In April, we’ll go deep on money and finance for a special theme month, by talking to leaders about where the mortgage market is heading and how technology and business strategies are evolving to suit the needs of buyers now. Inman’s Best of Finance returns for 2025, celebrating the leaders in this space. And subscribe to Mortgage Brief for weekly updates all year long.

Florida-based homebuilder Dream Finders Homes Inc. continues to build its presence in mortgage lending and title insurance through acquisitions, adding more than 700 independent title agents in 32 states with the acquisition of Alliant National Title Insurance Company Inc.

Alliant National President and CEO David Sinclair has joined Dream Finders along with the rest of his team, Dream Finders’ Chairman and CEO Patrick Zalupski said Monday. Terms of the deal, which closed on April 18, were not disclosed.

Patrick Zalupski

“This partnership creates significant value for both Alliant National and Dream Finders as a result of further vertical integration and additional service offerings to our stakeholders,” Zalupski said in a statement. “We are committed to investing towards the continued success of Alliant National’s platform and look forward to expanding our presence in the industry.”

TAKE THE INMAN INTEL INDEX SURVEY FOR APRIL

In announcing the deal in October, Dream Finders claimed Alliant National was the largest independent title underwriter in the country with no direct or affiliated operations.

David Sinclair

“Building on almost 20 years of serving independent title agents, we are thrilled to partner with Dream Finders Homes and envision an exciting future,” Sinclair said at the time. “The collaboration of an innovative builder, strong title agency, and the Alliant National underwriting team will promote our long-term success and growth into a national competitor.”

Dream Finders closed 8,583 new home sales last year, up 17 percent from the year before, providing financing and title services on most of those sales through its subsidiaries, Jet HomeLoans LLC and DF Title LLC.

Last month, Dream Finders announced that Jet HomeLoans had acquired Denver, Colorado-based Cherry Creek Mortgage. Based in Jacksonville, Florida, Jet HomeLoans sponsors 59 mortgage loan originators who work out of 10 branch locations, according to Nationwide Multistate Licensing System records.

Dream Finders went all-in on mortgage last year, acquiring the remaining 40 percent interest in its mortgage banking joint venture, Jet HomeLoans, for $9.3 million in July. It was the company’s sixth acquisition in five years.

Now a wholly owned subsidiary of Dream Finders, Jet HomeLoans originated 4,977 loans in 2024, up 56 percent from 3,189 the year before. The lender achieved a “capture rate” of 72 percent of all homes built by Dream Finders last year, up from 65 percent in 2023.

Jet HomeLoans made $4.98 billion in loans last year, an average of $441,230 per loan, with 40 percent of loans backed by government (FHA, VA and USDA) programs.

Dream Finders’ mortgage business generated $34.8 million in 2024 revenue — almost twice as much as title services revenue, which totalled $18.9 million last year. But title services revenue was up 95 percent from 2023, largely due to DF Title’s expansion of operations into the Texas market previously serviced by unconsolidated title joint ventures.

DF Title, which does business as Golden Dog Title & Trust, provides closing, escrow and title insurance services in Colorado, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.

Dream Finders, which currently builds homes in 10 states, entered the Charleston and Greenville, South Carolina, and Nashville, Tennessee markets last year by acquiring the majority of the homebuilding assets of Crescent Homes. In January, Dream Finders entered the Atlanta, Georgia, market and expanded its footprint in Greenville with the acquisition of homebuilder Liberty Communities.

In reporting 2024 earnings in February, Dream Finders executives said they expect the Liberty Communities acquisition will help the company close on a projected 9,250 home sales this year, which would represent 8 percent growth.

Get Inman’s Mortgage Brief Newsletter delivered right to your inbox. A weekly roundup of all the biggest news in the world of mortgages and closings delivered every Wednesday. Click here to subscribe.

Email Matt Carter

Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the Inman Community and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!

A LinkedIn post from Zillow erupted into the latest battleground over private listings on Friday, with many of real estate’s biggest names — Robert Reffkin, Glenn Sanford, Bess Freedman among them — duking it out in the comments.

Zillow Chief Industry Development Officer Errol Samuelson authored the post, titled “Make no mistake — we are championing transparency at Zillow.” He began by arguing that buyers, sellers and agents deserve equal access to data.

TAKE THE INMAN INTEL SURVEY FOR APRIL

“Our new listing access standards – requiring that a listing marketed to some buyers should be available to all buyers – reinforce this belief,” he wrote, referring to the move to ban privately marketed listings from Zillow’s platform.

Soon after Zillow shared the piece on LinkedIn on Friday, industry heavyweights begen piling on. By Sunday, the post had racked up nearly 300 comments.

Compass CEO Robert Reffkin — who has made private listings a keystone of his brokerage’s strategy — was among the earliest commentors. Among other things, Reffkin argued in the comments that sellers should be able to choose how they market their properties, and that “Zillow is abusing its market power.”

“This is bully behavior and is an abuse of monopoly power coordinated by the largest trade association in the United States and the largest real estate portal in the United States,” Reffkin said, referring to both Zillow and the National Association of Realtors.

Reffkin’s comment itself sparked a number of replies, including from eXp Realty CEO Leo Pareja.

“Robert Reffkin, I completely believe in seller choice — but that includes telling the actual truth, not steering everyone into a self-serving scheme for recruiting and double-ending transactions under the banner of ‘seller choice,’” Pareja wrote.

Pareja later commented again, arguing that the “drive to exclude properties from the open market is a guaranteed recipe for a fair housing nightmare.”

READ INMAN’S PORTAL LISTING BAN FAQ

Soon Glenn Sanford — CEO of eXp World Holdings, parent of eXp Realty — weighed in, responding to another comment from Reffkin that “you’re positioning this as Zillow suppressing homeowner choice — but let’s call it what it really is: a debate over platform transparency vs. brokerage control.”

Sanford then went on to engage in a back-and-forth with several other commenters, including Compass senior vice president Rory Golod.

Other well-known industry figures weighed in as well. Anthony Lamacchia, CEO of Lamacchia Realty, described Zillow’s private listing ban as a “wildly bold move that is undoubtably, unquestionably, and unequivocally better for homebuyers and home sellers.”

James Dwiggins, CEO of NextHome, wrote, “Wow… Compass Agents Are Drinking The Kool Aid!”

“The entire industry knows this charade already and we’re not dumb so please stop offering us your Kool Aid,” Dwiggins continued.

And Bess Freedman, CEO of Brown Harris Stevens, weighed in several times, thanking Zillow at one point and at another arguing that “transparency is the only way that a fair market structure can flourish, and therefore keeping clear cooperation allows that to continue.”

On the other hand, Leonard Steinberg — a Compass agent and the brokerage’s “chief evangelist” — wondered if Zillow’s ban is “discriminatory.”

Scores of other comments poured in Friday and Saturday as well, with notable representation from personnel associated with Compass, eXp and Zillow.

The debate — and the willingness of CEOs to take public stands and cross each other on social media — highlighted the way that private listings have become real estate’s cause célèbre in recent weeks.

Email Jim Dalrymple II

This report is available exclusively to subscribers of Inman Intel, the data and research arm of Inman offering deep insights and market intelligence on the business of residential real estate and proptech. Subscribe today.

Since Realtor.com’s debut in 1995, real estate portals have become a key player in the transaction process, with brokers leveraging the platforms to broadly advertise their listings and consumers using the sites as a launchpad for their buying and selling needs.

However, the relationship between portals, brokers, and consumers has become more complicated over the years, with industry members bemoaning portals’ increasing influence on consumers and power within the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) system.

TAKE THE INMAN INTEL SURVEY FOR APRIL

The latest example is Zillow Group and Redfin’s decision to ban listings that aren’t added to the MLS within 24 hours of public marketing, per the National Association of Realtors’ Clear Cooperation Policy.

The decisions, which were announced after Inman Intel’s March survey closed, have heightened the debate over who portals benefit, with brokers either seeing Zillow Group and Redfin’s moves as a win for consumer transparency or another example of portal overreach.

The respondents for this month’s survey, which largely include real estate agents and executives, like broker-owners, shared with Intel their mixed sentiments on real estate search portals and their wide array of lead generation options below.

Agents are split on using portal leads

Perhaps reflecting the tenuous relationship between portals and agents, the number of respondents who have and haven’t purchased portal leads is nearly split down the middle.

• 412 respondents participated in this month’s Intel survey. Of the 200 respondents who answered Inman Intel’s questions about portals, 46 percent said they’ve purchased a lead from Zillow, Realtor.com, Homes.com, Redfin or Trulia.
• Among those who acknowledged purchasing leads from portals, 80 percent reported buying them from Zillow, 50 percent from Realtor.com, and 19 percent from Homes.com. Trulia and Redfin tied with 18 percent each.
• Meanwhile, 53 percent have never purchased a lead from any portal.

Portal leads fall flat for most

Although a strong share of Inman Intel respondents have tested portal leads, the majority have since abandoned this lead generation source.

• 69 percent of respondents who’ve bought a portal lead in the past aren’t actively purchasing leads now.
• 50 percent of respondents said portal leads were a waste of their time and money.

According to the National Association of Realtors’ 2024 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers, 43 percent of consumers start their homebuying or homeselling journey online.

Portals get the lion’s share of consumer attention, with Zillow reporting 204 million average monthly unique visitors during the fourth quarter of 2024. During the same quarter, Realtor.com pulled in 62 million average monthly unique visitors while Redfin tallied 43 million. Meanwhile, CoStar logged 110 million average monthly unique visitors for its Homes.com Residential Network, which includes Homes.com, Apartments.com and Land.com.

Yet, some agents feel portals’ expansive consumer bases don’t necessarily translate to a robust funnel of high-intent homebuyers, or if they do, the cost is too high to justify the benefit.

Last year, eight real estate agents slapped Realtor.com parent company, Move Inc., with a class action lawsuit for allegedly selling unvetted leads through its network of sites. Zillow has gotten its share of complaints over the years, with agents questioning whether the portal’s flagship lead generation offering, Premier Agent, is worth the rising cost despite strong conversion rates.

Redfin and Homes.com have also faced criticisms on value and price, as Redfin raised its Redfin Partner Program referral fees and Homes.com is still in the beginning stages of creating a dedicated sales and support team to back its ‘Your Listing, Your Lead’ promise.

However, the drop off isn’t all negative. Some respondents said portal leads were worth the effort, but have simply become less relevant in their strategy.

• 13 percent said leads helped build their business, but they no longer rely on them.
• 20 percent said it was worth the time and money, but it was never a significant part of their business.
• 5 percent said they haven’t purchased enough leads to have a strong opinion.

… But still works for a select group

Although many Inman Intel respondents have written off portal leads, a solid contingent still uses them.

• 42 percent of respondents still purchase portal leads.
• 12 percent said it’s a significant part of their business.

Of the respondents who still purchase leads, Zillow and Realtor.com are the clear favorites, while Homes.com, Redfin and Trulia trailed behind.

• 18 percent of respondents purchase leads from Zillow, while 14 percent purchase leads from Realtor.com.
• 4 percent of respondents purchase leads from Homes.com, 3 percent purchase leads from Redfin, and 2 percent purchase leads from Trulia.

In a previous deep dive on portal leads, Robert Slack Chief Operating Officer Lauren Bowen, and Washington D.C.-based Compass team leader Sina Mollaan shared their playbook on getting the most from portal lead gen. Both leaders said they have a hefty monthly budget for portal leads and have an extensive process for engaging high-intent leads and nurturing low-intent leads as they inch closer to making a purchase.

Bowen said paid portal lead generation is a volume game, with the best agents usually maxing out at a 10 percent conversion rate. With that in mind, it takes at least 100 leads to get 10 sales.

“Let’s say if you’re even a great agent converting at 10 percent, then you have to have a hundred leads that month to close 10,” she said. “So if you’re only spending $200 a month for let’s say, six leads, you’re going to need quite a substantial pipeline to be able to build that up to start closing them.”

“It’s probably not going to be enough, so you very well may get frustrated,” she added.

Email Marian McPherson

Methodology notes: This month’s Inman Intel Index survey was conducted March 18-April 7, and received 412 responses. The entire Inman reader community was invited to participate, and a rotating, randomized selection of community members was prompted to participate by email. Users responded to a series of questions related to their self-identified corner of the real estate industry — including real estate agents, brokerage leaders, lenders and proptech entrepreneurs. Results reflect the opinions of the engaged Inman community, which may not always match those of the broader real estate industry. This survey is conducted monthly.

Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the power of the Inman Community, and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!

In this exclusive series on Inman, Windermere’s Principal Economist Jeff Tucker illuminates the latest stats, reports and numbers to know this week.

Our first number this week is all about the elephant in the room: tariffs. President Trump’s new tariff schedule announced so far in April will raise the average effective tariff rate on imports by a factor of 10, from 2.6 percent to 27 percent — the highest since 1903. And that’s including the 90-day pause for some of the higher reciprocal tariffs.

The Yale Budget Lab computed that based on the mix of imports we have been buying. They also estimated that after Americans start substituting away from highly-tariffed sources like China, the post-substitution rate might fall as low as 18.5 percent. That would be the highest since 1933, when trade was shrinking during the Great Depression.

TAKE THE INMAN INTEL SURVEY FOR APRIL

What effect will this have? For one, it will reduce real GDP in the U.S. One estimate has it reducing real GDP growth in 2025 by 1.1 percentage points, with a permanent reduction of 0.6 percent.

So far, the effects of tariffs haven’t shown up in much hard economic data. The March CPI inflation report, for instance, showed inflation came in below expectations, with a surprising month-over-month decline in the price level and a cooldown in the year-over-year growth rate to 2.4 percent.

That’s important because it helps give the Fed permission to cut rates later this year, if they start to see the job market slow down.

One place where the data is rapidly turning south is forward-looking indicators, especially in sentiment surveys, like the Michigan Consumer Sentiment Survey, whose respondents are the gloomiest about future unemployment that they’ve been since 2009.

And in the housing market, the Fannie Mae Home Purchase Sentiment Index fell in March to its lowest level in about a year and a half.

The main factor driving that decline was a sharp increase in respondents’ fears of job loss in the next 12 months. Unlike the Michigan chart a minute ago, this is respondents’ fears of losing their own jobs. That is likely to cause some would-be homebuyers and sellers to hunker down and maybe press “Pause” on buying or selling until their outlook brightens up.

Speaking of the housing market: Data for March continues to show a relatively balanced spring market. Active inventory is only 5 percent below March 2020 levels, on the eve of the pandemic, and up 29 percent from last year.

Pending sales are down about 1 percent from last March. So, before any tariff impact, we are seeing just a tiny decline in sales activity.

Finally, I’ll end by checking in with the USUAL elephant in the room: mortgage rates, which are back up around 7 percent. The financial market turmoil in response to the tariff news briefly pushed interest rates down, but then mortgages got carried along with a surprising upswing in US bond yields.

That may settle back down in the coming weeks, but uncertainty really remains the watchword for economic data this year.

Jeff Tucker is the Principal Economist for Windermere Real Estate in Seattle, Washington. Connect with him on X or Facebook. 

Bigger. Better. Bolder. Inman Connect is heading to San Diego. Join thousands of real estate pros, connect with the power of the Inman Community, and gain insights from hundreds of leading minds shaping the industry. If you’re ready to grow your business and invest in yourself, this is where you need to be. Go BIG in San Diego!

Although there are sellers who benefit by listing their properties privately, they represent only a small percentage of all homesellers. A large majority benefits the most by immediately listing their property on their local multiple listing service (MLS) so that the four major portals can quickly make the listing available to all potential buyers.

Moreover, there are effective measures these sellers can take if they are particularly concerned about privacy issues.

TAKE THE INMAN INTEL SURVEY FOR APRIL

If a significant number of sellers agree to private listings, most are likely to have been encouraged by agents who their brokerages are urging to push private listings. There is some evidence, for example, that some Compass agents are being pressed to do so. 

Consumers, who typically lack experience dealing with a complex and opaque industry, are susceptible to a sales pitch that may well promise a higher sale price and a faster sale, both of which are claimed by Compass.

Opposite truths?

However, most of the available evidence on this issue suggests that the opposite is true. Separate research by both Zillow and Bright MLS on large numbers of listings found that homes listed on MLSs sold for higher prices than those privately listed.

READ INMAN’S PORTAL LISTING BAN FAQ

Research by Compass challenged this finding, but it was limited to the company’s listings and did not provide a satisfactory explanation of the methods, including sample sizes. All other factors being equal, why would a limited listing sell for a higher price than a broad listing? 

On the buyer side, there is no debate. It is clearly in the interest of buyers to have access to full information about the largest number of properties available for sale, and not just because they would have more choices of properties. Some private listers are telling sellers that they do not have to provide information to buyers about sale price history and time on the market.  

Let’s not forget this …

Furthermore, to the extent that large brokerages successfully list privately, buyers will feel that to obtain access to a large number of listings, they must work with these companies. A decision by many buyers to do so would disadvantage small and local brokerages.

There is a real possibility that determined private listing efforts by a few major companies could shrink meaningful consumer choice of brokers.

The new Zillow and Redfin policy of not listing publicly marketed properties to which they did not have initial access, may not weaken the determination of big private listers. However, it is likely to curb the enthusiasm of their agents who must explain to clients that a private listing may prevent a listing on the two portals.

I do not agree with some of the policies of the two portals, and I also recognize that their decision on private listings addresses a highly complex issue involving industry rules. Nevertheless, I still believe that their new policy will benefit consumers both individually and collectively.   

Stephen Brobeck is a senior fellow at the Consumer Policy Center (CPC), a new consumer think tank. Since 1975, he has served as a board member then executive director and then senior fellow at the Consumer Federation of America (CFA). Since 1990, he has researched and commented on residential real estate brokerage issues.