "unfair foreign taxes," and experts say it could accelerate the trend for European companies to hop the pond. The provision introduces retaliatory tax measures against corporations and other entities from countries that have levies such as the Digital Services Taxes and the OECD's global minimum tax rules. The list of affected nations would include most European Union members, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland, among others. For publicly traded companies, Section 899 imposes a new withholding tax on U.S.-sourced income for any foreign corporation that is more than 50% owned by non-U.S. entities. The tax would start at 5% and escalate by five percentage points annually to a maximum of 20%, on top of existing taxes, which vary by country and tax treaties. That could dent earnings for companies in the Stoxx Europe 600 index, for instance, by up to 2% in the first year, and as much as 5% over four years, according to Goldman Sachs analysts. How can European firms avoid Section 899? The Wall Street bank has identified a U.S. re-listing as one of many measures that companies could take if the bill becomes law. A listing in the U.S. would provide a direct path to increasing a company's base of American investors, according to Goldman. This would help companies push their non-U.S. ownership below the critical 50% threshold, taking them out of Section 899's scope. While there are many U.K. companies with high exposure to the U.S. with a majority-U.S. shareholder base, Goldman Sachs identified consumer credit rating firm Experian and Hikma Pharmaceuticals , among others, as two FTSE 100 companies with more than half their group revenues in the U.S. but falling below the 50% threshold for U.S. ownership. The Wall Street bank suggested that such companies could use a U.S. listing as one avenue to avoid taxes imposed by Section 899. Tax experts cautioned that to avoid the impact of Section 899, it would require significantly more work than simply relisting in the U.S. with an attempt to gain U.S. shareholders. "I'm not sure that listing alone would be sufficient," said a senior executive at a large European firm with extensive operations in the U.S., who asked not to be named as they were not authorized to comment on the issue. "The proposed language [in the bill] includes a vote or value test for U.S. ownership, including publicly traded companies, and seems to say that if a company [falls under Section 899 tax] for even one day then it is for the year." The executive also questioned whether companies will be able to identify beneficial owners — or the actual owners that control a business — "with any degree of confidence." That's because the tax bill includes "a look-through concept" — which means U.S. fund managers investing on behalf of foreign clients would not count toward the exemption requirements. "The monitoring [of the shareholder register] alone would be resource intensive," the executive added. Others point out that if European governments dropped what Trump calls their "unfair foreign tax" policies, their companies would automatically be exempted from 899. "Hill Republicans see section 899 not as a revenue-generating measure, but as a tool that gives the Treasury Department additional leverage in negotiations with other countries to encourage changes in behavior," Pat Brown, a tax expert at the consultancy PwC U.S., told CNBC. "Foreign-headquartered companies considering changes in their capital structure to reduce the impact of section 899 would need to consider that the government of their home country could, with the stroke of a pen, eliminate the need to consider section 899 as an issue," Brown added. Exacerbating a corporate-migration trend Goldman Sachs also highlighted that Section 899 could also act as a powerful incentive to a corporate migration trend that is already underway. For years, European and U.K. companies have felt disadvantaged by their home markets, a sentiment that has led to a steady flow of buyouts and re-listings elsewhere. Companies have repeatedly pointed to the valuation discount that European equities suffer compared to their U.S. peers to justify their decisions to move their listing to the U.S. Wise debuted on London's stock market in 2021 in a direct listing that valued the company at £8 billion ($10.84 billion) at the time. It is now valued at £11.07 billion, according to LSEG data. Since then, London has been mired in doubts over whether it can play host to major tech listings. The market is often criticized for lacking the depth of liquidity and industry expertise from investment analysts to accommodate such transactions. Doubts over London's stock market haven't been limited to tech, though. Last week, Glencore -backed metals investor Cobalt Holdings announced it was scrapping plans to go public in London. The IPO was expected to be the largest listing in the U.K. capital since early 2024. A spokesperson for London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) told CNBC last week that London remains the top European exchange in terms of capital raised and the total market cap of the companies listed. They added that they had seen a "noticeable increase in interest from international companies in coming to London with many starting to prepare." — CNBC's Ryan Browne contributed reporting.
Miami Herald
7 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Trade, inflation fears will grab limelight
There are several economic reports worth looking at this week, but pay closer attention to two economic events. One will come from London. The other comes Friday from Michigan. Get $100 off TheStreet Pro - our best deal of the summer won't last long! Your portfolio will thank you Both events can cause investors to buy or sell stocks, bonds or even houses. Futures trading Sunday evening suggests stocks will open modestly lower on Monday. In between are two inflation reports probably that will probably paint a benign inflation picture - for now. Related: Markets start to gear up for summer drama The London event is the meeting between U.S. and Chinese trade officials trying to hammer out a workable tariff deal. It's not clear if anything major will come from the meeting, but one can hope. The last time there were talks, the two sides agreed on May 21 to come to an agreement on the issues in 90 days. That would mean by Aug. 11. But little has happened since, and the Trump Administration is getting impatient. The U.S, team will include Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. China's team will be led by Vice Premier He Lifeng. At the time of their first meeting in Switzerland in May, the Chinese were charging 125% tariffs on U.S. goods. The U.S. had imposed 145% in tariffs on Chinese goods. Related: Scott Galloway sends blunt message to Elon Musk After the May meeting, the tariffs on Chinese goods were dropped to an average 51%. The Chinese tariffs on U.S. goods were dropped to an average 32.6%. (Sounds reasonable, but they could wipe out a retailer's annual profit.) Complicating matters is China produces 90 % of rare earth metals, important materials for use in electric vehicles and other products work. And the country is now holding back on export licenses so non-Chinese companies can buy the materials. Without the rare earths, assembly lines could shut down. It sounds dull but isn't. China is a major source of everything from semiconductors and auto parts to Apple (AAPL) iPhones. Oh, and let's not forget: Most toys made for the holiday season are produced in China. If the London meeting goes badly, financial markets could swoon again. After President Trump announced the U.S. tariff proposals on April 3, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 10.5% in two days. Stocks soared on the decision to negotiate. On April 8, the S&P 500 was down as much as 15.3% for 2025. It's now up 2% on the year. Related: Veteran investor makes surprising Fed rate call after jobs report Friday's event is the first cut of the University of Michigan's Consumer Sentiment Survey for June. (The second comes out at month's end.) The Michigan survey has been avidly followed this year because it suggests extreme worries about the economy, inflation and tariffs. And its findings, optimistic or rotten, have moved markets. The criticism of the survey is that it generates soft data - basically irrational one-off reactions compared with data based on statistics that have shelf life. Fair enough. But the survey and the Conference Board's Confidence Index grab National Federation of Business will release its own confidence index on Tuesday. Its members have complained for most of the year that the Trump Tariff proposals are making business planning impossible. So, while many businesses are holding on to workers, they're being very cautious on spending for, say, new plant and equipment. Thursday's Initial Jobless Claims report may be concerning. It's been rising in the last few weeks. This past week, the claims estimate climbed to 247,000, up from 239,000 the week before. No one wants to see jobless rates climb, least of all the Trump Administration. In truth, the gains over the last year have been on a slow drift higher. Nothing, in fact, like the first week of April 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic, when 6.1 million people were laid off in a week. More Personal Finance: Denmark raises retirement age to 70 – Could Social Security be next?Dave Ramsey sends strong message on Social Security, 401(k)sBuffett's Berkshire predicts major housing market shift soon The two inflation reports are widely watched and discussed and will be again this week. The odds the reports won't change the inflation picture the inflation changing much. The Consumer Price Index comes out at 8:30 on Wednesday. The report from the Labor Department is likely to show a 0.2% change in prices from April to May and a 2.3% change year over year. That's unchanged from April. Stripping out energy and food prices, the one-month change is likely to be 0.2% and the year-over-year change holding steady at 2.8%, the same as in April. Related: Surprising Trump, Musk rift worsens a huge Tesla problem The index is built to estimate what's happening to prices for stuff and services consumers buy. During the winter, it showed that egg prices rose during the winter as bird flu invaded many poultry farms. But in April, egg prices fell. Look for indications tariffs are affecting consumer prices. You may see signs in costs for apparel, new and used cars, and meat. At 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, the BLS's Producer Price Index comes out. This measures the selling prices producers get for goods and services. It may show a 0.5% decline month to month but a 2.4% increase year over year. The core estimates are down 0.1% month-to-month and 2.9% year-over-year. Are these bad numbers? The Federal Reserve thinks so because the central bank wants U.S. inflation at no more than 2%. President Trump thinks the numbers are fine because he wants the Fed to cut interest rates. He has sort of a point: It would take prices rising at 2.9% a year about 24 years to double. Remember when the CPI year-over-year change briefly hit 9% in the summer of 2022? Sustained Inflation that high a rate would double prices in 7.5 years. But that would create its own problems, wouldn't it? Related: Veteran fund manager who predicted April rally updates S&P 500 forecast The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
