Bogus Re-listing of Properties

[jpinpb]

The average person will look and think it’s a new listing. We can’t consider the Piggs or anyone who is monitoring the market. The MLS # change will just annoy us. I just pity those who believe it is a new listing and don’t know any better. Some are too trusting and if you don’t do your homework and rely on others, they can easily be fooled.

In fact, Dataquick DOM is a worthless number. They just track the MLS # and not the address. That is frustrating b/c many people look at those numbers for future outlook and rely on those data figures and it is far from accurate.

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
What do you see as being the net negative effect upon those who are fooled?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
What do you see as being the net negative effect upon those who are fooled?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
What do you see as being the net negative effect upon those who are fooled?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
What do you see as being the net negative effect upon those who are fooled?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
What do you see as being the net negative effect upon those who are fooled?

[jpinpb]

If a place has been on and off the market, say a year. It continues to get relisted as “new” but no change in price, that tells me it is really not priced right.

Someone who has not done their homework and studied the area they intend to buy in, comes across a “new” listing and may be persuaded into thinking it is a good price and should act quickly.

They may buy something and it may not be an informed decision. Had they known, for example, it was relisted as “new” for a year, they may drive a harder bargain and offer a lower price or not buy it b/c it isn’t priced right.

That’s just quick off the top of my head. It just seems deceptive and I’ve seen many that do it, which makes me think it must fool some people or they wouldn’t do it.

I guess a net effect would be a purchase that perhaps wouldn’t have occurred. There are probably other effects. I just personally don’t like that realtors resort to such tactics.

[jpinpb]

If a place has been on and off the market, say a year. It continues to get relisted as “new” but no change in price, that tells me it is really not priced right.

Someone who has not done their homework and studied the area they intend to buy in, comes across a “new” listing and may be persuaded into thinking it is a good price and should act quickly.

They may buy something and it may not be an informed decision. Had they known, for example, it was relisted as “new” for a year, they may drive a harder bargain and offer a lower price or not buy it b/c it isn’t priced right.

That’s just quick off the top of my head. It just seems deceptive and I’ve seen many that do it, which makes me think it must fool some people or they wouldn’t do it.

I guess a net effect would be a purchase that perhaps wouldn’t have occurred. There are probably other effects. I just personally don’t like that realtors resort to such tactics.

[jpinpb]

If a place has been on and off the market, say a year. It continues to get relisted as “new” but no change in price, that tells me it is really not priced right.

Someone who has not done their homework and studied the area they intend to buy in, comes across a “new” listing and may be persuaded into thinking it is a good price and should act quickly.

They may buy something and it may not be an informed decision. Had they known, for example, it was relisted as “new” for a year, they may drive a harder bargain and offer a lower price or not buy it b/c it isn’t priced right.

That’s just quick off the top of my head. It just seems deceptive and I’ve seen many that do it, which makes me think it must fool some people or they wouldn’t do it.

I guess a net effect would be a purchase that perhaps wouldn’t have occurred. There are probably other effects. I just personally don’t like that realtors resort to such tactics.

[jpinpb]

If a place has been on and off the market, say a year. It continues to get relisted as “new” but no change in price, that tells me it is really not priced right.

Someone who has not done their homework and studied the area they intend to buy in, comes across a “new” listing and may be persuaded into thinking it is a good price and should act quickly.

They may buy something and it may not be an informed decision. Had they known, for example, it was relisted as “new” for a year, they may drive a harder bargain and offer a lower price or not buy it b/c it isn’t priced right.

That’s just quick off the top of my head. It just seems deceptive and I’ve seen many that do it, which makes me think it must fool some people or they wouldn’t do it.

I guess a net effect would be a purchase that perhaps wouldn’t have occurred. There are probably other effects. I just personally don’t like that realtors resort to such tactics.

[jpinpb]

If a place has been on and off the market, say a year. It continues to get relisted as “new” but no change in price, that tells me it is really not priced right.

Someone who has not done their homework and studied the area they intend to buy in, comes across a “new” listing and may be persuaded into thinking it is a good price and should act quickly.

They may buy something and it may not be an informed decision. Had they known, for example, it was relisted as “new” for a year, they may drive a harder bargain and offer a lower price or not buy it b/c it isn’t priced right.

That’s just quick off the top of my head. It just seems deceptive and I’ve seen many that do it, which makes me think it must fool some people or they wouldn’t do it.

I guess a net effect would be a purchase that perhaps wouldn’t have occurred. There are probably other effects. I just personally don’t like that realtors resort to such tactics.

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.

But getting back to the specific complaint:
Here is an example. I have a place with a market value of 200-250. If I insist on listing it with a 60 day contract for 400 I am certain I would find some agent dumb enough to list it on those terms.
Further, if I switched agents (staying with these terms) every 60 days for a year, those listings would all be separate. Would it be your preference that agent #6 “inherit” the listing that was originally penned by agent #1?

It seems unfair to make someone a part of an earlier contract. Creating a new contract (which necessitates a new listing entry) seems reasonable here. Would you disagree?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.

But getting back to the specific complaint:
Here is an example. I have a place with a market value of 200-250. If I insist on listing it with a 60 day contract for 400 I am certain I would find some agent dumb enough to list it on those terms.
Further, if I switched agents (staying with these terms) every 60 days for a year, those listings would all be separate. Would it be your preference that agent #6 “inherit” the listing that was originally penned by agent #1?

It seems unfair to make someone a part of an earlier contract. Creating a new contract (which necessitates a new listing entry) seems reasonable here. Would you disagree?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.

But getting back to the specific complaint:
Here is an example. I have a place with a market value of 200-250. If I insist on listing it with a 60 day contract for 400 I am certain I would find some agent dumb enough to list it on those terms.
Further, if I switched agents (staying with these terms) every 60 days for a year, those listings would all be separate. Would it be your preference that agent #6 “inherit” the listing that was originally penned by agent #1?

It seems unfair to make someone a part of an earlier contract. Creating a new contract (which necessitates a new listing entry) seems reasonable here. Would you disagree?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.

But getting back to the specific complaint:
Here is an example. I have a place with a market value of 200-250. If I insist on listing it with a 60 day contract for 400 I am certain I would find some agent dumb enough to list it on those terms.
Further, if I switched agents (staying with these terms) every 60 days for a year, those listings would all be separate. Would it be your preference that agent #6 “inherit” the listing that was originally penned by agent #1?

It seems unfair to make someone a part of an earlier contract. Creating a new contract (which necessitates a new listing entry) seems reasonable here. Would you disagree?

[Author]

Posts