Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM in reply to: should buyers get a lawyer to review real estate transactions? #394360May 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM in reply to: should buyers get a lawyer to review real estate transactions? #394504
urbanrealtor
ParticipantI have working in California real estate for 7 years.
I have acted as a consultant for east coast closing attorneys.
The way it is handled here and there are vastly different.For this reason, I suggest using a respected and experience agent. Here is why.
Attorneys in the tri-state area typically charge around $800 per closing per side and are generally counselors and advisors.
Attorneys in California typically charge around $250-$300 per hour and are generally litigators and watchdogs.
For high dollar-amount deals (like 2M+ commercial deals) attorneys are a good idea in California. However, hiring someone at a high dollar-per-hour fee to read the 300-500 pages that generally comprise a residential transaction file seems to be not such a great use of funds. My opinion.
Many east coast transplants, in an effort towards cost-effectiveness, use a friend who is a non-real estate attorney. This can be actually LESS effective than using a real estate attorney. The reason is that these forms we use often take some time to familiarize oneself with. I spent an hour the other day, convincing a class-action lawyer that if a check box in front of a clause was not checked, then the clause did not apply. This made a difference because his caution (which would serve him well in most cases) threatened to undo our purchase by delaying a time-sensitive counter offer.
Similarly, non-realty lawyers often do not understand the practical reality of real estate negotiation. It is not their world where negotiation is a first attempt with litigation as an alternative. In our world negotiation is all there is. If we don’t negotiate, we don’t deal and no purchase or sale happens.
I hope my comments do not appear to anti-lawyer. I just think that it is important to take area of expertise as well as cost effectiveness into account when dealing with important decisions.
Participant[quote=kauaiagent]urbanrealtor – very true re. brand names. I’m curious about why you think Pru is “circling the drain”.[/quote]
They have shuttered 90% of their SD county offices and most of their agents in the central SD area have left to Windemere or Ascent.They forgot the basic fundamentals of brokerage.
When you are an agent, your customer is the client.
When you are a broker, your customer is the agent.They forgot that its the agents, not their branding, that pays the bills.
They offered agents all-inclusive packages with a 55% split. Most offices offer a 75% starting split and some offer a 95% starting with a monthly fee.
Funny, they seemed pretty successful until they got bought by Berkshire Hathaway.
Ironic…
Participant[quote=kauaiagent]urbanrealtor – very true re. brand names. I’m curious about why you think Pru is “circling the drain”.[/quote]
They have shuttered 90% of their SD county offices and most of their agents in the central SD area have left to Windemere or Ascent.They forgot the basic fundamentals of brokerage.
When you are an agent, your customer is the client.
When you are a broker, your customer is the agent.They forgot that its the agents, not their branding, that pays the bills.
They offered agents all-inclusive packages with a 55% split. Most offices offer a 75% starting split and some offer a 95% starting with a monthly fee.
Funny, they seemed pretty successful until they got bought by Berkshire Hathaway.
Ironic…
Participant[quote=kauaiagent]urbanrealtor – very true re. brand names. I’m curious about why you think Pru is “circling the drain”.[/quote]
They have shuttered 90% of their SD county offices and most of their agents in the central SD area have left to Windemere or Ascent.They forgot the basic fundamentals of brokerage.
When you are an agent, your customer is the client.
When you are a broker, your customer is the agent.They forgot that its the agents, not their branding, that pays the bills.
They offered agents all-inclusive packages with a 55% split. Most offices offer a 75% starting split and some offer a 95% starting with a monthly fee.
Funny, they seemed pretty successful until they got bought by Berkshire Hathaway.
Ironic…
Participant[quote=kauaiagent]urbanrealtor – very true re. brand names. I’m curious about why you think Pru is “circling the drain”.[/quote]
They have shuttered 90% of their SD county offices and most of their agents in the central SD area have left to Windemere or Ascent.They forgot the basic fundamentals of brokerage.
When you are an agent, your customer is the client.
When you are a broker, your customer is the agent.They forgot that its the agents, not their branding, that pays the bills.
They offered agents all-inclusive packages with a 55% split. Most offices offer a 75% starting split and some offer a 95% starting with a monthly fee.
Funny, they seemed pretty successful until they got bought by Berkshire Hathaway.
Ironic…
Participant[quote=kauaiagent]urbanrealtor – very true re. brand names. I’m curious about why you think Pru is “circling the drain”.[/quote]
They have shuttered 90% of their SD county offices and most of their agents in the central SD area have left to Windemere or Ascent.They forgot the basic fundamentals of brokerage.
When you are an agent, your customer is the client.
When you are a broker, your customer is the agent.They forgot that its the agents, not their branding, that pays the bills.
They offered agents all-inclusive packages with a 55% split. Most offices offer a 75% starting split and some offer a 95% starting with a monthly fee.
Funny, they seemed pretty successful until they got bought by Berkshire Hathaway.
Ironic…
ParticipantPR, I like your reasoning and would like to engage you on two points.
1:
The problem with what you are saying PR is that it assumes that you can both effectively discount risk out of a successful purchase and still successfully compete as a buyer.In my experience, achieving perfection in risk management (especially by discounting) is desirable but not practical.
If one is to drop a price in order to avoid being upside down, then in most purchases there will be another buyer who is marginally more risk tolerant.
2:
The other issue is that if, as history would suggest, home price dynamics reflect household income, then it may be rather safe to assume that values will increase in the long term. I very much agree that the boom was unsustainable but the historical trend tends to oscillate around income oriented coefficients. Those coefficients are relatively constant and those income numbers tend to increase over time. Ergo, housing tends to increase over time. This is not bullishness but an observation of visible data. Most of it has been pointed out by Rich.ParticipantPR, I like your reasoning and would like to engage you on two points.
1:
The problem with what you are saying PR is that it assumes that you can both effectively discount risk out of a successful purchase and still successfully compete as a buyer.In my experience, achieving perfection in risk management (especially by discounting) is desirable but not practical.
If one is to drop a price in order to avoid being upside down, then in most purchases there will be another buyer who is marginally more risk tolerant.
2:
The other issue is that if, as history would suggest, home price dynamics reflect household income, then it may be rather safe to assume that values will increase in the long term. I very much agree that the boom was unsustainable but the historical trend tends to oscillate around income oriented coefficients. Those coefficients are relatively constant and those income numbers tend to increase over time. Ergo, housing tends to increase over time. This is not bullishness but an observation of visible data. Most of it has been pointed out by Rich.ParticipantPR, I like your reasoning and would like to engage you on two points.
1:
The problem with what you are saying PR is that it assumes that you can both effectively discount risk out of a successful purchase and still successfully compete as a buyer.In my experience, achieving perfection in risk management (especially by discounting) is desirable but not practical.
If one is to drop a price in order to avoid being upside down, then in most purchases there will be another buyer who is marginally more risk tolerant.
2:
The other issue is that if, as history would suggest, home price dynamics reflect household income, then it may be rather safe to assume that values will increase in the long term. I very much agree that the boom was unsustainable but the historical trend tends to oscillate around income oriented coefficients. Those coefficients are relatively constant and those income numbers tend to increase over time. Ergo, housing tends to increase over time. This is not bullishness but an observation of visible data. Most of it has been pointed out by Rich.ParticipantPR, I like your reasoning and would like to engage you on two points.
1:
The problem with what you are saying PR is that it assumes that you can both effectively discount risk out of a successful purchase and still successfully compete as a buyer.In my experience, achieving perfection in risk management (especially by discounting) is desirable but not practical.
If one is to drop a price in order to avoid being upside down, then in most purchases there will be another buyer who is marginally more risk tolerant.
2:
The other issue is that if, as history would suggest, home price dynamics reflect household income, then it may be rather safe to assume that values will increase in the long term. I very much agree that the boom was unsustainable but the historical trend tends to oscillate around income oriented coefficients. Those coefficients are relatively constant and those income numbers tend to increase over time. Ergo, housing tends to increase over time. This is not bullishness but an observation of visible data. Most of it has been pointed out by Rich.ParticipantPR, I like your reasoning and would like to engage you on two points.
1:
The problem with what you are saying PR is that it assumes that you can both effectively discount risk out of a successful purchase and still successfully compete as a buyer.In my experience, achieving perfection in risk management (especially by discounting) is desirable but not practical.
If one is to drop a price in order to avoid being upside down, then in most purchases there will be another buyer who is marginally more risk tolerant.
2:
The other issue is that if, as history would suggest, home price dynamics reflect household income, then it may be rather safe to assume that values will increase in the long term. I very much agree that the boom was unsustainable but the historical trend tends to oscillate around income oriented coefficients. Those coefficients are relatively constant and those income numbers tend to increase over time. Ergo, housing tends to increase over time. This is not bullishness but an observation of visible data. Most of it has been pointed out by Rich.Participant[quote=tc]I had some bad experiences with the zip people. I had one of their people show me a few places. During one of the showings the agent tried to pick up another guy that was just looking through the house. I let it slide. But the following day I got an email telling me that if I wanted to look at anymore properties I would need to supply:
1. A letter of Preapproval. I can understand that.
2. A copy of a current account statement. Not really ok.
3. And to sign a statement saying that I would only use zip as my agent. Wait a second. This guy tried to sell the house he was showing me to someone else. I was standing right next to him. I guess this didn’t work both ways.Needless to say I refused to deal with them. Trust works both ways. I have a great agent now that I am very comfortable with. I have told her several times that it could be another year until I do decide to buy. She has never tried to pressure me into making an offer. Don’t forget.
You get what you pay for..[/quote]
Well put.
I would caution that generalizing based on brand is not always a good idea.
I learned that working as a HelpUSell office manager.Even a brand itself can be inconsistent.
EG: It used to be that Prudential was the gold standard for strong agents and today that company is circling the drain.Good point though about the poor conduct shown by the agent.
That just seems so….uncivilized. I dunno.
Participant[quote=tc]I had some bad experiences with the zip people. I had one of their people show me a few places. During one of the showings the agent tried to pick up another guy that was just looking through the house. I let it slide. But the following day I got an email telling me that if I wanted to look at anymore properties I would need to supply:
1. A letter of Preapproval. I can understand that.
2. A copy of a current account statement. Not really ok.
3. And to sign a statement saying that I would only use zip as my agent. Wait a second. This guy tried to sell the house he was showing me to someone else. I was standing right next to him. I guess this didn’t work both ways.Needless to say I refused to deal with them. Trust works both ways. I have a great agent now that I am very comfortable with. I have told her several times that it could be another year until I do decide to buy. She has never tried to pressure me into making an offer. Don’t forget.
You get what you pay for..[/quote]
Well put.
I would caution that generalizing based on brand is not always a good idea.
I learned that working as a HelpUSell office manager.Even a brand itself can be inconsistent.
EG: It used to be that Prudential was the gold standard for strong agents and today that company is circling the drain.Good point though about the poor conduct shown by the agent.
That just seems so….uncivilized. I dunno.
Participant[quote=tc]I had some bad experiences with the zip people. I had one of their people show me a few places. During one of the showings the agent tried to pick up another guy that was just looking through the house. I let it slide. But the following day I got an email telling me that if I wanted to look at anymore properties I would need to supply:
1. A letter of Preapproval. I can understand that.
2. A copy of a current account statement. Not really ok.
3. And to sign a statement saying that I would only use zip as my agent. Wait a second. This guy tried to sell the house he was showing me to someone else. I was standing right next to him. I guess this didn’t work both ways.Needless to say I refused to deal with them. Trust works both ways. I have a great agent now that I am very comfortable with. I have told her several times that it could be another year until I do decide to buy. She has never tried to pressure me into making an offer. Don’t forget.
You get what you pay for..[/quote]
Well put.
I would caution that generalizing based on brand is not always a good idea.
I learned that working as a HelpUSell office manager.Even a brand itself can be inconsistent.
EG: It used to be that Prudential was the gold standard for strong agents and today that company is circling the drain.Good point though about the poor conduct shown by the agent.
That just seems so….uncivilized. I dunno.
-
AuthorPosts
