Days on Market Debate: Why Real Estate Transparency Matters More Than Ever
A growing push to hide days on market from listings is challenged by industry experts who argue that transparency drives transactions and that high DOM can be an opportunity, not a liability.
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. But a growing number of practitioners say this approach is wrong.
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 trend: the erosion of the transparent marketplace that makes real estate transactions work for everyone.
The argument against transparency goes like this: a seller's listing accumulates days, and each day signals weakness. Buyers see 90 days and assume there is a problem, making lower offers. Meanwhile, the buyer discloses almost nothing. This argument is connected to a wider debate about private listings, pocket listings, and the role of the MLS.
Gordon's counter is direct. Market data 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.”
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.
Gordon reframes what the metric actually signals. He 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 that opens a conversation. “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 looking for perceived value and willing to engage. If the seller counters well, the high DOM becomes an advantage because it brought the buyer to the table.
The instinct to remove DOM reflects a belief that controlling information protects clients. Gordon argues the opposite. A seller whose listing has been on the market for three months benefits from a skilled agent who can use the situation to generate conversations. “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. Engagement is the resource. Data is what creates it.
The days-on-market debate is a proxy fight about 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, and how consumers trust the process. For buyers, a high DOM does not mean a bad property—it may mean an opportunity. For sellers, transparency is not the enemy. Silence is.