How to Buy w/out a Realtor?

[sdrealtor]

DR B
This is all very easy to settle. You claim to have prospered but the truth is you dont even know whether you did. If you want to know, here’s an offer. Send me the address of the property you bought and I will review the purchase relative to comps with an unbiased eye. You have my word that I wont identify you. In a similar disagreement, the most secretive blogger on the net (OCRenter)shared with me what he bought. I’m probably one of a very few people who know his identity. I never shared a shread of his identity with anyone and never will. Just so you know I let him know I beleived he got a phenomenal deal and one that would be difficult if not impossible to replicate. The only thing we differed on was he’s convinced he paid a year 2000 nominal price and my opinion was that it was a late 2001/early 2002 price.

I’ll go one further. I will only share with you the results of what I find and leave it up to you as to whether you or I share the results (not the property)with anyone else. If you are concerned about anonymity you can ask anyone on this board if I have ever identified a single human being or violated my promise to anyone. Through out the years of being on this board I have met personally or been able to figure the identity of numerous folks here and have never shared identifying information for one.

So what say you? Ready to settle this once and for all?

[bearishgurl]

sdr, in “trolling” around on this thread on a “working weekend,” my aim was not to determine if other Piggs got a “good deal.” We don’t know how long ago drboom’s transaction took place, but perhaps he really didn’t care about a “good deal” as much as he needed an acceptable property within close proximity to relatives in a low-inventory sales environment.

I’m intrigued by any unlicensed buyer who states they “successfully represented themselves” in a transaction of a listed property marketed on the MLS to accept co-brokerage. Especially persons who claim to have recovered a “commission” in the form of a kickback or rebate. I’m not really all that familiar with discount broker business models but realize that in service industries, you pay exactly for what you get.

It is also clear to me that the general public does not understand the meaning of “Agency.” This not only applies in Pigg-land but I’ve heard this kind of argument elsewhere. When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction. In both instances drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)

If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent!

It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.

steveno stated that, since he was unrepresented (and thereby “saving” the sellers 3% in co-broke commission), he had asked for a 3% discount off the purchase price that was going to “come off the top” (of the commission). He doesn’t appear to understand that sellers can’t agree to any amounts coming off their contracted commission BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BOUND BY THAT CONTRACT. The listing broker is the only one who can agree to a commission reduction. Of course, sellers are free to accept or counter Buyer stevenot’s offer of a 3% (or ANY percent) reduction in sales price or they can counter back instead with a “concession” or “allowance” to the buyer (paid in cash at COE) to repair a real or imagined “defect” in the property.

I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.

I understand that if drboom, steveno or any other Pigg feels they got a good deal “representing themselves” or whatever version of “agency” or lack thereof they percieve happened in their transactions, then that is the bottom line. Whatever the agent(s) got paid is immaterial to that.

[bearishgurl]

sdr, in “trolling” around on this thread on a “working weekend,” my aim was not to determine if other Piggs got a “good deal.” We don’t know how long ago drboom’s transaction took place, but perhaps he really didn’t care about a “good deal” as much as he needed an acceptable property within close proximity to relatives in a low-inventory sales environment.

I’m intrigued by any unlicensed buyer who states they “successfully represented themselves” in a transaction of a listed property marketed on the MLS to accept co-brokerage. Especially persons who claim to have recovered a “commission” in the form of a kickback or rebate. I’m not really all that familiar with discount broker business models but realize that in service industries, you pay exactly for what you get.

It is also clear to me that the general public does not understand the meaning of “Agency.” This not only applies in Pigg-land but I’ve heard this kind of argument elsewhere. When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction. In both instances drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)

If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent!

It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.

steveno stated that, since he was unrepresented (and thereby “saving” the sellers 3% in co-broke commission), he had asked for a 3% discount off the purchase price that was going to “come off the top” (of the commission). He doesn’t appear to understand that sellers can’t agree to any amounts coming off their contracted commission BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BOUND BY THAT CONTRACT. The listing broker is the only one who can agree to a commission reduction. Of course, sellers are free to accept or counter Buyer stevenot’s offer of a 3% (or ANY percent) reduction in sales price or they can counter back instead with a “concession” or “allowance” to the buyer (paid in cash at COE) to repair a real or imagined “defect” in the property.

I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.

I understand that if drboom, steveno or any other Pigg feels they got a good deal “representing themselves” or whatever version of “agency” or lack thereof they percieve happened in their transactions, then that is the bottom line. Whatever the agent(s) got paid is immaterial to that.

[bearishgurl]

sdr, in “trolling” around on this thread on a “working weekend,” my aim was not to determine if other Piggs got a “good deal.” We don’t know how long ago drboom’s transaction took place, but perhaps he really didn’t care about a “good deal” as much as he needed an acceptable property within close proximity to relatives in a low-inventory sales environment.

I’m intrigued by any unlicensed buyer who states they “successfully represented themselves” in a transaction of a listed property marketed on the MLS to accept co-brokerage. Especially persons who claim to have recovered a “commission” in the form of a kickback or rebate. I’m not really all that familiar with discount broker business models but realize that in service industries, you pay exactly for what you get.

It is also clear to me that the general public does not understand the meaning of “Agency.” This not only applies in Pigg-land but I’ve heard this kind of argument elsewhere. When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction. In both instances drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)

If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent!

It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.

steveno stated that, since he was unrepresented (and thereby “saving” the sellers 3% in co-broke commission), he had asked for a 3% discount off the purchase price that was going to “come off the top” (of the commission). He doesn’t appear to understand that sellers can’t agree to any amounts coming off their contracted commission BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BOUND BY THAT CONTRACT. The listing broker is the only one who can agree to a commission reduction. Of course, sellers are free to accept or counter Buyer stevenot’s offer of a 3% (or ANY percent) reduction in sales price or they can counter back instead with a “concession” or “allowance” to the buyer (paid in cash at COE) to repair a real or imagined “defect” in the property.

I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.

I understand that if drboom, steveno or any other Pigg feels they got a good deal “representing themselves” or whatever version of “agency” or lack thereof they percieve happened in their transactions, then that is the bottom line. Whatever the agent(s) got paid is immaterial to that.

[bearishgurl]

sdr, in “trolling” around on this thread on a “working weekend,” my aim was not to determine if other Piggs got a “good deal.” We don’t know how long ago drboom’s transaction took place, but perhaps he really didn’t care about a “good deal” as much as he needed an acceptable property within close proximity to relatives in a low-inventory sales environment.

I’m intrigued by any unlicensed buyer who states they “successfully represented themselves” in a transaction of a listed property marketed on the MLS to accept co-brokerage. Especially persons who claim to have recovered a “commission” in the form of a kickback or rebate. I’m not really all that familiar with discount broker business models but realize that in service industries, you pay exactly for what you get.

It is also clear to me that the general public does not understand the meaning of “Agency.” This not only applies in Pigg-land but I’ve heard this kind of argument elsewhere. When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction. In both instances drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)

If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent!

It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.

steveno stated that, since he was unrepresented (and thereby “saving” the sellers 3% in co-broke commission), he had asked for a 3% discount off the purchase price that was going to “come off the top” (of the commission). He doesn’t appear to understand that sellers can’t agree to any amounts coming off their contracted commission BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BOUND BY THAT CONTRACT. The listing broker is the only one who can agree to a commission reduction. Of course, sellers are free to accept or counter Buyer stevenot’s offer of a 3% (or ANY percent) reduction in sales price or they can counter back instead with a “concession” or “allowance” to the buyer (paid in cash at COE) to repair a real or imagined “defect” in the property.

I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.

I understand that if drboom, steveno or any other Pigg feels they got a good deal “representing themselves” or whatever version of “agency” or lack thereof they percieve happened in their transactions, then that is the bottom line. Whatever the agent(s) got paid is immaterial to that.

[bearishgurl]

sdr, in “trolling” around on this thread on a “working weekend,” my aim was not to determine if other Piggs got a “good deal.” We don’t know how long ago drboom’s transaction took place, but perhaps he really didn’t care about a “good deal” as much as he needed an acceptable property within close proximity to relatives in a low-inventory sales environment.

I’m intrigued by any unlicensed buyer who states they “successfully represented themselves” in a transaction of a listed property marketed on the MLS to accept co-brokerage. Especially persons who claim to have recovered a “commission” in the form of a kickback or rebate. I’m not really all that familiar with discount broker business models but realize that in service industries, you pay exactly for what you get.

It is also clear to me that the general public does not understand the meaning of “Agency.” This not only applies in Pigg-land but I’ve heard this kind of argument elsewhere. When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction. In both instances drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)

If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent!

It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.

steveno stated that, since he was unrepresented (and thereby “saving” the sellers 3% in co-broke commission), he had asked for a 3% discount off the purchase price that was going to “come off the top” (of the commission). He doesn’t appear to understand that sellers can’t agree to any amounts coming off their contracted commission BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BOUND BY THAT CONTRACT. The listing broker is the only one who can agree to a commission reduction. Of course, sellers are free to accept or counter Buyer stevenot’s offer of a 3% (or ANY percent) reduction in sales price or they can counter back instead with a “concession” or “allowance” to the buyer (paid in cash at COE) to repair a real or imagined “defect” in the property.

I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.

I understand that if drboom, steveno or any other Pigg feels they got a good deal “representing themselves” or whatever version of “agency” or lack thereof they percieve happened in their transactions, then that is the bottom line. Whatever the agent(s) got paid is immaterial to that.

[drboom]

Good grief, this is getting ridiculous.

[quote=bearishgurl]When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent[/quote]

Change to “would have been represented…”, and I would have received a four figure check.

[quote]and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction.[/quote]

Now where in the hell did you get that? Dual agency? What? I had my agent, and the seller had theirs. My agent split his co-op commission with me 50/50. I got a four figure check a week or so after closing and put it in the smoking crater that used to be my bank account.

[quote]In both instances[/quote]

I wrote about three, actually.

[quote]drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent[/quote]

Totally wrong in the first case, barely hairsplitting right in the second case, and correct in the third case.

[quote]but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)[/quote]

It’s starting to look like I’m a lot smarter than you. No offense to you, of course. I fully understand the legalities even if I don’t know which CAR form to fill out when my bung itches. I signed exactly one agreement with an agent.

[quote]If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent! [/quote]

Leave the technicalities to the lawyers. What is true is that Realtors(tm) have a monopoly on the only realistically priced inventory: short sales and REOs. Good for you. What’s also true is that buyers who are willing to do their homework can negotiate a better deal for themselves to mitigate some of the gouging. Yes, the California average of 5% is “gouging”. Thirty grand to sell the average house in San Diego is ridiculous.

[quote]It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.[/quote]

I got a check. I don’t care if you call it “commission” or “fettuccine alfredo”, it was paid out of the commission proceeds. Moreover, I did the fee split deal with my agent on a handshake … because that’s how honorable people do business whenever possible. Nothing was in writing to satisfy your obsession with paperwork.

[quote]I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.[/quote]

Nope, never occurred to me. (*–forehead slap–*)

Carry on without me, please.

[drboom]

Good grief, this is getting ridiculous.

[quote=bearishgurl]When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent[/quote]

Change to “would have been represented…”, and I would have received a four figure check.

[quote]and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction.[/quote]

Now where in the hell did you get that? Dual agency? What? I had my agent, and the seller had theirs. My agent split his co-op commission with me 50/50. I got a four figure check a week or so after closing and put it in the smoking crater that used to be my bank account.

[quote]In both instances[/quote]

I wrote about three, actually.

[quote]drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent[/quote]

Totally wrong in the first case, barely hairsplitting right in the second case, and correct in the third case.

[quote]but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)[/quote]

It’s starting to look like I’m a lot smarter than you. No offense to you, of course. I fully understand the legalities even if I don’t know which CAR form to fill out when my bung itches. I signed exactly one agreement with an agent.

[quote]If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent! [/quote]

Leave the technicalities to the lawyers. What is true is that Realtors(tm) have a monopoly on the only realistically priced inventory: short sales and REOs. Good for you. What’s also true is that buyers who are willing to do their homework can negotiate a better deal for themselves to mitigate some of the gouging. Yes, the California average of 5% is “gouging”. Thirty grand to sell the average house in San Diego is ridiculous.

[quote]It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.[/quote]

I got a check. I don’t care if you call it “commission” or “fettuccine alfredo”, it was paid out of the commission proceeds. Moreover, I did the fee split deal with my agent on a handshake … because that’s how honorable people do business whenever possible. Nothing was in writing to satisfy your obsession with paperwork.

[quote]I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.[/quote]

Nope, never occurred to me. (*–forehead slap–*)

Carry on without me, please.

[drboom]

Good grief, this is getting ridiculous.

[quote=bearishgurl]When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent[/quote]

Change to “would have been represented…”, and I would have received a four figure check.

[quote]and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction.[/quote]

Now where in the hell did you get that? Dual agency? What? I had my agent, and the seller had theirs. My agent split his co-op commission with me 50/50. I got a four figure check a week or so after closing and put it in the smoking crater that used to be my bank account.

[quote]In both instances[/quote]

I wrote about three, actually.

[quote]drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent[/quote]

Totally wrong in the first case, barely hairsplitting right in the second case, and correct in the third case.

[quote]but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)[/quote]

It’s starting to look like I’m a lot smarter than you. No offense to you, of course. I fully understand the legalities even if I don’t know which CAR form to fill out when my bung itches. I signed exactly one agreement with an agent.

[quote]If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent! [/quote]

Leave the technicalities to the lawyers. What is true is that Realtors(tm) have a monopoly on the only realistically priced inventory: short sales and REOs. Good for you. What’s also true is that buyers who are willing to do their homework can negotiate a better deal for themselves to mitigate some of the gouging. Yes, the California average of 5% is “gouging”. Thirty grand to sell the average house in San Diego is ridiculous.

[quote]It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.[/quote]

I got a check. I don’t care if you call it “commission” or “fettuccine alfredo”, it was paid out of the commission proceeds. Moreover, I did the fee split deal with my agent on a handshake … because that’s how honorable people do business whenever possible. Nothing was in writing to satisfy your obsession with paperwork.

[quote]I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.[/quote]

Nope, never occurred to me. (*–forehead slap–*)

Carry on without me, please.

[drboom]

Good grief, this is getting ridiculous.

[quote=bearishgurl]When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent[/quote]

Change to “would have been represented…”, and I would have received a four figure check.

[quote]and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction.[/quote]

Now where in the hell did you get that? Dual agency? What? I had my agent, and the seller had theirs. My agent split his co-op commission with me 50/50. I got a four figure check a week or so after closing and put it in the smoking crater that used to be my bank account.

[quote]In both instances[/quote]

I wrote about three, actually.

[quote]drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent[/quote]

Totally wrong in the first case, barely hairsplitting right in the second case, and correct in the third case.

[quote]but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)[/quote]

It’s starting to look like I’m a lot smarter than you. No offense to you, of course. I fully understand the legalities even if I don’t know which CAR form to fill out when my bung itches. I signed exactly one agreement with an agent.

[quote]If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent! [/quote]

Leave the technicalities to the lawyers. What is true is that Realtors(tm) have a monopoly on the only realistically priced inventory: short sales and REOs. Good for you. What’s also true is that buyers who are willing to do their homework can negotiate a better deal for themselves to mitigate some of the gouging. Yes, the California average of 5% is “gouging”. Thirty grand to sell the average house in San Diego is ridiculous.

[quote]It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.[/quote]

I got a check. I don’t care if you call it “commission” or “fettuccine alfredo”, it was paid out of the commission proceeds. Moreover, I did the fee split deal with my agent on a handshake … because that’s how honorable people do business whenever possible. Nothing was in writing to satisfy your obsession with paperwork.

[quote]I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.[/quote]

Nope, never occurred to me. (*–forehead slap–*)

Carry on without me, please.

[drboom]

Good grief, this is getting ridiculous.

[quote=bearishgurl]When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent[/quote]

Change to “would have been represented…”, and I would have received a four figure check.

[quote]and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction.[/quote]

Now where in the hell did you get that? Dual agency? What? I had my agent, and the seller had theirs. My agent split his co-op commission with me 50/50. I got a four figure check a week or so after closing and put it in the smoking crater that used to be my bank account.

[quote]In both instances[/quote]

I wrote about three, actually.

[quote]drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent[/quote]

Totally wrong in the first case, barely hairsplitting right in the second case, and correct in the third case.

[quote]but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)[/quote]

It’s starting to look like I’m a lot smarter than you. No offense to you, of course. I fully understand the legalities even if I don’t know which CAR form to fill out when my bung itches. I signed exactly one agreement with an agent.

[quote]If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent! [/quote]

Leave the technicalities to the lawyers. What is true is that Realtors(tm) have a monopoly on the only realistically priced inventory: short sales and REOs. Good for you. What’s also true is that buyers who are willing to do their homework can negotiate a better deal for themselves to mitigate some of the gouging. Yes, the California average of 5% is “gouging”. Thirty grand to sell the average house in San Diego is ridiculous.

[quote]It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.[/quote]

I got a check. I don’t care if you call it “commission” or “fettuccine alfredo”, it was paid out of the commission proceeds. Moreover, I did the fee split deal with my agent on a handshake … because that’s how honorable people do business whenever possible. Nothing was in writing to satisfy your obsession with paperwork.

[quote]I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.[/quote]

Nope, never occurred to me. (*–forehead slap–*)

Carry on without me, please.

[drboom]

Jupiter would look a lot nicer if the skies were steadier. 🙁 At least it’s not cloudy like it has been all summer. Now, what have we here?

[quote=sdrealtor]DR B
This is all very easy to settle. You claim to have prospered but the truth is you dont even know whether you did.[/quote]

Sorry, but that’s condescending. I know the comps backwards and forwards around here and have followed them closely for years. It’s not that complicated: accounting for both rebates and the money we spent getting things squared away the way we like it (moved a door, added a window, custom Craftsman-style trim throughout, new HVAC, etc.), we paid the going rate. The going rate was rather down at the time. 🙂

We could easily rent the joint out for 20% more than our PITI plus trash and water/sewer. This assumes that water use triples and that we keep the rent 5-10% below the neighborhood average to avoid vacancy.

Yeah, we did OK. We couldn’t afford to rent this place, but we can very comfortably afford to be in hock to a bank for 30 years for it. That’s a good deal in anyone’s book. As an added bonus, we got almost exactly what we wanted and where we wanted it. We’ll probably never move again, so we’ll let our kids worry about whether it will sell for more in the future.

[quote]So what say you? Ready to settle this once and for all?[/quote]

I already did. You can believe me or not as you see fit.

[drboom]

Jupiter would look a lot nicer if the skies were steadier. 🙁 At least it’s not cloudy like it has been all summer. Now, what have we here?

[quote=sdrealtor]DR B
This is all very easy to settle. You claim to have prospered but the truth is you dont even know whether you did.[/quote]

Sorry, but that’s condescending. I know the comps backwards and forwards around here and have followed them closely for years. It’s not that complicated: accounting for both rebates and the money we spent getting things squared away the way we like it (moved a door, added a window, custom Craftsman-style trim throughout, new HVAC, etc.), we paid the going rate. The going rate was rather down at the time. 🙂

We could easily rent the joint out for 20% more than our PITI plus trash and water/sewer. This assumes that water use triples and that we keep the rent 5-10% below the neighborhood average to avoid vacancy.

Yeah, we did OK. We couldn’t afford to rent this place, but we can very comfortably afford to be in hock to a bank for 30 years for it. That’s a good deal in anyone’s book. As an added bonus, we got almost exactly what we wanted and where we wanted it. We’ll probably never move again, so we’ll let our kids worry about whether it will sell for more in the future.

[quote]So what say you? Ready to settle this once and for all?[/quote]

I already did. You can believe me or not as you see fit.

[drboom]

Jupiter would look a lot nicer if the skies were steadier. 🙁 At least it’s not cloudy like it has been all summer. Now, what have we here?

[quote=sdrealtor]DR B
This is all very easy to settle. You claim to have prospered but the truth is you dont even know whether you did.[/quote]

Sorry, but that’s condescending. I know the comps backwards and forwards around here and have followed them closely for years. It’s not that complicated: accounting for both rebates and the money we spent getting things squared away the way we like it (moved a door, added a window, custom Craftsman-style trim throughout, new HVAC, etc.), we paid the going rate. The going rate was rather down at the time. 🙂

We could easily rent the joint out for 20% more than our PITI plus trash and water/sewer. This assumes that water use triples and that we keep the rent 5-10% below the neighborhood average to avoid vacancy.

Yeah, we did OK. We couldn’t afford to rent this place, but we can very comfortably afford to be in hock to a bank for 30 years for it. That’s a good deal in anyone’s book. As an added bonus, we got almost exactly what we wanted and where we wanted it. We’ll probably never move again, so we’ll let our kids worry about whether it will sell for more in the future.

[quote]So what say you? Ready to settle this once and for all?[/quote]

I already did. You can believe me or not as you see fit.

[drboom]

Jupiter would look a lot nicer if the skies were steadier. 🙁 At least it’s not cloudy like it has been all summer. Now, what have we here?

[quote=sdrealtor]DR B
This is all very easy to settle. You claim to have prospered but the truth is you dont even know whether you did.[/quote]

Sorry, but that’s condescending. I know the comps backwards and forwards around here and have followed them closely for years. It’s not that complicated: accounting for both rebates and the money we spent getting things squared away the way we like it (moved a door, added a window, custom Craftsman-style trim throughout, new HVAC, etc.), we paid the going rate. The going rate was rather down at the time. 🙂

We could easily rent the joint out for 20% more than our PITI plus trash and water/sewer. This assumes that water use triples and that we keep the rent 5-10% below the neighborhood average to avoid vacancy.

Yeah, we did OK. We couldn’t afford to rent this place, but we can very comfortably afford to be in hock to a bank for 30 years for it. That’s a good deal in anyone’s book. As an added bonus, we got almost exactly what we wanted and where we wanted it. We’ll probably never move again, so we’ll let our kids worry about whether it will sell for more in the future.

[quote]So what say you? Ready to settle this once and for all?[/quote]

I already did. You can believe me or not as you see fit.

[Author]

Posts