- This topic has 45 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 12 months ago by GoUSC.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 5, 2007 at 9:39 AM #109326December 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM #109639Ash HousewaresParticipant
My guess is that she didn’t even want to pay a cooperating broker to sell her house and couldn’t sell it either
Rustico can you clarify this? I was under the impression that Realtors HAVE TO be under a broker to do transactions, they can’t do them on their own.
December 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM #109658Ash HousewaresParticipantMy guess is that she didn’t even want to pay a cooperating broker to sell her house and couldn’t sell it either
Rustico can you clarify this? I was under the impression that Realtors HAVE TO be under a broker to do transactions, they can’t do them on their own.
December 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM #109645Ash HousewaresParticipantMy guess is that she didn’t even want to pay a cooperating broker to sell her house and couldn’t sell it either
Rustico can you clarify this? I was under the impression that Realtors HAVE TO be under a broker to do transactions, they can’t do them on their own.
December 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM #109607Ash HousewaresParticipantMy guess is that she didn’t even want to pay a cooperating broker to sell her house and couldn’t sell it either
Rustico can you clarify this? I was under the impression that Realtors HAVE TO be under a broker to do transactions, they can’t do them on their own.
December 5, 2007 at 1:09 PM #109495Ash HousewaresParticipantMy guess is that she didn’t even want to pay a cooperating broker to sell her house and couldn’t sell it either
Rustico can you clarify this? I was under the impression that Realtors HAVE TO be under a broker to do transactions, they can’t do them on their own.
December 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM #109612(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantDid you already send the letter.
I think you have the % declines and the price ranges reversed. …
What you failed to mention is that per the Case-Shiller index homes under $475k have fallen 7.2% from their peak; homes $475-$676k have fallen 12.3%, and homes over $676k have fallen 16.4% and there is no signs of stopping.
It’s the homes under 475K have declined 16.4%.
December 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM #109644(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantDid you already send the letter.
I think you have the % declines and the price ranges reversed. …
What you failed to mention is that per the Case-Shiller index homes under $475k have fallen 7.2% from their peak; homes $475-$676k have fallen 12.3%, and homes over $676k have fallen 16.4% and there is no signs of stopping.
It’s the homes under 475K have declined 16.4%.
December 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM #109500(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantDid you already send the letter.
I think you have the % declines and the price ranges reversed. …
What you failed to mention is that per the Case-Shiller index homes under $475k have fallen 7.2% from their peak; homes $475-$676k have fallen 12.3%, and homes over $676k have fallen 16.4% and there is no signs of stopping.
It’s the homes under 475K have declined 16.4%.
December 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM #109648(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantDid you already send the letter.
I think you have the % declines and the price ranges reversed. …
What you failed to mention is that per the Case-Shiller index homes under $475k have fallen 7.2% from their peak; homes $475-$676k have fallen 12.3%, and homes over $676k have fallen 16.4% and there is no signs of stopping.
It’s the homes under 475K have declined 16.4%.
December 5, 2007 at 1:16 PM #109661(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantDid you already send the letter.
I think you have the % declines and the price ranges reversed. …
What you failed to mention is that per the Case-Shiller index homes under $475k have fallen 7.2% from their peak; homes $475-$676k have fallen 12.3%, and homes over $676k have fallen 16.4% and there is no signs of stopping.
It’s the homes under 475K have declined 16.4%.
December 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM #109705GoUSCParticipant$%#&($&#@)( you’re right. Oh well doesn’t really hurt my case either way. She probably doesn’t even understand the letter anyway.
December 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM #109820GoUSCParticipant$%#&($&#@)( you’re right. Oh well doesn’t really hurt my case either way. She probably doesn’t even understand the letter anyway.
December 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM #109847GoUSCParticipant$%#&($&#@)( you’re right. Oh well doesn’t really hurt my case either way. She probably doesn’t even understand the letter anyway.
December 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM #109851GoUSCParticipant$%#&($&#@)( you’re right. Oh well doesn’t really hurt my case either way. She probably doesn’t even understand the letter anyway.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.