more bad behavior

[an]

[quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]
I don’t see how the agent selling a house at listing price (the price the seller agreed to) is unethical? Lets take this scenario and place it in 2004 time frame instead. Would it be unethical for the seller agent to sell the house at asking price knowing full well they probably get a lot more offers at probably higher price if they just wait it out a few months? Is it then also unethical for the seller to agreeing to a price that’s considered a good deal to the retail market?

[jimg111]

It really just depends on the bank selling the asset, some require that no offers are even considered until the asset has been listed for a minimum of 7 days. In this case it may be that the asset manager accepts the first offer at full price and is clean, this is a definite advantage to the listing agent as they can show the property long before the public can but ultimately it is the seller’s choice to accept that first offer and not review others. Maybe poor judgement by the bank by not letting all offers to get in for consideration but just good work by the listing agent getting a full price offer in at listing assignment. Banks require a copy of the MLS listing within 24 hours so agents don’t withhold properties.

[jimg111]

It really just depends on the bank selling the asset, some require that no offers are even considered until the asset has been listed for a minimum of 7 days. In this case it may be that the asset manager accepts the first offer at full price and is clean, this is a definite advantage to the listing agent as they can show the property long before the public can but ultimately it is the seller’s choice to accept that first offer and not review others. Maybe poor judgement by the bank by not letting all offers to get in for consideration but just good work by the listing agent getting a full price offer in at listing assignment. Banks require a copy of the MLS listing within 24 hours so agents don’t withhold properties.

[jimg111]

It really just depends on the bank selling the asset, some require that no offers are even considered until the asset has been listed for a minimum of 7 days. In this case it may be that the asset manager accepts the first offer at full price and is clean, this is a definite advantage to the listing agent as they can show the property long before the public can but ultimately it is the seller’s choice to accept that first offer and not review others. Maybe poor judgement by the bank by not letting all offers to get in for consideration but just good work by the listing agent getting a full price offer in at listing assignment. Banks require a copy of the MLS listing within 24 hours so agents don’t withhold properties.

[jimg111]

It really just depends on the bank selling the asset, some require that no offers are even considered until the asset has been listed for a minimum of 7 days. In this case it may be that the asset manager accepts the first offer at full price and is clean, this is a definite advantage to the listing agent as they can show the property long before the public can but ultimately it is the seller’s choice to accept that first offer and not review others. Maybe poor judgement by the bank by not letting all offers to get in for consideration but just good work by the listing agent getting a full price offer in at listing assignment. Banks require a copy of the MLS listing within 24 hours so agents don’t withhold properties.

[jimg111]

It really just depends on the bank selling the asset, some require that no offers are even considered until the asset has been listed for a minimum of 7 days. In this case it may be that the asset manager accepts the first offer at full price and is clean, this is a definite advantage to the listing agent as they can show the property long before the public can but ultimately it is the seller’s choice to accept that first offer and not review others. Maybe poor judgement by the bank by not letting all offers to get in for consideration but just good work by the listing agent getting a full price offer in at listing assignment. Banks require a copy of the MLS listing within 24 hours so agents don’t withhold properties.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]

“Honest about being dishonest”? You’ve got your terms mixed up here. I’m being honest about my willingness to engage in a legal transaction that may or may not be ethical (using your definition of “ethical”). I think what you meant to say was that I was being honest about being willing to be unethical (again, using your definition). Like beauty, ethics is in the eye of the beholder. It’s very easy to say that you would likely not do the deal… because you’re not faced with the option.

But you’re right on this count: I would dive into the deal thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Why? Because I define right and wrong (ethical and unethical) for myself. I don’t allow others to do it for me. Now, you (and others) might find that reprehensible. But that’s the way it is. And I don’t apologize for it.

Is the deal ethical or not? For the buyer, maybe, maybe not. For the agent, probably not. The agent should probably put it out to auction. But there are probably also instances in which prices are changing so rapidly that waiting a couple of weeks for auction results actually hurts the lender-owner, or perhaps there’s a problem with the problem that the early buyer didn’t identify (that would be discovered with more time), thereby overpaying. But, in general, the agent should probably handle the process “properly.” That’s what I would want if I were the seller.

But, again… I have a hard time seeing a big problem if the seller agrees to a price (whether it’s “good” or “bad”) and a buyer is willing to pay it. Despite what might be going on behind the scenes. Ultimately, after all, the seller has to sign off on the deal. Who’s fault is it if they accept a sub-optimal offer? I can see fault on both sides.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]

“Honest about being dishonest”? You’ve got your terms mixed up here. I’m being honest about my willingness to engage in a legal transaction that may or may not be ethical (using your definition of “ethical”). I think what you meant to say was that I was being honest about being willing to be unethical (again, using your definition). Like beauty, ethics is in the eye of the beholder. It’s very easy to say that you would likely not do the deal… because you’re not faced with the option.

But you’re right on this count: I would dive into the deal thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Why? Because I define right and wrong (ethical and unethical) for myself. I don’t allow others to do it for me. Now, you (and others) might find that reprehensible. But that’s the way it is. And I don’t apologize for it.

Is the deal ethical or not? For the buyer, maybe, maybe not. For the agent, probably not. The agent should probably put it out to auction. But there are probably also instances in which prices are changing so rapidly that waiting a couple of weeks for auction results actually hurts the lender-owner, or perhaps there’s a problem with the problem that the early buyer didn’t identify (that would be discovered with more time), thereby overpaying. But, in general, the agent should probably handle the process “properly.” That’s what I would want if I were the seller.

But, again… I have a hard time seeing a big problem if the seller agrees to a price (whether it’s “good” or “bad”) and a buyer is willing to pay it. Despite what might be going on behind the scenes. Ultimately, after all, the seller has to sign off on the deal. Who’s fault is it if they accept a sub-optimal offer? I can see fault on both sides.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]

“Honest about being dishonest”? You’ve got your terms mixed up here. I’m being honest about my willingness to engage in a legal transaction that may or may not be ethical (using your definition of “ethical”). I think what you meant to say was that I was being honest about being willing to be unethical (again, using your definition). Like beauty, ethics is in the eye of the beholder. It’s very easy to say that you would likely not do the deal… because you’re not faced with the option.

But you’re right on this count: I would dive into the deal thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Why? Because I define right and wrong (ethical and unethical) for myself. I don’t allow others to do it for me. Now, you (and others) might find that reprehensible. But that’s the way it is. And I don’t apologize for it.

Is the deal ethical or not? For the buyer, maybe, maybe not. For the agent, probably not. The agent should probably put it out to auction. But there are probably also instances in which prices are changing so rapidly that waiting a couple of weeks for auction results actually hurts the lender-owner, or perhaps there’s a problem with the problem that the early buyer didn’t identify (that would be discovered with more time), thereby overpaying. But, in general, the agent should probably handle the process “properly.” That’s what I would want if I were the seller.

But, again… I have a hard time seeing a big problem if the seller agrees to a price (whether it’s “good” or “bad”) and a buyer is willing to pay it. Despite what might be going on behind the scenes. Ultimately, after all, the seller has to sign off on the deal. Who’s fault is it if they accept a sub-optimal offer? I can see fault on both sides.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]

“Honest about being dishonest”? You’ve got your terms mixed up here. I’m being honest about my willingness to engage in a legal transaction that may or may not be ethical (using your definition of “ethical”). I think what you meant to say was that I was being honest about being willing to be unethical (again, using your definition). Like beauty, ethics is in the eye of the beholder. It’s very easy to say that you would likely not do the deal… because you’re not faced with the option.

But you’re right on this count: I would dive into the deal thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Why? Because I define right and wrong (ethical and unethical) for myself. I don’t allow others to do it for me. Now, you (and others) might find that reprehensible. But that’s the way it is. And I don’t apologize for it.

Is the deal ethical or not? For the buyer, maybe, maybe not. For the agent, probably not. The agent should probably put it out to auction. But there are probably also instances in which prices are changing so rapidly that waiting a couple of weeks for auction results actually hurts the lender-owner, or perhaps there’s a problem with the problem that the early buyer didn’t identify (that would be discovered with more time), thereby overpaying. But, in general, the agent should probably handle the process “properly.” That’s what I would want if I were the seller.

But, again… I have a hard time seeing a big problem if the seller agrees to a price (whether it’s “good” or “bad”) and a buyer is willing to pay it. Despite what might be going on behind the scenes. Ultimately, after all, the seller has to sign off on the deal. Who’s fault is it if they accept a sub-optimal offer? I can see fault on both sides.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]

“Honest about being dishonest”? You’ve got your terms mixed up here. I’m being honest about my willingness to engage in a legal transaction that may or may not be ethical (using your definition of “ethical”). I think what you meant to say was that I was being honest about being willing to be unethical (again, using your definition). Like beauty, ethics is in the eye of the beholder. It’s very easy to say that you would likely not do the deal… because you’re not faced with the option.

But you’re right on this count: I would dive into the deal thinking I was doing nothing wrong. Why? Because I define right and wrong (ethical and unethical) for myself. I don’t allow others to do it for me. Now, you (and others) might find that reprehensible. But that’s the way it is. And I don’t apologize for it.

Is the deal ethical or not? For the buyer, maybe, maybe not. For the agent, probably not. The agent should probably put it out to auction. But there are probably also instances in which prices are changing so rapidly that waiting a couple of weeks for auction results actually hurts the lender-owner, or perhaps there’s a problem with the problem that the early buyer didn’t identify (that would be discovered with more time), thereby overpaying. But, in general, the agent should probably handle the process “properly.” That’s what I would want if I were the seller.

But, again… I have a hard time seeing a big problem if the seller agrees to a price (whether it’s “good” or “bad”) and a buyer is willing to pay it. Despite what might be going on behind the scenes. Ultimately, after all, the seller has to sign off on the deal. Who’s fault is it if they accept a sub-optimal offer? I can see fault on both sides.

[danthedart]

[quote=AN][quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]
I don’t see how the agent selling a house at listing price (the price the seller agreed to) is unethical? Lets take this scenario and place it in 2004 time frame instead. Would it be unethical for the seller agent to sell the house at asking price knowing full well they probably get a lot more offers at probably higher price if they just wait it out a few months? Is it then also unethical for the seller to agreeing to a price that’s considered a good deal to the retail market?[/quote]

Well under the original scenarios that SD Realtor posted about, we don’t know if the house is being sold at listing price. We don’t know if the seller was presented all offers. We don’t know what the seller was told.

We know that the seller couldn’t possibly have gotten all the offers that they could have gotten because the listing was never really listed.

We know that the agent listed the property on the MLS for some reason other than trying to get offers on the property.

We know that the agents are not being forthcoming with what is happening with the deal.

We don’t know the specifics, but we know that the agents do not want to be honest about what’s going on. That’s what leads me to believe this is unethical.

Everything else we’ve been saying, is speculation.

I’d say that if the seller knows that he/she could get better offers and if he/she knows that the agent did not really market the property at all and the seller agreed to all of that and the purchase price, then its not unethical. If the agent has been completely honest with the bank or the seller about the details of the transaction, then it’s not unethical.

[danthedart]

[quote=AN][quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]
I don’t see how the agent selling a house at listing price (the price the seller agreed to) is unethical? Lets take this scenario and place it in 2004 time frame instead. Would it be unethical for the seller agent to sell the house at asking price knowing full well they probably get a lot more offers at probably higher price if they just wait it out a few months? Is it then also unethical for the seller to agreeing to a price that’s considered a good deal to the retail market?[/quote]

Well under the original scenarios that SD Realtor posted about, we don’t know if the house is being sold at listing price. We don’t know if the seller was presented all offers. We don’t know what the seller was told.

We know that the seller couldn’t possibly have gotten all the offers that they could have gotten because the listing was never really listed.

We know that the agent listed the property on the MLS for some reason other than trying to get offers on the property.

We know that the agents are not being forthcoming with what is happening with the deal.

We don’t know the specifics, but we know that the agents do not want to be honest about what’s going on. That’s what leads me to believe this is unethical.

Everything else we’ve been saying, is speculation.

I’d say that if the seller knows that he/she could get better offers and if he/she knows that the agent did not really market the property at all and the seller agreed to all of that and the purchase price, then its not unethical. If the agent has been completely honest with the bank or the seller about the details of the transaction, then it’s not unethical.

[danthedart]

[quote=AN][quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]
I don’t see how the agent selling a house at listing price (the price the seller agreed to) is unethical? Lets take this scenario and place it in 2004 time frame instead. Would it be unethical for the seller agent to sell the house at asking price knowing full well they probably get a lot more offers at probably higher price if they just wait it out a few months? Is it then also unethical for the seller to agreeing to a price that’s considered a good deal to the retail market?[/quote]

Well under the original scenarios that SD Realtor posted about, we don’t know if the house is being sold at listing price. We don’t know if the seller was presented all offers. We don’t know what the seller was told.

We know that the seller couldn’t possibly have gotten all the offers that they could have gotten because the listing was never really listed.

We know that the agent listed the property on the MLS for some reason other than trying to get offers on the property.

We know that the agents are not being forthcoming with what is happening with the deal.

We don’t know the specifics, but we know that the agents do not want to be honest about what’s going on. That’s what leads me to believe this is unethical.

Everything else we’ve been saying, is speculation.

I’d say that if the seller knows that he/she could get better offers and if he/she knows that the agent did not really market the property at all and the seller agreed to all of that and the purchase price, then its not unethical. If the agent has been completely honest with the bank or the seller about the details of the transaction, then it’s not unethical.

[danthedart]

[quote=AN][quote=danthedart]Well thanks for your honesty. Unfortunately, being honest about being dishonest doesn’t really get you anywhere ethically.

In all likelihood I would NOT do the deal.

It may not be illegal for the buyer, but for the agent its a violation of of their agreement with the seller and most likely fraud. Obviously you’d never be able to prove that in court, but that’s what it is.

I am sympathetic to a buyer because I would be tempted to do the deal too, but I am not sympathetic to the agent at all. Agents facilitating these deals are ripping off the people they’re supposedly representing.

No, the difference between you and I is that you would dive into the deal thinking you’re doing nothing wrong. If I did the deal, which I honestly do not believe I would, I would be doing the deal knowing I was doing something unethical.

Isn’t that the real question here? Is this deal ethical or not? It’s not about my personal ethics or your personal ethics. [/quote]
I don’t see how the agent selling a house at listing price (the price the seller agreed to) is unethical? Lets take this scenario and place it in 2004 time frame instead. Would it be unethical for the seller agent to sell the house at asking price knowing full well they probably get a lot more offers at probably higher price if they just wait it out a few months? Is it then also unethical for the seller to agreeing to a price that’s considered a good deal to the retail market?[/quote]

Well under the original scenarios that SD Realtor posted about, we don’t know if the house is being sold at listing price. We don’t know if the seller was presented all offers. We don’t know what the seller was told.

We know that the seller couldn’t possibly have gotten all the offers that they could have gotten because the listing was never really listed.

We know that the agent listed the property on the MLS for some reason other than trying to get offers on the property.

We know that the agents are not being forthcoming with what is happening with the deal.

We don’t know the specifics, but we know that the agents do not want to be honest about what’s going on. That’s what leads me to believe this is unethical.

Everything else we’ve been saying, is speculation.

I’d say that if the seller knows that he/she could get better offers and if he/she knows that the agent did not really market the property at all and the seller agreed to all of that and the purchase price, then its not unethical. If the agent has been completely honest with the bank or the seller about the details of the transaction, then it’s not unethical.

[Author]

Posts