[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdduuuude]If you look and negotiate, you may be able to get a house in the area with a yard and no HOA for $400K.

It’ll be 50 years old but I value space more than the age of the property.[/quote]

You are absolutely right.

You could even get it for less. (like maybe 350).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdduuuude]If you look and negotiate, you may be able to get a house in the area with a yard and no HOA for $400K.

It’ll be 50 years old but I value space more than the age of the property.[/quote]

You are absolutely right.

You could even get it for less. (like maybe 350).

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Regarding the example:
No. In the example the price is stupidly high but the seller sees the problem as the agent and not the market and high price. He switches agents every couple months. This is pretty common.

Regarding people trusting agents and doing their own homework:
Perhaps I framed it harshly. However, I think it reasonable to say that those who are less informed are often at a disadvantage. The educational and experience burden to get into our business is very light. Also, the nature of it is rather complex. One is half a salesman (which I am terrible at) and half consultant (which I think I am good at).

Regarding the concept of listing history as a determination of value:
I think this gets overplayed a lot. What somebody wanted for the property months or years ago is not all that relevant. The buyer decides value. While sometimes, the listing history might give you an insight into the relative desperation of the seller, psychological components matter a lot less than whether the property is listed for an appropriate market amount. It would probably be better (based on principle not logistics) if properties were just listed with no price and then took bids as they came in.

Regarding the “safety clause” after expiration of the listing:
This states that if I show somebody the property *during* the listing period and they buy it within (x) number of days after the listing period, then I get a commission. That number of days is the “safety period”. The reason for this is that if I had a listing getting ready to expire and had no safety clause, then I would have no incentive to show the property (other than fulfilling terms of the contract) for the last several weeks of the listing period. It seems reasonable to me considering that deals usually take a few weeks to close once escrow opens.

[urbanrealtor]

Kinder and gentler is not relevant to the discussion.

Fisa is not echelon which is not patriot.

And yes, I consider the movement to the patriot zone from the echelon zone to be an important one.

I am not as concerned about carnivore or echelon reading communications as I am concerned about broad nsa taps being shrouded by an artifice of a telco liability holiday. Similarly, occasional waterboarding (which Clinton did discuss as being sometimes necessitated) is qualitatively different from including it as an established go to protocol.

There is a qualitative difference in trying to make inappropriate acts part of the rule of law.

Regarding the Coca cola imperialism (as well as the Vietnamese bottling plant), I think that being at the interstices of the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Mekong Delta have more to do with being interested in trade and commerce. Their shift in economy has as much to do with our military “success” as Lenovo has to do with our criticism of Tienanmen Square.

Separately, would this conversation be better over Pho and corona? I am still with the Rhone and pizza idea.

[urbanrealtor]

Kinder and gentler is not relevant to the discussion.

Fisa is not echelon which is not patriot.

And yes, I consider the movement to the patriot zone from the echelon zone to be an important one.

I am not as concerned about carnivore or echelon reading communications as I am concerned about broad nsa taps being shrouded by an artifice of a telco liability holiday. Similarly, occasional waterboarding (which Clinton did discuss as being sometimes necessitated) is qualitatively different from including it as an established go to protocol.

There is a qualitative difference in trying to make inappropriate acts part of the rule of law.

Regarding the Coca cola imperialism (as well as the Vietnamese bottling plant), I think that being at the interstices of the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Mekong Delta have more to do with being interested in trade and commerce. Their shift in economy has as much to do with our military “success” as Lenovo has to do with our criticism of Tienanmen Square.

Separately, would this conversation be better over Pho and corona? I am still with the Rhone and pizza idea.

[urbanrealtor]

Kinder and gentler is not relevant to the discussion.

Fisa is not echelon which is not patriot.

And yes, I consider the movement to the patriot zone from the echelon zone to be an important one.

I am not as concerned about carnivore or echelon reading communications as I am concerned about broad nsa taps being shrouded by an artifice of a telco liability holiday. Similarly, occasional waterboarding (which Clinton did discuss as being sometimes necessitated) is qualitatively different from including it as an established go to protocol.

There is a qualitative difference in trying to make inappropriate acts part of the rule of law.

Regarding the Coca cola imperialism (as well as the Vietnamese bottling plant), I think that being at the interstices of the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Mekong Delta have more to do with being interested in trade and commerce. Their shift in economy has as much to do with our military “success” as Lenovo has to do with our criticism of Tienanmen Square.

Separately, would this conversation be better over Pho and corona? I am still with the Rhone and pizza idea.

[urbanrealtor]

Kinder and gentler is not relevant to the discussion.

Fisa is not echelon which is not patriot.

And yes, I consider the movement to the patriot zone from the echelon zone to be an important one.

I am not as concerned about carnivore or echelon reading communications as I am concerned about broad nsa taps being shrouded by an artifice of a telco liability holiday. Similarly, occasional waterboarding (which Clinton did discuss as being sometimes necessitated) is qualitatively different from including it as an established go to protocol.

There is a qualitative difference in trying to make inappropriate acts part of the rule of law.

Regarding the Coca cola imperialism (as well as the Vietnamese bottling plant), I think that being at the interstices of the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Mekong Delta have more to do with being interested in trade and commerce. Their shift in economy has as much to do with our military “success” as Lenovo has to do with our criticism of Tienanmen Square.

Separately, would this conversation be better over Pho and corona? I am still with the Rhone and pizza idea.

[urbanrealtor]

Kinder and gentler is not relevant to the discussion.

Fisa is not echelon which is not patriot.

And yes, I consider the movement to the patriot zone from the echelon zone to be an important one.

I am not as concerned about carnivore or echelon reading communications as I am concerned about broad nsa taps being shrouded by an artifice of a telco liability holiday. Similarly, occasional waterboarding (which Clinton did discuss as being sometimes necessitated) is qualitatively different from including it as an established go to protocol.

There is a qualitative difference in trying to make inappropriate acts part of the rule of law.

Regarding the Coca cola imperialism (as well as the Vietnamese bottling plant), I think that being at the interstices of the Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and Mekong Delta have more to do with being interested in trade and commerce. Their shift in economy has as much to do with our military “success” as Lenovo has to do with our criticism of Tienanmen Square.

Separately, would this conversation be better over Pho and corona? I am still with the Rhone and pizza idea.

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.

But getting back to the specific complaint:
Here is an example. I have a place with a market value of 200-250. If I insist on listing it with a 60 day contract for 400 I am certain I would find some agent dumb enough to list it on those terms.
Further, if I switched agents (staying with these terms) every 60 days for a year, those listings would all be separate. Would it be your preference that agent #6 “inherit” the listing that was originally penned by agent #1?

It seems unfair to make someone a part of an earlier contract. Creating a new contract (which necessitates a new listing entry) seems reasonable here. Would you disagree?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.

But getting back to the specific complaint:
Here is an example. I have a place with a market value of 200-250. If I insist on listing it with a 60 day contract for 400 I am certain I would find some agent dumb enough to list it on those terms.
Further, if I switched agents (staying with these terms) every 60 days for a year, those listings would all be separate. Would it be your preference that agent #6 “inherit” the listing that was originally penned by agent #1?

It seems unfair to make someone a part of an earlier contract. Creating a new contract (which necessitates a new listing entry) seems reasonable here. Would you disagree?

[urbanrealtor]

JP:
It sounds like you are basically just saying that people who don’t do homework make poor decisions.

But getting back to the specific complaint:
Here is an example. I have a place with a market value of 200-250. If I insist on listing it with a 60 day contract for 400 I am certain I would find some agent dumb enough to list it on those terms.
Further, if I switched agents (staying with these terms) every 60 days for a year, those listings would all be separate. Would it be your preference that agent #6 “inherit” the listing that was originally penned by agent #1?

It seems unfair to make someone a part of an earlier contract. Creating a new contract (which necessitates a new listing entry) seems reasonable here. Would you disagree?

[Author]

Posts