- This topic has 435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 1, 2009 at 5:07 PM #392040May 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM #391380
CA renter
ParticipantToo many people here are making the assumption that the buyer and seller are two separate and distinct entities.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that a number of deals are going through where the “buyer” is really related to the seller. This is why many of us are upset.
If the seller controls the deal, then they can sell it back to themselves (often via a third party) at whatever price they want.
It’s a bit like agreeing to buy a widget for $1,000, taking out a 100% loan for it, then defaulting, and buying it back from yourself for $400 — because you control the deal, instead of the lender.
If the LENDER is losing money, then the LENDER should be the only entitiy to control the deal, and all offers should be submitted directly to the lender or **the lender’s** agent. This is especially important when taxpayers are the ones covering the lender’s losses, either directly or indirectly.
May 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM #391643ParticipantToo many people here are making the assumption that the buyer and seller are two separate and distinct entities.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that a number of deals are going through where the “buyer” is really related to the seller. This is why many of us are upset.
If the seller controls the deal, then they can sell it back to themselves (often via a third party) at whatever price they want.
It’s a bit like agreeing to buy a widget for $1,000, taking out a 100% loan for it, then defaulting, and buying it back from yourself for $400 — because you control the deal, instead of the lender.
If the LENDER is losing money, then the LENDER should be the only entitiy to control the deal, and all offers should be submitted directly to the lender or **the lender’s** agent. This is especially important when taxpayers are the ones covering the lender’s losses, either directly or indirectly.
May 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM #391853ParticipantToo many people here are making the assumption that the buyer and seller are two separate and distinct entities.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that a number of deals are going through where the “buyer” is really related to the seller. This is why many of us are upset.
If the seller controls the deal, then they can sell it back to themselves (often via a third party) at whatever price they want.
It’s a bit like agreeing to buy a widget for $1,000, taking out a 100% loan for it, then defaulting, and buying it back from yourself for $400 — because you control the deal, instead of the lender.
If the LENDER is losing money, then the LENDER should be the only entitiy to control the deal, and all offers should be submitted directly to the lender or **the lender’s** agent. This is especially important when taxpayers are the ones covering the lender’s losses, either directly or indirectly.
May 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM #391906ParticipantToo many people here are making the assumption that the buyer and seller are two separate and distinct entities.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that a number of deals are going through where the “buyer” is really related to the seller. This is why many of us are upset.
If the seller controls the deal, then they can sell it back to themselves (often via a third party) at whatever price they want.
It’s a bit like agreeing to buy a widget for $1,000, taking out a 100% loan for it, then defaulting, and buying it back from yourself for $400 — because you control the deal, instead of the lender.
If the LENDER is losing money, then the LENDER should be the only entitiy to control the deal, and all offers should be submitted directly to the lender or **the lender’s** agent. This is especially important when taxpayers are the ones covering the lender’s losses, either directly or indirectly.
May 1, 2009 at 5:18 PM #392045ParticipantToo many people here are making the assumption that the buyer and seller are two separate and distinct entities.
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show that a number of deals are going through where the “buyer” is really related to the seller. This is why many of us are upset.
If the seller controls the deal, then they can sell it back to themselves (often via a third party) at whatever price they want.
It’s a bit like agreeing to buy a widget for $1,000, taking out a 100% loan for it, then defaulting, and buying it back from yourself for $400 — because you control the deal, instead of the lender.
If the LENDER is losing money, then the LENDER should be the only entitiy to control the deal, and all offers should be submitted directly to the lender or **the lender’s** agent. This is especially important when taxpayers are the ones covering the lender’s losses, either directly or indirectly.
May 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM #391415jimg111
ParticipantYes Dan, the listing agent may have an offer ready to submit the minute it is listed.
May 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM #391678ParticipantYes Dan, the listing agent may have an offer ready to submit the minute it is listed.
May 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM #391888ParticipantYes Dan, the listing agent may have an offer ready to submit the minute it is listed.
May 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM #391941ParticipantYes Dan, the listing agent may have an offer ready to submit the minute it is listed.
May 1, 2009 at 6:02 PM #392079ParticipantYes Dan, the listing agent may have an offer ready to submit the minute it is listed.
May 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM #391425ucodegen
ParticipantI think some of the crux of what was happening on the listing, including the ‘tap dance’ by the broker.. or should we say ‘side step’ is being missed.
Banks don’t have any real experience in selling houses, their experience is with financing. If they want to move a house, they will ask the RE broker they are working with, what the comps are for that house.
Lets say the broker comes up with the ‘comps’.. and bank says to put it on the market. The deal is done inside the brokerage without giving anybody else a chance to bid.. is that ethical? Normally a broker would want to get as high a price as possible.. unless they are getting it for themselves. Their commission is a percentage of the price they get. People selling will not mind a 1 week wait for the MLS.. neither do buyers, unless they are certain the price would get bid up, possibly above what they would bid on it.
May 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM #391688ParticipantI think some of the crux of what was happening on the listing, including the ‘tap dance’ by the broker.. or should we say ‘side step’ is being missed.
Banks don’t have any real experience in selling houses, their experience is with financing. If they want to move a house, they will ask the RE broker they are working with, what the comps are for that house.
Lets say the broker comes up with the ‘comps’.. and bank says to put it on the market. The deal is done inside the brokerage without giving anybody else a chance to bid.. is that ethical? Normally a broker would want to get as high a price as possible.. unless they are getting it for themselves. Their commission is a percentage of the price they get. People selling will not mind a 1 week wait for the MLS.. neither do buyers, unless they are certain the price would get bid up, possibly above what they would bid on it.
May 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM #391898ParticipantI think some of the crux of what was happening on the listing, including the ‘tap dance’ by the broker.. or should we say ‘side step’ is being missed.
Banks don’t have any real experience in selling houses, their experience is with financing. If they want to move a house, they will ask the RE broker they are working with, what the comps are for that house.
Lets say the broker comes up with the ‘comps’.. and bank says to put it on the market. The deal is done inside the brokerage without giving anybody else a chance to bid.. is that ethical? Normally a broker would want to get as high a price as possible.. unless they are getting it for themselves. Their commission is a percentage of the price they get. People selling will not mind a 1 week wait for the MLS.. neither do buyers, unless they are certain the price would get bid up, possibly above what they would bid on it.
May 1, 2009 at 6:18 PM #391951ParticipantI think some of the crux of what was happening on the listing, including the ‘tap dance’ by the broker.. or should we say ‘side step’ is being missed.
Banks don’t have any real experience in selling houses, their experience is with financing. If they want to move a house, they will ask the RE broker they are working with, what the comps are for that house.
Lets say the broker comes up with the ‘comps’.. and bank says to put it on the market. The deal is done inside the brokerage without giving anybody else a chance to bid.. is that ethical? Normally a broker would want to get as high a price as possible.. unless they are getting it for themselves. Their commission is a percentage of the price they get. People selling will not mind a 1 week wait for the MLS.. neither do buyers, unless they are certain the price would get bid up, possibly above what they would bid on it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.