Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
urbanrealtor
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=ArmoRealtor]
The listing agent does not work for you. They work for the seller.
If your looking to go in a little low (which is perfectly fine) you will most likely want to get a buyers agent that wants to represent you at whatever price you are comfortable with. It is always best to find a recent comp that justifies the price. Unrealistic sellers need to see proof
of why their home is worth what you say it [/quote]Technically, if you are submitting an offer through the seller’s agent, that agent is bound by fiduciary duty to submit all offer to the seller. He would be in breach of duty if he didn’t present your offer, unreasonable as he feels it might be, to the seller.
If you’re working with your own buyers’ agent, that agent is not bound by such duty to present all offers to the seller.[/quote]
UHHH no.
The buyer agent is required to submit the offer to the listing agent. The listing agent is required to submit it, in turn, to the seller.
Armo’s concern is valid and the listing agent starts out working AGAINST buyer financial interest.
Participant[quote=murf2222]Ditto!
Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.
If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!
murf2222[/quote]
This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.
The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.
The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.Good luck dude.
PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.Participant[quote=murf2222]Ditto!
Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.
If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!
murf2222[/quote]
This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.
The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.
The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.Good luck dude.
PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.Participant[quote=murf2222]Ditto!
Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.
If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!
murf2222[/quote]
This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.
The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.
The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.Good luck dude.
PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.Participant[quote=murf2222]Ditto!
Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.
If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!
murf2222[/quote]
This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.
The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.
The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.Good luck dude.
PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.Participant[quote=murf2222]Ditto!
Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.
If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!
murf2222[/quote]
This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.
The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.
The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.Good luck dude.
PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.ParticipantIf you want to send me an email, I’ll send you the record.
Urbanrealtor at gmailParticipantIf you want to send me an email, I’ll send you the record.
Urbanrealtor at gmailParticipantIf you want to send me an email, I’ll send you the record.
Urbanrealtor at gmailParticipantIf you want to send me an email, I’ll send you the record.
Urbanrealtor at gmailParticipantIf you want to send me an email, I’ll send you the record.
Urbanrealtor at gmailParticipantSome agents are sleazbags and some aren’t.
Some merely suck.
Some (like me) are busy as hell right now (which, of course begs the question of why I am blogging and not working at this moment) and busy people do not always give great service(irrespective of how popular they are).
If your agent leaves you feeling uneasy or causes you to wonder whose interests he has at heart, then go and don’t look back.
As an agent, I think that it is important when discussing appropriate prices to ground them in hard comparable numbers.
That being said, sometimes, I have had clients who are the buyer equivalent of the “arrogant seller” prototype we saw a lot of in 2004 and 2005. These are buyers who think because of an article they read in the WSJ they can make an offer for $300k on a place where recent comps suggest $400k. Anyone can make the offer but sometimes its not strategic or realistic.
Some agents are clumsy or stupid in their presentation of these market realities. Speaking personally, I will always give my opinion of how to write and present an offer in a way most suited for success. However, I will also remind clients that it is their money being spent and not mine.Okay, go ahead and flame me but try to be specific.
ParticipantSome agents are sleazbags and some aren’t.
Some merely suck.
Some (like me) are busy as hell right now (which, of course begs the question of why I am blogging and not working at this moment) and busy people do not always give great service(irrespective of how popular they are).
If your agent leaves you feeling uneasy or causes you to wonder whose interests he has at heart, then go and don’t look back.
As an agent, I think that it is important when discussing appropriate prices to ground them in hard comparable numbers.
That being said, sometimes, I have had clients who are the buyer equivalent of the “arrogant seller” prototype we saw a lot of in 2004 and 2005. These are buyers who think because of an article they read in the WSJ they can make an offer for $300k on a place where recent comps suggest $400k. Anyone can make the offer but sometimes its not strategic or realistic.
Some agents are clumsy or stupid in their presentation of these market realities. Speaking personally, I will always give my opinion of how to write and present an offer in a way most suited for success. However, I will also remind clients that it is their money being spent and not mine.Okay, go ahead and flame me but try to be specific.
ParticipantSome agents are sleazbags and some aren’t.
Some merely suck.
Some (like me) are busy as hell right now (which, of course begs the question of why I am blogging and not working at this moment) and busy people do not always give great service(irrespective of how popular they are).
If your agent leaves you feeling uneasy or causes you to wonder whose interests he has at heart, then go and don’t look back.
As an agent, I think that it is important when discussing appropriate prices to ground them in hard comparable numbers.
That being said, sometimes, I have had clients who are the buyer equivalent of the “arrogant seller” prototype we saw a lot of in 2004 and 2005. These are buyers who think because of an article they read in the WSJ they can make an offer for $300k on a place where recent comps suggest $400k. Anyone can make the offer but sometimes its not strategic or realistic.
Some agents are clumsy or stupid in their presentation of these market realities. Speaking personally, I will always give my opinion of how to write and present an offer in a way most suited for success. However, I will also remind clients that it is their money being spent and not mine.Okay, go ahead and flame me but try to be specific.
-
AuthorPosts
