In private real estate lending, the question of capital structure matters as much as the deals you do. For We Lend, a New York-based private lender focused on the East Coast market, the clos...
Days on Market Is Not a Scarlet Letter: The Case for Keeping Real Estate’s Most Misread Metric
Written by:
Date:
06 May 2026
Share via Facebook
Share via Linkedin
Share via X
Copy to clipboard
There is a quiet campaign underway in parts of the American real estate industry to make days on market disappear. Some brokerages and industry voices 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. It sounds reasonable. 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 Argument Against Transparency
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: not how many offers they have made elsewhere, not how motivated they are, not how qualified. The information gap, so the argument goes, is unfair.
This argument is connected to a wider debate about private listings, pocket listings, and the role of the MLS – discussions that intersect with brokerage consolidation, data ownership, and the question of who real estate data ultimately serves.
Why Removing Data Creates Friction, Not Advantage
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, where it may not be.
But the more interesting part of Gordon’s position is his reframe of what the metric actually signals.
A High DOM Is Not a Failure. It Is an Invitation.
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 Seller’s Real Enemy Is Not Data. It Is Silence.
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. Rather than viewing it as an insult, he encourages sellers to see it as engagement. “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. He is clear that this does not mean accepting below-market prices – but it does mean staying in the conversation.
Engagement is the resource. Data is what creates it. And in a market where only 127 listings serve an entire mountain resort community, every data point that brings a buyer to the table has value.
What This Means for the Industry
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.
Mark Gordon is co-owner of Christiania Realty and a luxury real estate broker in Vail, Colorado, with deep roots in community advocacy, industry leadership, and mountain market expertise. Learn more at vailcoluxuryhomes.com or connect on LinkedIn.
Disclaimer: This article is based on information provided by the expert source cited above. It is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or real estate advice. Readers should conduct their own research and consult qualified professionals before making any real estate or financial decisions.
Similar Articles
Explore similar articles from Our Team of Experts.
