Days on Market Debate: Why One Broker Argues Transparency Beats Secrecy in Real Estate

A quiet campaign is underway in parts of the American real estate industry to make days on market disappear. Some brokerages argue that displaying how long a listing has been active puts sellers at a disadvantage, giving buyers a negotiation lever without requiring them to disclose anything equivalent about themselves. But a growing number of practitioners say it is the wrong approach.

Mark Gordon, co-owner of Christiania Realty in Vail, Colorado (vailcoluxuryhomes.com), has spent nearly two decades in a market where inventory is scarce and price points are high. He sees the push to hide days on market as part of a broader and more concerning trend: the erosion of the transparent marketplace that makes real estate transactions work for everyone.

The case for removing DOM from public view goes something like this: a seller's listing accumulates days, and each day that passes signals weakness. Buyers see 90 days on market and assume there is a problem with the property, the price, or both. They make lower offers. The seller loses leverage. Meanwhile, the buyer discloses almost nothing. The information gap, so the argument goes, is unfair.

Gordon's counter is direct. Market data, he argues, is what makes transactions happen. Remove it, and you create obstacles. "Knowledge, data, is the lubricant that creates transactions," he says. "Every time we remove that lubricant, what we're doing is creating metal-on-metal friction and creating roadblocks that keep a transaction from occurring."

His argument rests on a practical reality. In a world of AI-powered data tools, days on market is easy to calculate. Even if the MLS stopped displaying it, any competent search algorithm would reconstruct it from listing dates. The metric is not going away. The only question is whether it sits inside the official system, where it is standardized and accurate, or gets reassembled outside of it.

But the more interesting part of Gordon's position is his reframe of what the metric actually signals. Gordon says he has worked with buyers who specifically search by days on market, looking for listings that others have passed over. Those buyers may start with a low offer. But a low offer is not the same as a final offer – and it opens a conversation that would not otherwise exist. "A lowball offer is a million times better than no offer," he says. "At least now we have a starting point. We have the ability to create something."

This flips the conventional narrative. Rather than viewing accumulated DOM as damage, Gordon treats it as a filter that attracts a specific kind of buyer – one who is looking for perceived value and is willing to engage. If the seller counters well, the high DOM becomes an advantage, not a liability, because it brought the buyer to the table in the first place.

The instinct to remove DOM reflects a broader pattern in real estate: the belief that controlling information protects clients. Gordon argues the opposite. A seller whose listing has been on the market for three months does not benefit from hiding that fact. They benefit from a skilled agent who can use the situation to generate conversations. Being offended by a low offer, Gordon says, is a strategic mistake. "Instead of being insulted and upset by a so-called lowball offer, we should be thanking them because they took the time to offer to buy your home," he says.

The days-on-market debate is, at its core, a proxy fight about something larger: whether the real estate industry's future is built on more transparency or less. The answer will shape how MLS systems operate, how brokerages compete for listings, and how consumers trust the process. For buyers, the takeaway is practical: a high DOM does not mean a bad property. It may mean an opportunity that other buyers overlooked or a price that has not yet found its market. For sellers, the takeaway is similar: transparency is not the enemy. Silence is.