Bogus Re-listing of Properties

[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?

[jpinpb]

I see. So there’s nothing wrong w/the price. It’s just the agent that’s bad. Just make it a 60 day listing and change the agent every 60 days until you find a good one that will sell it. Now it makes sense. On your example.

The ones that still have the same agent that do “new” listings, the burden rests w/the buyer to do homework.

Also, isn’t there something in the contract that says after a listing expires the agent has some sort of claim to commission if the property sells w/in a certain period of time? I admit I’m vague on that.

Also, to add, “It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.”

Some people don’t do their homework b/c they rely on realtors since they’re the “experts” and many people place a lot of trust in realtors.

[jpinpb]

I see. So there’s nothing wrong w/the price. It’s just the agent that’s bad. Just make it a 60 day listing and change the agent every 60 days until you find a good one that will sell it. Now it makes sense. On your example.

The ones that still have the same agent that do “new” listings, the burden rests w/the buyer to do homework.

Also, isn’t there something in the contract that says after a listing expires the agent has some sort of claim to commission if the property sells w/in a certain period of time? I admit I’m vague on that.

Also, to add, “It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.”

Some people don’t do their homework b/c they rely on realtors since they’re the “experts” and many people place a lot of trust in realtors.

[jpinpb]

I see. So there’s nothing wrong w/the price. It’s just the agent that’s bad. Just make it a 60 day listing and change the agent every 60 days until you find a good one that will sell it. Now it makes sense. On your example.

The ones that still have the same agent that do “new” listings, the burden rests w/the buyer to do homework.

Also, isn’t there something in the contract that says after a listing expires the agent has some sort of claim to commission if the property sells w/in a certain period of time? I admit I’m vague on that.

Also, to add, “It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.”

Some people don’t do their homework b/c they rely on realtors since they’re the “experts” and many people place a lot of trust in realtors.

[jpinpb]

I see. So there’s nothing wrong w/the price. It’s just the agent that’s bad. Just make it a 60 day listing and change the agent every 60 days until you find a good one that will sell it. Now it makes sense. On your example.

The ones that still have the same agent that do “new” listings, the burden rests w/the buyer to do homework.

Also, isn’t there something in the contract that says after a listing expires the agent has some sort of claim to commission if the property sells w/in a certain period of time? I admit I’m vague on that.

Also, to add, “It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.”

Some people don’t do their homework b/c they rely on realtors since they’re the “experts” and many people place a lot of trust in realtors.

[jpinpb]

I see. So there’s nothing wrong w/the price. It’s just the agent that’s bad. Just make it a 60 day listing and change the agent every 60 days until you find a good one that will sell it. Now it makes sense. On your example.

The ones that still have the same agent that do “new” listings, the burden rests w/the buyer to do homework.

Also, isn’t there something in the contract that says after a listing expires the agent has some sort of claim to commission if the property sells w/in a certain period of time? I admit I’m vague on that.

Also, to add, “It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.”

Some people don’t do their homework b/c they rely on realtors since they’re the “experts” and many people place a lot of trust in realtors.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[peterb]

Welcome to the real world.

[peterb]

Welcome to the real world.

[peterb]

Welcome to the real world.

[peterb]

Welcome to the real world.

[Author]

Posts