Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › Short Sale Realtor in collusion with buyer, is it legal.
- This topic has 310 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 8 months ago by
SD Realtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 14, 2011 at 12:54 AM #667135February 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM #666002
CA renter
Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]The seller (by way of their representative) have the right to accept any offer for virtually any reason (hair color, political affiliation, cleft palette).
While the bank sometimes requires that they be informed of any offers right up until closing, most do not require that anymore.
Most sellers will not want to change horses mid-stream.
Changing buyers tends to complicate a short sale negotiations in my experience.
I generally will go with the first offer that is likely to close and get approved.
Also, the seller does not have the right to rescind acceptance in California.
Kicking an accepted buyer out just because a cash offer came in the next day (even if it is higher) is something that could put land a seller (or agent) in court.
Based on your description, this is not necessarily a case of the agent burying your offer.
I have (many times) done exactly what you say this woman is doing and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
The banks generally do not have a right to all information about a seller.
It is illegal, unethical, and incredibly irritating when an agent does hide an offer (though hard to prove) from a seller.
That is why most agents will not show Battiata listings.
His team has a demonstrable track record of doing that (if he threatens me for posting this, I will post scads of potentially defamatory evidence for your review).
However, Adam’s suggestion that you contact their broker will probably be fruitless.
If you contacted me about one of my agents doing this, I might inquire with them but it would be unlikely to result in anything but a dial tone.
Your just pissed because you had crappy timing and now the window of opportunity has closed.
As long as your offer was presented to the seller (the bank is not the seller), the listing agent has acted appropriately.
Fail.[/quote]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS!
February 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM #666064Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]The seller (by way of their representative) have the right to accept any offer for virtually any reason (hair color, political affiliation, cleft palette).
While the bank sometimes requires that they be informed of any offers right up until closing, most do not require that anymore.
Most sellers will not want to change horses mid-stream.
Changing buyers tends to complicate a short sale negotiations in my experience.
I generally will go with the first offer that is likely to close and get approved.
Also, the seller does not have the right to rescind acceptance in California.
Kicking an accepted buyer out just because a cash offer came in the next day (even if it is higher) is something that could put land a seller (or agent) in court.
Based on your description, this is not necessarily a case of the agent burying your offer.
I have (many times) done exactly what you say this woman is doing and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
The banks generally do not have a right to all information about a seller.
It is illegal, unethical, and incredibly irritating when an agent does hide an offer (though hard to prove) from a seller.
That is why most agents will not show Battiata listings.
His team has a demonstrable track record of doing that (if he threatens me for posting this, I will post scads of potentially defamatory evidence for your review).
However, Adam’s suggestion that you contact their broker will probably be fruitless.
If you contacted me about one of my agents doing this, I might inquire with them but it would be unlikely to result in anything but a dial tone.
Your just pissed because you had crappy timing and now the window of opportunity has closed.
As long as your offer was presented to the seller (the bank is not the seller), the listing agent has acted appropriately.
Fail.[/quote]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS!
February 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM #666663Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]The seller (by way of their representative) have the right to accept any offer for virtually any reason (hair color, political affiliation, cleft palette).
While the bank sometimes requires that they be informed of any offers right up until closing, most do not require that anymore.
Most sellers will not want to change horses mid-stream.
Changing buyers tends to complicate a short sale negotiations in my experience.
I generally will go with the first offer that is likely to close and get approved.
Also, the seller does not have the right to rescind acceptance in California.
Kicking an accepted buyer out just because a cash offer came in the next day (even if it is higher) is something that could put land a seller (or agent) in court.
Based on your description, this is not necessarily a case of the agent burying your offer.
I have (many times) done exactly what you say this woman is doing and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
The banks generally do not have a right to all information about a seller.
It is illegal, unethical, and incredibly irritating when an agent does hide an offer (though hard to prove) from a seller.
That is why most agents will not show Battiata listings.
His team has a demonstrable track record of doing that (if he threatens me for posting this, I will post scads of potentially defamatory evidence for your review).
However, Adam’s suggestion that you contact their broker will probably be fruitless.
If you contacted me about one of my agents doing this, I might inquire with them but it would be unlikely to result in anything but a dial tone.
Your just pissed because you had crappy timing and now the window of opportunity has closed.
As long as your offer was presented to the seller (the bank is not the seller), the listing agent has acted appropriately.
Fail.[/quote]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS!
February 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM #666803Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]The seller (by way of their representative) have the right to accept any offer for virtually any reason (hair color, political affiliation, cleft palette).
While the bank sometimes requires that they be informed of any offers right up until closing, most do not require that anymore.
Most sellers will not want to change horses mid-stream.
Changing buyers tends to complicate a short sale negotiations in my experience.
I generally will go with the first offer that is likely to close and get approved.
Also, the seller does not have the right to rescind acceptance in California.
Kicking an accepted buyer out just because a cash offer came in the next day (even if it is higher) is something that could put land a seller (or agent) in court.
Based on your description, this is not necessarily a case of the agent burying your offer.
I have (many times) done exactly what you say this woman is doing and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
The banks generally do not have a right to all information about a seller.
It is illegal, unethical, and incredibly irritating when an agent does hide an offer (though hard to prove) from a seller.
That is why most agents will not show Battiata listings.
His team has a demonstrable track record of doing that (if he threatens me for posting this, I will post scads of potentially defamatory evidence for your review).
However, Adam’s suggestion that you contact their broker will probably be fruitless.
If you contacted me about one of my agents doing this, I might inquire with them but it would be unlikely to result in anything but a dial tone.
Your just pissed because you had crappy timing and now the window of opportunity has closed.
As long as your offer was presented to the seller (the bank is not the seller), the listing agent has acted appropriately.
Fail.[/quote]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS!
February 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM #667140Participant[quote=urbanrealtor]The seller (by way of their representative) have the right to accept any offer for virtually any reason (hair color, political affiliation, cleft palette).
While the bank sometimes requires that they be informed of any offers right up until closing, most do not require that anymore.
Most sellers will not want to change horses mid-stream.
Changing buyers tends to complicate a short sale negotiations in my experience.
I generally will go with the first offer that is likely to close and get approved.
Also, the seller does not have the right to rescind acceptance in California.
Kicking an accepted buyer out just because a cash offer came in the next day (even if it is higher) is something that could put land a seller (or agent) in court.
Based on your description, this is not necessarily a case of the agent burying your offer.
I have (many times) done exactly what you say this woman is doing and there is nothing unethical or illegal about it.
The banks generally do not have a right to all information about a seller.
It is illegal, unethical, and incredibly irritating when an agent does hide an offer (though hard to prove) from a seller.
That is why most agents will not show Battiata listings.
His team has a demonstrable track record of doing that (if he threatens me for posting this, I will post scads of potentially defamatory evidence for your review).
However, Adam’s suggestion that you contact their broker will probably be fruitless.
If you contacted me about one of my agents doing this, I might inquire with them but it would be unlikely to result in anything but a dial tone.
Your just pissed because you had crappy timing and now the window of opportunity has closed.
As long as your offer was presented to the seller (the bank is not the seller), the listing agent has acted appropriately.
Fail.[/quote]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS!
February 14, 2011 at 1:33 AM #666007Participant[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]
Its the bank’s responsibility to make sure they are not getting screwed.
But good luck getting them to be as diligent as they should.[/quote]
Exactly. Some appraiser provided the lender with a broker price opinion and I’m betting that the buyer in this case at least hit that BPO. Now, the appraisal might be screwed – this happens a lot these days – but it’s the lender’s job to make sure that doesn’t happen. Once someone hits the BPO… the lender will often just take that offer and punch the ticket even though patience would have yielded 10% more.
[quote=Doooh]
Tell me this, isn’t the most prudent thing to do, in this housing environmental we find ourselves in, is to find my own underwater seller who hasn’t listed his delinquent mortgage/home, and convince him to sell to me?[/quote]Yes. I just did this with a condo – a girl I know sold it to me in a short sale. It never hit the MLS. For reasons I won’t go into, I knew the appraisal was going to be way off as a result of appraiser laziness, so I just hit the BPO with an all-cash offer and the lender accepted it almost immediately.[/quote]
TARP was only the icing on the cake.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
—————-
I would also include FHA, GSEs, or any other govt guarantee as a “bailout” to the banks. For all we know, BofA is the servicer, and Fannie/Freddie is the lender. And then there are the artificially suppressed interest rates (enabling the banks to recapitalize), that are an indirect hit to citizen taxpayers.
In other words, there is no way anyone can say that taxpayers are not being harmed by these slimy and unethical realtors. The regulators and politicians need to be made aware of this theft (I’ve informed the FBI on a few, but this was years ago, and they said at the time that the problem wasn’t widespread enough for them to launch an investigation).
February 14, 2011 at 1:33 AM #666069Participant[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]
Its the bank’s responsibility to make sure they are not getting screwed.
But good luck getting them to be as diligent as they should.[/quote]
Exactly. Some appraiser provided the lender with a broker price opinion and I’m betting that the buyer in this case at least hit that BPO. Now, the appraisal might be screwed – this happens a lot these days – but it’s the lender’s job to make sure that doesn’t happen. Once someone hits the BPO… the lender will often just take that offer and punch the ticket even though patience would have yielded 10% more.
[quote=Doooh]
Tell me this, isn’t the most prudent thing to do, in this housing environmental we find ourselves in, is to find my own underwater seller who hasn’t listed his delinquent mortgage/home, and convince him to sell to me?[/quote]Yes. I just did this with a condo – a girl I know sold it to me in a short sale. It never hit the MLS. For reasons I won’t go into, I knew the appraisal was going to be way off as a result of appraiser laziness, so I just hit the BPO with an all-cash offer and the lender accepted it almost immediately.[/quote]
TARP was only the icing on the cake.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
—————-
I would also include FHA, GSEs, or any other govt guarantee as a “bailout” to the banks. For all we know, BofA is the servicer, and Fannie/Freddie is the lender. And then there are the artificially suppressed interest rates (enabling the banks to recapitalize), that are an indirect hit to citizen taxpayers.
In other words, there is no way anyone can say that taxpayers are not being harmed by these slimy and unethical realtors. The regulators and politicians need to be made aware of this theft (I’ve informed the FBI on a few, but this was years ago, and they said at the time that the problem wasn’t widespread enough for them to launch an investigation).
February 14, 2011 at 1:33 AM #666668Participant[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]
Its the bank’s responsibility to make sure they are not getting screwed.
But good luck getting them to be as diligent as they should.[/quote]
Exactly. Some appraiser provided the lender with a broker price opinion and I’m betting that the buyer in this case at least hit that BPO. Now, the appraisal might be screwed – this happens a lot these days – but it’s the lender’s job to make sure that doesn’t happen. Once someone hits the BPO… the lender will often just take that offer and punch the ticket even though patience would have yielded 10% more.
[quote=Doooh]
Tell me this, isn’t the most prudent thing to do, in this housing environmental we find ourselves in, is to find my own underwater seller who hasn’t listed his delinquent mortgage/home, and convince him to sell to me?[/quote]Yes. I just did this with a condo – a girl I know sold it to me in a short sale. It never hit the MLS. For reasons I won’t go into, I knew the appraisal was going to be way off as a result of appraiser laziness, so I just hit the BPO with an all-cash offer and the lender accepted it almost immediately.[/quote]
TARP was only the icing on the cake.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
—————-
I would also include FHA, GSEs, or any other govt guarantee as a “bailout” to the banks. For all we know, BofA is the servicer, and Fannie/Freddie is the lender. And then there are the artificially suppressed interest rates (enabling the banks to recapitalize), that are an indirect hit to citizen taxpayers.
In other words, there is no way anyone can say that taxpayers are not being harmed by these slimy and unethical realtors. The regulators and politicians need to be made aware of this theft (I’ve informed the FBI on a few, but this was years ago, and they said at the time that the problem wasn’t widespread enough for them to launch an investigation).
February 14, 2011 at 1:33 AM #666808Participant[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]
Its the bank’s responsibility to make sure they are not getting screwed.
But good luck getting them to be as diligent as they should.[/quote]
Exactly. Some appraiser provided the lender with a broker price opinion and I’m betting that the buyer in this case at least hit that BPO. Now, the appraisal might be screwed – this happens a lot these days – but it’s the lender’s job to make sure that doesn’t happen. Once someone hits the BPO… the lender will often just take that offer and punch the ticket even though patience would have yielded 10% more.
[quote=Doooh]
Tell me this, isn’t the most prudent thing to do, in this housing environmental we find ourselves in, is to find my own underwater seller who hasn’t listed his delinquent mortgage/home, and convince him to sell to me?[/quote]Yes. I just did this with a condo – a girl I know sold it to me in a short sale. It never hit the MLS. For reasons I won’t go into, I knew the appraisal was going to be way off as a result of appraiser laziness, so I just hit the BPO with an all-cash offer and the lender accepted it almost immediately.[/quote]
TARP was only the icing on the cake.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
—————-
I would also include FHA, GSEs, or any other govt guarantee as a “bailout” to the banks. For all we know, BofA is the servicer, and Fannie/Freddie is the lender. And then there are the artificially suppressed interest rates (enabling the banks to recapitalize), that are an indirect hit to citizen taxpayers.
In other words, there is no way anyone can say that taxpayers are not being harmed by these slimy and unethical realtors. The regulators and politicians need to be made aware of this theft (I’ve informed the FBI on a few, but this was years ago, and they said at the time that the problem wasn’t widespread enough for them to launch an investigation).
February 14, 2011 at 1:33 AM #667144Participant[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]
Its the bank’s responsibility to make sure they are not getting screwed.
But good luck getting them to be as diligent as they should.[/quote]
Exactly. Some appraiser provided the lender with a broker price opinion and I’m betting that the buyer in this case at least hit that BPO. Now, the appraisal might be screwed – this happens a lot these days – but it’s the lender’s job to make sure that doesn’t happen. Once someone hits the BPO… the lender will often just take that offer and punch the ticket even though patience would have yielded 10% more.
[quote=Doooh]
Tell me this, isn’t the most prudent thing to do, in this housing environmental we find ourselves in, is to find my own underwater seller who hasn’t listed his delinquent mortgage/home, and convince him to sell to me?[/quote]Yes. I just did this with a condo – a girl I know sold it to me in a short sale. It never hit the MLS. For reasons I won’t go into, I knew the appraisal was going to be way off as a result of appraiser laziness, so I just hit the BPO with an all-cash offer and the lender accepted it almost immediately.[/quote]
TARP was only the icing on the cake.
http://money.cnn.com/news/storysupplement/economy/bailouttracker/
—————-
I would also include FHA, GSEs, or any other govt guarantee as a “bailout” to the banks. For all we know, BofA is the servicer, and Fannie/Freddie is the lender. And then there are the artificially suppressed interest rates (enabling the banks to recapitalize), that are an indirect hit to citizen taxpayers.
In other words, there is no way anyone can say that taxpayers are not being harmed by these slimy and unethical realtors. The regulators and politicians need to be made aware of this theft (I’ve informed the FBI on a few, but this was years ago, and they said at the time that the problem wasn’t widespread enough for them to launch an investigation).
February 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM #666062urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=CA renter]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]
Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).
But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.
Logical framework:
1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.Real life example:
I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.
As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.
I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.
February 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM #666122Participant[quote=CA renter]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]
Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).
But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.
Logical framework:
1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.Real life example:
I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.
As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.
I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.
February 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM #666724Participant[quote=CA renter]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]
Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).
But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.
Logical framework:
1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.Real life example:
I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.
As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.
I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.
February 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM #666863Participant[quote=CA renter]
If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]
Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).
But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.
Logical framework:
1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.Real life example:
I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.
As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.
I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.