IRES Update on the CCM Data Sharing Agreement with REcolorado/Metrolist

tm-iresIRES is fully committed to data sharing as a service to brokers along the Front Range of Colorado.   Unfortunately, there is a serious misunderstanding regarding how much data is appropriate for the exchange.   Our goal is and always has been to provide as much property information to brokers in order to better serve clients – whether listing, selling, or establishing a value.

The original CCM (Colorado Cooperative MLS) dates back to 2003 when a limited number of fields were exchanged, along with six months of sold data.   Fast forward to 2007 when several brokers from both Metrolist and IRES were part of the “MLS Oversight Committee” and demanded more information be made available. In 2008, we did just that and even coordinated the simultaneous release between IRES and Metrolist. That exchange was based on specs drafted by our tech teams, at the direction of Metrolist, IRES and the MLS Oversight Committee. In hindsight, it is clear that we should have had a formal document signed at that time since that is the issue today.

REcolorado is demanding we roll back sold data to 6 months of archived information, which we are working toward, although we strongly disagree with the premise.   However, if this is the only path to continue CCM data sharing, we are willing to comply with this misplaced demand.   In addition, REcolorado feels the limited information IRES provides to CoreLogic in order to activate the reverse links between public records and MLS listings is out of compliance, even though access to that information is password protected, for MLS subscribers only.   Again, in order to continue data sharing, IRES will continue providing the reverse link capabilities for all IRES listings, but will discontinue that convenience soon for all REcolorado and PPAR listings.

We have made attempts to avoid this unfortunate situation, but have received two cease and desist letters from REcolorado.   We understand there have been other communications from REcolorado to subscribers that contained some misinformation. To that end, here are the facts:

  • IRES has never displayed RECO or PPAR listing on our public site,®, unless the individual is also an IRES subscriber with the listing entered into
  • IRES has never provided RECO or PPAR listing to any IDX or VOW site.
  • The 2003 CCM Agreement specifies 6 months of sold data. We fully admit we were out of compliance with that agreement since the three Front Range MLS organizations collaboratively expanded the amount of data exchanged in 2007.

Everyone can agree that much has changed since 2003 and 2007. It is our hope that we can continue to provide the best services and enriched information to brokers for the foreseeable future.   We will keep you posted as this continues to unfold. If you have questions or comments, we welcome both. Post on our blog, email, call the IRES office, or use Feedback through

Lauren Hansen, CEO

16 thoughts on “IRES Update on the CCM Data Sharing Agreement with REcolorado/Metrolist

  1. Thank you Lauren for the letter explaining the CCM Data Sharing Agreement. As always you and the IRES team do a wonderful job! Thank you!

  2. Apparently REcolorado is not interested in what is not only helpful but crucial to brokers trying to do their best for their clients. The fact that we are the ones that PAY for the service also appears irrelevant to them. Perhaps they need to sit at our desk awhile and try this out.

    1. Apparently REcolorado is not interested in what is not only helpful but crucial to brokers trying to do their best for their clients. The fact that we are the ones that PAY for the service also appears irrelevant to them. Perhaps they need to sit at our desk awhile and try this out.

  3. I’m sorry to hear you’re going to give in to their demands. I might drop Ires now. ReColorado is far behind like Docusign is compared to CTM. I have both REColorado and Ires. Ires because of the history that it offers along with a superior format. Without the history and only going back 6 months it won’t be worth it to do both.

  4. Please don’t lose the history! It is vital for us as agents to do an accurate and effective job! How can we help?

  5. I agree with Laureen and Jason. The history is vital to our business for so very many reasons and not having access to it will certainly put us a step back in the eyes of our clients. The general public might be able to access that data easier than us the “experts” if we have to go to great lengths to find it. Pricing real estate accurately cannot be done in a vacuum of short term data; we need longer data samples to analyze trends. How will I service clients who need two years worth of sales comps for property tax protests? Oh the list of why this is not in our favor goes on and on… How can we get ReColorado to let our voices be heard? From Laureen’s comments it sounds like she cannot be the only “metrolist” user that recognizes the value of the data and ease of use that IRES offers. Please, please, please reconsider!

  6. Irene asked us to share her comments:

    Am I the only one who thinks RE Colorado has missed the boat here? I am one of those brokers who wants the MLS to provide as much information as possible so that I can be the most professional broker I can be. Instead of forcing IRES to limit their information why doesn’t RE Colorado expand their ridiculous 6 month limit? Why should a Realtor have to visit a non-Realtor source to find out about a previous sale or attempted sale that happened more than 6 months ago? It would appear that RE Colorado’s board of directors doesn’t really have the best interests of their members in mind in making a 6 month limit on MLS history. In an age of so much information it is my opinion that more is better. We need to stay ahead of the public in the information we have access to.

    Irene Shaffer
    RE/MAX of Boulder Inc.
    2425 Canyon Blvd. #110
    Boulder, Co. 80302
    303-441-5629 office direct
    303-717-4803 cell
    5280 Five Star Real Estate Professional 2013, 2014, 2015

  7. I am both an Ires and Metro list subscriber. I am also an appraiser. There are many areas of overlap with by Ires and Metrolist. With only 6 months of sold date supplied, there will be no way to accurately calculate market trends (you need a full two years worth of sold data to determine year over year market trends). Thus, the statistics will be corrupted. There will be no way to do an accurate CMA or a 1004MC because there will be no data reported for the prior 6 months. These forms will be useless and FNMA requires these forms. So should DORA get involved in this situation. There are many market area that are also seasonal (mountain market segments). Thus, if only 6 months of sold date is reported, there is a huge gap of information that will not be reported. This will actually result in both the Metrolist and Ires becoming highly inaccurate and defeat the purposes of why you both exist – to provide the most accurate sold and listing data to your subscribers. We are the people that both Ires and Metrolist should be listening to and not their own self serving interests.

    Maureen Russ

    1. Thank you Maureen. This is the best response to the issue I’ve seen. Many of us belong to both IRES and Metrolist (REcolorado) but have preferred system formats and, as you pointed out, want to provide accurate reports from one source rather than trying to combine two. Can you imagine the work and risk for errors by having brokers or appraisers trying to combine this listing data on their own? It feels like REcolorado is making a power play rather than attempting to serve/protect their members. It certainly doesn’t serve the public’s best interest.

  8. I would be interested in hearing the argument for limiting the sold data to 6 months? How does this possibly serve the subscriber? This whole things sounds like a silly turf battle that I thought we, thankfully, largely dispensed with long ago. Good grief.

    John Simons
    RE/MAX Of Boulder

  9. MLS systems are funded by fees paid by their users, mostly brokers and appraisers who are also effectively the owners. Their sole reason for existing should be to provide state of the art information and tools that enable real estate professionals to do the best job they can for their clients: the buyers and sellers of real estate. MLS systems should not exist to be centers of power for their executives, boards of directors, or to be ‘cash cows’ for boards of Realtors.

    We live in a world increasingly driven by access to information and information is most valuable if it is accurate, timely and readily accessed. And like many service industries, real estate sales is vulnerable to being replaced by new ideas that enable consumers (that’s all of us) to do business and obtain information faster, easier, cheaper and more tailored to each of us. REColorado seems to fail to grasp that and instead has decided that they’re in the business of protecting ‘their’ market from ‘outside’ brokers and their solution is to restrict information. REColorado’s backward actions regarding CCM negatively affect our ability, as owners and users, to provide state of the art services to buyers and sellers.

    I very much agree that we need to “stay ahead of the public” (from Irene Shaffer, Re/Max of Boulder on IRES blog) regarding having the best, most current and in depth real estate information available to us. If we get bogged down in territorial turf disputes instead of on being the best source for accurate and transparent information about real estate, we’re knowingly leaving the door open to fresh ideas from new startups about how to buy and sell real estate that won’t necessarily include Realtors.

    In my opinion it is time for us – those who pay for and need the MLS to do our business – to insist that what we need is one very good MLS (preferably for the entire state), not two competing ones. Getting there should be job #1 for all of those that we, the owners, have elected, appointed or hired to manage and improve this most essential tool of our business. And it could and should be accomplished in a period of months not years.

  10. IRES needs to take the high road here and not capitulate to the short sighted and misdirected initiative of REColorado regarding data base retention. From a competitive standpoint they can choose to not serve their paying customer base with the data that is vital for us to be experts in our field and do our jobs, and I’d expect their client base to rapidly migrate over to IRES should you decide to not follow their lead. Maureen & Irene are spot on with their comments. Now is the time for IRES to step up and take the high road to retain this vital information for us. I’m sickened by the thought of having to do my research through Zillow & Trulia should this pass. In today’s day and age of database technology/management and your understanding of how important sales history is to our business PERIOD, even having to have this conversation is an embarrassment. Do the right thing IRES and retain the histories, I can’t imagine a single paying customer of yours that would be onboard with this new limited direction, as it will only hurt those that are paying for your membership now. Don’t blur the lines and stoop closer to the Zillow’s & Trulia’s of the world as your histories are an important differentiator over them, as that step will likely result in lost mindshare from your service to other’s in this rapidly changing world of technology and applications. CTM vs. Docusign is one component, please don’t let histories be another.

  11. As appraisers the data that is going to be unavailable after 6 months, drastically reduces our ability to effectively do our jobs. Please work on extending the data to at least 12 months.

  12. There is no way I can complete the required 1004MC with only 6 months of data. We need at least 12 months if not 3 years! It is vital as appraisers have past data to do our jobs. Please reconsider, REColorado.

  13. Is there any way that IRES users can keep access to the history we now have and only 6 months worth of data be shared with the other services? If you can limit the access to tax records, I hope you can find a way to accomplish that goal.
    I compare RE Colorado to “Ma Bell”, of the Goldie Hawn and Laugh In era; we don’t care, we don’t have to care, we are the phone company. That attitude did catch up with them ….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: