- This topic has 435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 30, 2009 at 4:41 PM #391221April 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM #390561
danthedart
ParticipantAs the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more?
April 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM #390824ParticipantAs the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more?
April 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM #391032ParticipantAs the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more?
April 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM #391083ParticipantAs the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more?
April 30, 2009 at 4:43 PM #391226ParticipantAs the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more?
April 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM #390581werewolf34
ParticipantThe issue I think is the fixing / rigging of the system.
The banks are getting hosed.
The listing agent is probably getting something to sweeten the deal.
The buyer is getting preferential treatment (to say the least).
Joe and Jane average are subsidizing this behavior by supporting the banks who are getting ripped off by brokers who sell to insiders.What did I miss? When we will actually regulate real estate?
April 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM #390844ParticipantThe issue I think is the fixing / rigging of the system.
The banks are getting hosed.
The listing agent is probably getting something to sweeten the deal.
The buyer is getting preferential treatment (to say the least).
Joe and Jane average are subsidizing this behavior by supporting the banks who are getting ripped off by brokers who sell to insiders.What did I miss? When we will actually regulate real estate?
April 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM #391052ParticipantThe issue I think is the fixing / rigging of the system.
The banks are getting hosed.
The listing agent is probably getting something to sweeten the deal.
The buyer is getting preferential treatment (to say the least).
Joe and Jane average are subsidizing this behavior by supporting the banks who are getting ripped off by brokers who sell to insiders.What did I miss? When we will actually regulate real estate?
April 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM #391103ParticipantThe issue I think is the fixing / rigging of the system.
The banks are getting hosed.
The listing agent is probably getting something to sweeten the deal.
The buyer is getting preferential treatment (to say the least).
Joe and Jane average are subsidizing this behavior by supporting the banks who are getting ripped off by brokers who sell to insiders.What did I miss? When we will actually regulate real estate?
April 30, 2009 at 5:08 PM #391246ParticipantThe issue I think is the fixing / rigging of the system.
The banks are getting hosed.
The listing agent is probably getting something to sweeten the deal.
The buyer is getting preferential treatment (to say the least).
Joe and Jane average are subsidizing this behavior by supporting the banks who are getting ripped off by brokers who sell to insiders.What did I miss? When we will actually regulate real estate?
April 30, 2009 at 5:10 PM #390586davelj
Participant[quote=danthedart]As the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more? [/quote]
You’re not addressing the issue YOU brought up. In your previous post, YOU suggested it was unethical for the agent to, in essence, take the non-competitive bid instead of sending it to auction. But, at the same time, you’re acknowledging that you would take the good deal if it were offered to you, but that you’d feel bad for the seller (but clearly not bad enough to compensate them for their loss). So, to summarize, you’re willing to aid and abet unethical activity on the part of an agent if it means getting a good deal for YOU. But if such “side deals” aren’t available to you, you’ll castigate OTHERS who take advantage of them because the seller is getting ripped off. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
As my father used to say, “Where you stand depends largely upon where you sit.”
April 30, 2009 at 5:10 PM #390849Participant[quote=danthedart]As the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more? [/quote]
You’re not addressing the issue YOU brought up. In your previous post, YOU suggested it was unethical for the agent to, in essence, take the non-competitive bid instead of sending it to auction. But, at the same time, you’re acknowledging that you would take the good deal if it were offered to you, but that you’d feel bad for the seller (but clearly not bad enough to compensate them for their loss). So, to summarize, you’re willing to aid and abet unethical activity on the part of an agent if it means getting a good deal for YOU. But if such “side deals” aren’t available to you, you’ll castigate OTHERS who take advantage of them because the seller is getting ripped off. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
As my father used to say, “Where you stand depends largely upon where you sit.”
April 30, 2009 at 5:10 PM #391057Participant[quote=danthedart]As the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more? [/quote]
You’re not addressing the issue YOU brought up. In your previous post, YOU suggested it was unethical for the agent to, in essence, take the non-competitive bid instead of sending it to auction. But, at the same time, you’re acknowledging that you would take the good deal if it were offered to you, but that you’d feel bad for the seller (but clearly not bad enough to compensate them for their loss). So, to summarize, you’re willing to aid and abet unethical activity on the part of an agent if it means getting a good deal for YOU. But if such “side deals” aren’t available to you, you’ll castigate OTHERS who take advantage of them because the seller is getting ripped off. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
As my father used to say, “Where you stand depends largely upon where you sit.”
April 30, 2009 at 5:10 PM #391108Participant[quote=danthedart]As the buyer, there’s no argument. Obviously you want the great deal and you want to do whatever you can to get it.
As the seller? What about another buyer who was willing to pay more? [/quote]
You’re not addressing the issue YOU brought up. In your previous post, YOU suggested it was unethical for the agent to, in essence, take the non-competitive bid instead of sending it to auction. But, at the same time, you’re acknowledging that you would take the good deal if it were offered to you, but that you’d feel bad for the seller (but clearly not bad enough to compensate them for their loss). So, to summarize, you’re willing to aid and abet unethical activity on the part of an agent if it means getting a good deal for YOU. But if such “side deals” aren’t available to you, you’ll castigate OTHERS who take advantage of them because the seller is getting ripped off. Do you not see the hypocrisy?
As my father used to say, “Where you stand depends largely upon where you sit.”
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.