Seems to me it would be and you are not representing your client's best interests, unless there are some compelling reasons to not do so. Why are you asking this?

If it cannot be shown, then it is not for sale!

Of course. Just the fact that they are letting the seller think that is OK is breeching their fiducuary duties to the seller.

Their job is to sell the property as fast as they can and for the highest price...that takes exposure.

Just the fact that they are doing double talk so that they can keep all the commission and not share it, is unethical.

Eve

In my market, we have to have our clients sign a "Waiver of Benefits" form that explains to them that if they allow their agent to market the home without putting it in the MLS, they may not get as many showings, may not receive the best price, will not have their listing syndicated, etc. 

I tell my clients that the way to tell if I am doing a good job of promoting and marketing your home, is by the number of my competitors that show our home!  If I am the only one showing your home, you should wonder if I am trying to keep it a secret to keep both sides of the commission!

List it, sell it, get referrals from it!  Pretty simple business plan!

If you've listed it in MLS it's not legal... once you list in MLS you have agreed to share with other agents. If it's a pocket listing at your client's request that's a whole other story about how you decide to show and sell.

You will not very very popular in your local Realtor community

If you are working for a seller, the expectation is the house is for sale. If the house is for sale, people have to see it in order to purchase it. If the seller is not letting you show the house, walk away from the deal. You're going to waste a lot of time spinning your wheels. If the question is whether you can put a house on the market that isn't for sale so you can get buyers and sell them other houses, that's not ethical in my book.

No, as long as you are acting on behalf of your sellers.  And, if they're my sellers, there better be a darn good reason for them not to allow showings!!  

I can think of several reasons why I would want a property listed but not allow showings. 

It's not unethical, our local MLS does not allow it. If the listing agent or seller is not allowing showings, it must be removed from the MLS.

It sounds pointless to me

If it's a pocket listing at your client's request that's a whole other story about how you decide to show and sell. However this isn't going to be an advantage for most sellers.

probably trying to double end the transaction, Yes.

William Piotrowski - well, it is a waste of time.... for everyone.

I wouldn't use the term unethical.  Unprofessional, yes. 

Who is not allowing the showings, the agent or the seller? If the agent is a Realtor it could be a Code of Ethics violation and maybe even a licensing violation. Sellers can pretty much do what they want but I can't understand why an agent would want a listing he can't show and sell.

Can be but it depends on the reason. If it benefits you but not the seller then yes. If the seller has a good reason for it and you are following the instruction of your client then maybe not. Our MLS requires availability and has rules and regs. Some tenant occupied or investor properties only allow showings with accepted offers. Some REO properties that still have the owners in the house don't allow showings.-Kasey

if it's in MLS, the purpose is to cooperate with other agents.... report the listing agent....if it's not in MLS, that agent does not need to cooperate with any other agent.... and if you do show it, make sure you have it in writing that the listing agent is paying the the buyer agent....

What did the seller instruct?  Is it "no showings until Friday"?  Is there a legit reason?  I once had a property listed that we denied showings on for a few weeks while the sellers dealt with a death in the family.  Totally ethical, done at the request of the seller and even put in the MLS agent only comments (minus the death part, just that a "family issue...").

Is it a coming soon?  Maybe they're building interest?

Could be lots of legit reasons why.  Could be lots of not so legit reasons why too.

My first thought is ... does the seller know.  What are the seller's instructions to the agent. I am dealing with a situation like that now.  The home is listed on the MLS. No lockbox. Agent is non-responsive.  Unethical? 

Don't take me there. 

Geez, got any more questions to ask?

How are you going to sell it if it can't be shown?

Depends on if it is in the MLS and what your seller demands. You must comply with the COE or frop the listing.

Unethical? Does  this have some moral bearing regarding the resting play of our eternal soul? Of course not. You must be referring to the 'club rules' and have misappropriated a meaningful word.

Then of course I must wonder is 'listed' means actually entered as ACTIVE in the MLS. That of course is actually a violation if the implied inter-agency contract. In that case there must be provision to show. It is not necessary to be the most liberal in showing schedules.

The answer is, "OF COURSE NOT!!!" Marketing a pocket listing or even a exclusive listing is not unethical. 

Why?

Because you are unaware, not privy to, have no right to know the agreement between the listing agent and the home owner. There are MANY benefits to an owner to control very closely who has access to the house and controlling the narrative and detailed information regarding the house.

Short inventory, 4 days on market average, price trajectories at significant levels, a sign is all that is needed. 

Unethical? Not a chance. It will cause other agents distress because they know they are going to hear, "Why didn't you show me that house".

Maybe, it is worthwhile to network with such agents and keep houses out of the syndication quagmire that brokers, franchises and associations champion. The hazard they impose by insisting on syndication places both the buyer and seller at risk and ultimately the agent.

Not really unethical, but more like ineffective. I have seen them sell like that. Buyers could drive by, but could not go on the property.

Quite

No, with proper paperwork and MLS instructions, it's allowed.

I do one of those here & there when I've put a deal together pre-MLS, owner wants no showings but to be on MLS for the just in case factor.

I try to limit those though as it tends to piss off agents and I need favor not attitude when I represent buyers.

William Piotrowski Not if that is the seller's wishes.

It would violate the MLS rules.

Sure it is stupid! What are you trying to accomplish except maybe upset fellow MLS members?

Depends what kind of listing agreement you have with the seller. 

depends are they licensed agents ?

Depends on the reason. I have bank owned homes full of mold. They are sold from exterior view only. SOme times a seler has a avlaid reason to stop showings for  abit. For me i would rather hold a listing until it can be shown that have a new listing no one can see. 

Possibly.  Depending on the reasoning for refusing to let it be shown.

In our market if a property is listed in mls it must be available to be shown.

There's a status for that; called coming soon or temporarily off the market.

I am a stager, not a realtor but......why would you do this?  (Is this a real question, or do you just have a really creative mind?  And if it is not a real question, i.e., you don't have a situation that arose for you or a colleague, then you probably need to find ways to grow your Sphere of Influence so people will call you when they are ready to buy or sell.)