NAR's 1 day mandatory MLS listing
This is a residential rule but posting here because I see this spurring a huge pull away from the NAR and the MLS by brokers to regain control of their own listings and to give clients better custom service.Thoughts? I've done pocket listings for 10 years and marketes publically. 

[NAR 1 day mandatory listing ](https://www.texasrealestate.com/members/posts/nar-passes-mls-clear-cooperation-proposal/)
[{"id": "f8bbhdb", "text": "The work around to this in the 90's, was listing it under 'pending' from day 1.  You can always say it was sold within the 24 hr period between making it public and getting it onto the MLS.\n\nAgents did this ALL the time with their bank listings, so that their preferred buyers got the property at better price.", "replies": [{"id": "f8bby8u", "text": "I\u2019m seeing bank listings require being active on mls for the first 7 days before they accept any offers or change status. So I guess they\u2019re wise to that trick, but it also benefits the exposure of the listing too.", "replies": [{"id": "f8cv2cd", "text": "Yup, you're exactly correct that was one of the changes they made to protect themselves.  They also added in fake buyers putting in offers to make sure agents presented them and didn't drop them in the waste basket.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "f8l119c", "text": "I have to agree with NAR that requiring an MLS listening is in the best interest of the seller. I question the ethics of anyone willing to or trying to work around this requirement.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "f8tgvwa", "text": "Most of my investor clients ASK ME to market their listings a few weeks pre-market. This way they get a better qualified pool of buyers. People also tend to not low ball and waste time pre-market. \n\nI am curious how this rule will work if the seller specifically requests it.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]