Point Loma reducing a little

[CA renter]

[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.

[jpinpb]

3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.

[jpinpb]

3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.

[jpinpb]

3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.

[jpinpb]

3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.

[jpinpb]

3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.

[CA renter]

[quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal!

[CA renter]

[quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal!

[CA renter]

[quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal!

[CA renter]

[quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal!

[CA renter]

[quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal![/quote]

Of course, one can never tell but from the photos, it doesn’t appear so. It appears to have a strong “pier and post” foundation.

I just think its “quaint” interior didn’t appeal to a wide variety of buyers. It appeals to me because I like big built-ins, a “rustic” kitchen, a FTC fireplace, ceiling beams and knotty pine. But that’s just me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal![/quote]

Of course, one can never tell but from the photos, it doesn’t appear so. It appears to have a strong “pier and post” foundation.

I just think its “quaint” interior didn’t appeal to a wide variety of buyers. It appeals to me because I like big built-ins, a “rustic” kitchen, a FTC fireplace, ceiling beams and knotty pine. But that’s just me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal![/quote]

Of course, one can never tell but from the photos, it doesn’t appear so. It appears to have a strong “pier and post” foundation.

I just think its “quaint” interior didn’t appeal to a wide variety of buyers. It appeals to me because I like big built-ins, a “rustic” kitchen, a FTC fireplace, ceiling beams and knotty pine. But that’s just me.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=jpinpb]3368 Trumbull sold for 575k, 12% below the 2001 price.[/quote]

One has to wonder if there was some structural damage or something. Nice deal![/quote]

Of course, one can never tell but from the photos, it doesn’t appear so. It appears to have a strong “pier and post” foundation.

I just think its “quaint” interior didn’t appeal to a wide variety of buyers. It appeals to me because I like big built-ins, a “rustic” kitchen, a FTC fireplace, ceiling beams and knotty pine. But that’s just me.

[Author]

Posts