Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Point Loma reducing a little
- This topic has 1,393 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 7 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM #688142April 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM #686983
sdrealtor
Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)
How was this not transparent?[/quote]
Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.
And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.
Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.[/quote]
One important clarification. The clients you are referring to were NOT my clients when they bought and overspent during the bubble. Just want it to be clear that I cleaned up a mess I did not have any part in creating.
As for the transparency. I give up. You are all right and I am wrong. I do this evveryday and have indepth knowledge that lets me see through these things in ways you cant but you know better. No Mas!
April 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM #687038Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)
How was this not transparent?[/quote]
Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.
And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.
Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.[/quote]
One important clarification. The clients you are referring to were NOT my clients when they bought and overspent during the bubble. Just want it to be clear that I cleaned up a mess I did not have any part in creating.
As for the transparency. I give up. You are all right and I am wrong. I do this evveryday and have indepth knowledge that lets me see through these things in ways you cant but you know better. No Mas!
April 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM #687657Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)
How was this not transparent?[/quote]
Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.
And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.
Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.[/quote]
One important clarification. The clients you are referring to were NOT my clients when they bought and overspent during the bubble. Just want it to be clear that I cleaned up a mess I did not have any part in creating.
As for the transparency. I give up. You are all right and I am wrong. I do this evveryday and have indepth knowledge that lets me see through these things in ways you cant but you know better. No Mas!
April 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM #687797Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)
How was this not transparent?[/quote]
Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.
And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.
Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.[/quote]
One important clarification. The clients you are referring to were NOT my clients when they bought and overspent during the bubble. Just want it to be clear that I cleaned up a mess I did not have any part in creating.
As for the transparency. I give up. You are all right and I am wrong. I do this evveryday and have indepth knowledge that lets me see through these things in ways you cant but you know better. No Mas!
April 14, 2011 at 4:04 PM #688147Participant[quote=jpinpb][quote=]Ok… I’m confused.
How was this not transparent.Looking at the listing history on redfin.
http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/3345-Lucinda-St-92106/home/5742637It was first listed in Jan 2009, delisted the next day – then put back on with a new MLS in Feb 09. rinse and repeat – list/delist… but basically on the market the whole time… until Jan 2010 when it’s marked contingent. That must not have worked – because in Aug 2010 it’s relisted.
Later that month – it’s listed again (7th MLS since Jan 09) at $1,050,000. A couple price changes upward… then it’s contingent in Oct and then Dec 09. It’s relisted Feb 16, 11, with a price change to 1,130,000. 2 days later it’s marked contingent.It seems like anyone who wanted to make an offer on this could. And that at least 3 offers had occurred previously (3 contingents before the final one.)
How was this not transparent?[/quote]
Exactly. It is a fairly upfront transaction. And yes, I was looking at properties over my price range and making low ball offers. Many that weren’t accepted. But the longer something is on that market (even off and on counts, IMO as for sale) then the greater potential of price reduction and willingness to accept a lower offer.
And BG, I have a story that I will post soon on the kitchen appliances thread along the same line about retail stores negotiating.
Now w/regard to this place selling in today’s market as 900k being fair, the point is not too long ago for similar condition it was fetching much more. People were buying many properties that had problems for way more than it was worth. sdr had clients of his own who overspent during the bubble on a place that had problems from the get-go. But during the bubble when prices were going up, people turned a blind eye to condition and bought whatever they could.[/quote]
One important clarification. The clients you are referring to were NOT my clients when they bought and overspent during the bubble. Just want it to be clear that I cleaned up a mess I did not have any part in creating.
As for the transparency. I give up. You are all right and I am wrong. I do this evveryday and have indepth knowledge that lets me see through these things in ways you cant but you know better. No Mas!
April 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM #686993Scarlett
Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Sorry AN, but this is the housing market we are talking about. the example you mentioned – you are refering at a property that would become contingent practically the moment it hits the MLS, correct? If that’s the case, yes, I think it’s unethical of the LA. But in a short sale, how does he know if the bank would approve such a lowball offer, anyway? I will not get in such a deal, because that’s sleazy.If the property has been on the market for some days, well, I think there is nothing unfair about going with the LA. For all I know, for the same property multiple buyers will go with the LA evening out the play field. So, in that case I’d jump on it. The offers are submitted as time goes on, not by a certain deadline – in most cases. So if the sellers are worried they won’t get what they want they may want to accept the first reasonably low offer they get. So why shouldn’t it be mine? Nothing unfair about it. It’s all about timing. If I had submitted the same lowball offer in day 1, I would have been turned down.
Side note:
Where were the morals of buyers when they ran up the price during the bubble? I lost on a few houses then because of the bidding wars who gives more above the LP. If that wasn’t immoral…. It’s a dirty game and you have to be willing to play dirty, if you have the opportunity.April 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM #687048Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Sorry AN, but this is the housing market we are talking about. the example you mentioned – you are refering at a property that would become contingent practically the moment it hits the MLS, correct? If that’s the case, yes, I think it’s unethical of the LA. But in a short sale, how does he know if the bank would approve such a lowball offer, anyway? I will not get in such a deal, because that’s sleazy.If the property has been on the market for some days, well, I think there is nothing unfair about going with the LA. For all I know, for the same property multiple buyers will go with the LA evening out the play field. So, in that case I’d jump on it. The offers are submitted as time goes on, not by a certain deadline – in most cases. So if the sellers are worried they won’t get what they want they may want to accept the first reasonably low offer they get. So why shouldn’t it be mine? Nothing unfair about it. It’s all about timing. If I had submitted the same lowball offer in day 1, I would have been turned down.
Side note:
Where were the morals of buyers when they ran up the price during the bubble? I lost on a few houses then because of the bidding wars who gives more above the LP. If that wasn’t immoral…. It’s a dirty game and you have to be willing to play dirty, if you have the opportunity.April 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM #687667Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Sorry AN, but this is the housing market we are talking about. the example you mentioned – you are refering at a property that would become contingent practically the moment it hits the MLS, correct? If that’s the case, yes, I think it’s unethical of the LA. But in a short sale, how does he know if the bank would approve such a lowball offer, anyway? I will not get in such a deal, because that’s sleazy.If the property has been on the market for some days, well, I think there is nothing unfair about going with the LA. For all I know, for the same property multiple buyers will go with the LA evening out the play field. So, in that case I’d jump on it. The offers are submitted as time goes on, not by a certain deadline – in most cases. So if the sellers are worried they won’t get what they want they may want to accept the first reasonably low offer they get. So why shouldn’t it be mine? Nothing unfair about it. It’s all about timing. If I had submitted the same lowball offer in day 1, I would have been turned down.
Side note:
Where were the morals of buyers when they ran up the price during the bubble? I lost on a few houses then because of the bidding wars who gives more above the LP. If that wasn’t immoral…. It’s a dirty game and you have to be willing to play dirty, if you have the opportunity.April 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM #687807Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Sorry AN, but this is the housing market we are talking about. the example you mentioned – you are refering at a property that would become contingent practically the moment it hits the MLS, correct? If that’s the case, yes, I think it’s unethical of the LA. But in a short sale, how does he know if the bank would approve such a lowball offer, anyway? I will not get in such a deal, because that’s sleazy.If the property has been on the market for some days, well, I think there is nothing unfair about going with the LA. For all I know, for the same property multiple buyers will go with the LA evening out the play field. So, in that case I’d jump on it. The offers are submitted as time goes on, not by a certain deadline – in most cases. So if the sellers are worried they won’t get what they want they may want to accept the first reasonably low offer they get. So why shouldn’t it be mine? Nothing unfair about it. It’s all about timing. If I had submitted the same lowball offer in day 1, I would have been turned down.
Side note:
Where were the morals of buyers when they ran up the price during the bubble? I lost on a few houses then because of the bidding wars who gives more above the LP. If that wasn’t immoral…. It’s a dirty game and you have to be willing to play dirty, if you have the opportunity.April 14, 2011 at 4:39 PM #688157Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Sorry AN, but this is the housing market we are talking about. the example you mentioned – you are refering at a property that would become contingent practically the moment it hits the MLS, correct? If that’s the case, yes, I think it’s unethical of the LA. But in a short sale, how does he know if the bank would approve such a lowball offer, anyway? I will not get in such a deal, because that’s sleazy.If the property has been on the market for some days, well, I think there is nothing unfair about going with the LA. For all I know, for the same property multiple buyers will go with the LA evening out the play field. So, in that case I’d jump on it. The offers are submitted as time goes on, not by a certain deadline – in most cases. So if the sellers are worried they won’t get what they want they may want to accept the first reasonably low offer they get. So why shouldn’t it be mine? Nothing unfair about it. It’s all about timing. If I had submitted the same lowball offer in day 1, I would have been turned down.
Side note:
Where were the morals of buyers when they ran up the price during the bubble? I lost on a few houses then because of the bidding wars who gives more above the LP. If that wasn’t immoral…. It’s a dirty game and you have to be willing to play dirty, if you have the opportunity.April 14, 2011 at 6:59 PM #687022CA renter
Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Regarding your second paragraph, no, I would not go along with this in normal circumstances, as I believe in doing the right thing. In this day and age, when taxpayers are propping up the financial industry, entering into these deals is not just about ripping off the banks (who have an obligation to protect their own interests, in the absence of govt backstops), but it is ripping off the taxpayers, and THAT is what I have a problem with. If the banks were the only ones taking the losses, then I wouldn’t have such a problem with the “contingent” listings because the banks would be more cautious about these deals. It’s the fact that NOBODY has the taxpayers’ bests interests in mind, and scammers are making profits at the expense of the taxpaying public that gets me upset.
That being said, when the market is so distorted that only the scammers are getting decent deals, it begins to distort morality, as well. As more people enter into these “immediately contingent listing” deals — and make profits from them, without anyone getting caught — then more people will be drawn into these shady deals.
As UCGal pointed out, though, the listing mentioned above is an open-market transaction, and is very different from the short-sale/REO listings which come on the market already contingent.
April 14, 2011 at 6:59 PM #687077Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Regarding your second paragraph, no, I would not go along with this in normal circumstances, as I believe in doing the right thing. In this day and age, when taxpayers are propping up the financial industry, entering into these deals is not just about ripping off the banks (who have an obligation to protect their own interests, in the absence of govt backstops), but it is ripping off the taxpayers, and THAT is what I have a problem with. If the banks were the only ones taking the losses, then I wouldn’t have such a problem with the “contingent” listings because the banks would be more cautious about these deals. It’s the fact that NOBODY has the taxpayers’ bests interests in mind, and scammers are making profits at the expense of the taxpaying public that gets me upset.
That being said, when the market is so distorted that only the scammers are getting decent deals, it begins to distort morality, as well. As more people enter into these “immediately contingent listing” deals — and make profits from them, without anyone getting caught — then more people will be drawn into these shady deals.
As UCGal pointed out, though, the listing mentioned above is an open-market transaction, and is very different from the short-sale/REO listings which come on the market already contingent.
April 14, 2011 at 6:59 PM #687698Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Regarding your second paragraph, no, I would not go along with this in normal circumstances, as I believe in doing the right thing. In this day and age, when taxpayers are propping up the financial industry, entering into these deals is not just about ripping off the banks (who have an obligation to protect their own interests, in the absence of govt backstops), but it is ripping off the taxpayers, and THAT is what I have a problem with. If the banks were the only ones taking the losses, then I wouldn’t have such a problem with the “contingent” listings because the banks would be more cautious about these deals. It’s the fact that NOBODY has the taxpayers’ bests interests in mind, and scammers are making profits at the expense of the taxpaying public that gets me upset.
That being said, when the market is so distorted that only the scammers are getting decent deals, it begins to distort morality, as well. As more people enter into these “immediately contingent listing” deals — and make profits from them, without anyone getting caught — then more people will be drawn into these shady deals.
As UCGal pointed out, though, the listing mentioned above is an open-market transaction, and is very different from the short-sale/REO listings which come on the market already contingent.
April 14, 2011 at 6:59 PM #687836Participant[quote=AN]It’s all shades of gray. You can’t logically be pissed w/one scenario w/out being pissed about the other. You gals are just trying to justify low balling AND going straight to the LA to sneak in on the deal. We all know shady agents will push for the offer their representing over other offers, since they can get commissions on both ends. Greed is just human nature. Why would a LA push for other offers instead of the one they’re representing?
Let me ask you one question, if you happen to know the LA and the LA told you that they have a SS that you’d love. They offer to put your offer in at 30% below list price (20-25% below market price) and put the property in contingent state right away. Would you jump on the deal or would your moral stop you from jumping on the deal?[/quote]
Regarding your second paragraph, no, I would not go along with this in normal circumstances, as I believe in doing the right thing. In this day and age, when taxpayers are propping up the financial industry, entering into these deals is not just about ripping off the banks (who have an obligation to protect their own interests, in the absence of govt backstops), but it is ripping off the taxpayers, and THAT is what I have a problem with. If the banks were the only ones taking the losses, then I wouldn’t have such a problem with the “contingent” listings because the banks would be more cautious about these deals. It’s the fact that NOBODY has the taxpayers’ bests interests in mind, and scammers are making profits at the expense of the taxpaying public that gets me upset.
That being said, when the market is so distorted that only the scammers are getting decent deals, it begins to distort morality, as well. As more people enter into these “immediately contingent listing” deals — and make profits from them, without anyone getting caught — then more people will be drawn into these shady deals.
As UCGal pointed out, though, the listing mentioned above is an open-market transaction, and is very different from the short-sale/REO listings which come on the market already contingent.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.