[urbanrealtor]

One other resource I have seen is first Tuesday. http://www.firsttuesday.us/SalesLicensing.cfm.

They are the cheapest resource I have found for courses. Not the most informative but good if you are not needing individual instruction.

I am actually using them for my switch to a Broker License.

[urbanrealtor]

One other resource I have seen is first Tuesday. http://www.firsttuesday.us/SalesLicensing.cfm.

They are the cheapest resource I have found for courses. Not the most informative but good if you are not needing individual instruction.

I am actually using them for my switch to a Broker License.

[urbanrealtor]

Fair point.
I agree with the transparency desire.

However, I see derogatory terms (fraud, shady, sketchy) used a lot here.
They are referenced to specific agents.
Thats what bothers me.
These are often not framed as “is this acceptable or shady?” but more like “where do I report these shady deals and liars?”. (eg: this thread)
In most of the recent examples here there is no indication of dishonesty.

We are calling people liars without there being a lie. Considering that this has a direct effect with regard to them putting food on the table, I don’t see the benefit in jumping to conclusions.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in airing grievances but I just think responsibility matters.

But TG is right, I should do better with delivery.

And for the record: I don’t know that this example is innocent. I just don’t see any indication of sketch.

[urbanrealtor]

Fair point.
I agree with the transparency desire.

However, I see derogatory terms (fraud, shady, sketchy) used a lot here.
They are referenced to specific agents.
Thats what bothers me.
These are often not framed as “is this acceptable or shady?” but more like “where do I report these shady deals and liars?”. (eg: this thread)
In most of the recent examples here there is no indication of dishonesty.

We are calling people liars without there being a lie. Considering that this has a direct effect with regard to them putting food on the table, I don’t see the benefit in jumping to conclusions.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in airing grievances but I just think responsibility matters.

But TG is right, I should do better with delivery.

And for the record: I don’t know that this example is innocent. I just don’t see any indication of sketch.

[urbanrealtor]

Fair point.
I agree with the transparency desire.

However, I see derogatory terms (fraud, shady, sketchy) used a lot here.
They are referenced to specific agents.
Thats what bothers me.
These are often not framed as “is this acceptable or shady?” but more like “where do I report these shady deals and liars?”. (eg: this thread)
In most of the recent examples here there is no indication of dishonesty.

We are calling people liars without there being a lie. Considering that this has a direct effect with regard to them putting food on the table, I don’t see the benefit in jumping to conclusions.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in airing grievances but I just think responsibility matters.

But TG is right, I should do better with delivery.

And for the record: I don’t know that this example is innocent. I just don’t see any indication of sketch.

[urbanrealtor]

Fair point.
I agree with the transparency desire.

However, I see derogatory terms (fraud, shady, sketchy) used a lot here.
They are referenced to specific agents.
Thats what bothers me.
These are often not framed as “is this acceptable or shady?” but more like “where do I report these shady deals and liars?”. (eg: this thread)
In most of the recent examples here there is no indication of dishonesty.

We are calling people liars without there being a lie. Considering that this has a direct effect with regard to them putting food on the table, I don’t see the benefit in jumping to conclusions.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in airing grievances but I just think responsibility matters.

But TG is right, I should do better with delivery.

And for the record: I don’t know that this example is innocent. I just don’t see any indication of sketch.

[urbanrealtor]

Fair point.
I agree with the transparency desire.

However, I see derogatory terms (fraud, shady, sketchy) used a lot here.
They are referenced to specific agents.
Thats what bothers me.
These are often not framed as “is this acceptable or shady?” but more like “where do I report these shady deals and liars?”. (eg: this thread)
In most of the recent examples here there is no indication of dishonesty.

We are calling people liars without there being a lie. Considering that this has a direct effect with regard to them putting food on the table, I don’t see the benefit in jumping to conclusions.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe in airing grievances but I just think responsibility matters.

But TG is right, I should do better with delivery.

And for the record: I don’t know that this example is innocent. I just don’t see any indication of sketch.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=temeculaguy]I was going to say the same thing urban said but i would have been nicer in the end, I’m just playing urban, we appreciate the info but this isn’t the place to tell everyone they don’t know anything, be nice, have a glass of wine, i’ll even buy.

I am a lot less worried about the banks not caring, they are going to care about things starting today now that Paulson has decided to change course and let the mortgages fall and foreclose, no bailout for toxic mortgages, suprised nobody posted the news stories from today about that.[/quote]

I don’t say this to try to quash the exchange of ideas or to tell people they are ignorant.

However, when all you have to trade on is your name, words matter.

My family has been in this business for over a century.

Many see this profession as being roughly equivalent to being a used car salesman or telemarketer.

Besmirching a professional’s reputation (and adding to this perception) without suspicious reasons is irresponsible and harmful.

For another professional to be doing that in a public forum is really unprofessional in my opinion.

I don’t know if this deal or this agent is shady but it seems unfair to make assertions without some kind of evidence. Perhaps there is evidence but I have not seen it here.

Am I mistaken?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=temeculaguy]I was going to say the same thing urban said but i would have been nicer in the end, I’m just playing urban, we appreciate the info but this isn’t the place to tell everyone they don’t know anything, be nice, have a glass of wine, i’ll even buy.

I am a lot less worried about the banks not caring, they are going to care about things starting today now that Paulson has decided to change course and let the mortgages fall and foreclose, no bailout for toxic mortgages, suprised nobody posted the news stories from today about that.[/quote]

I don’t say this to try to quash the exchange of ideas or to tell people they are ignorant.

However, when all you have to trade on is your name, words matter.

My family has been in this business for over a century.

Many see this profession as being roughly equivalent to being a used car salesman or telemarketer.

Besmirching a professional’s reputation (and adding to this perception) without suspicious reasons is irresponsible and harmful.

For another professional to be doing that in a public forum is really unprofessional in my opinion.

I don’t know if this deal or this agent is shady but it seems unfair to make assertions without some kind of evidence. Perhaps there is evidence but I have not seen it here.

Am I mistaken?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=temeculaguy]I was going to say the same thing urban said but i would have been nicer in the end, I’m just playing urban, we appreciate the info but this isn’t the place to tell everyone they don’t know anything, be nice, have a glass of wine, i’ll even buy.

I am a lot less worried about the banks not caring, they are going to care about things starting today now that Paulson has decided to change course and let the mortgages fall and foreclose, no bailout for toxic mortgages, suprised nobody posted the news stories from today about that.[/quote]

I don’t say this to try to quash the exchange of ideas or to tell people they are ignorant.

However, when all you have to trade on is your name, words matter.

My family has been in this business for over a century.

Many see this profession as being roughly equivalent to being a used car salesman or telemarketer.

Besmirching a professional’s reputation (and adding to this perception) without suspicious reasons is irresponsible and harmful.

For another professional to be doing that in a public forum is really unprofessional in my opinion.

I don’t know if this deal or this agent is shady but it seems unfair to make assertions without some kind of evidence. Perhaps there is evidence but I have not seen it here.

Am I mistaken?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=temeculaguy]I was going to say the same thing urban said but i would have been nicer in the end, I’m just playing urban, we appreciate the info but this isn’t the place to tell everyone they don’t know anything, be nice, have a glass of wine, i’ll even buy.

I am a lot less worried about the banks not caring, they are going to care about things starting today now that Paulson has decided to change course and let the mortgages fall and foreclose, no bailout for toxic mortgages, suprised nobody posted the news stories from today about that.[/quote]

I don’t say this to try to quash the exchange of ideas or to tell people they are ignorant.

However, when all you have to trade on is your name, words matter.

My family has been in this business for over a century.

Many see this profession as being roughly equivalent to being a used car salesman or telemarketer.

Besmirching a professional’s reputation (and adding to this perception) without suspicious reasons is irresponsible and harmful.

For another professional to be doing that in a public forum is really unprofessional in my opinion.

I don’t know if this deal or this agent is shady but it seems unfair to make assertions without some kind of evidence. Perhaps there is evidence but I have not seen it here.

Am I mistaken?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=temeculaguy]I was going to say the same thing urban said but i would have been nicer in the end, I’m just playing urban, we appreciate the info but this isn’t the place to tell everyone they don’t know anything, be nice, have a glass of wine, i’ll even buy.

I am a lot less worried about the banks not caring, they are going to care about things starting today now that Paulson has decided to change course and let the mortgages fall and foreclose, no bailout for toxic mortgages, suprised nobody posted the news stories from today about that.[/quote]

I don’t say this to try to quash the exchange of ideas or to tell people they are ignorant.

However, when all you have to trade on is your name, words matter.

My family has been in this business for over a century.

Many see this profession as being roughly equivalent to being a used car salesman or telemarketer.

Besmirching a professional’s reputation (and adding to this perception) without suspicious reasons is irresponsible and harmful.

For another professional to be doing that in a public forum is really unprofessional in my opinion.

I don’t know if this deal or this agent is shady but it seems unfair to make assertions without some kind of evidence. Perhaps there is evidence but I have not seen it here.

Am I mistaken?

[urbanrealtor]

SD, if you can explain why this is shady, I will listen. See below.

“When you list a short sale, you are REQUIRED TO INDICATE “Y” IN THE COURT/LENDER APPROVAL NEEDED FIELD. Later, when the seller has accepted an offer and you are waiting for lender approval, you do NOT have to change the status of the listing to pending, BUT YOU MUST EDIT THE MANDATORY REMARKS by using the drop down menu and choosing “Offer Accepted Pending Lender Approval of Short Sale” posted 11/07/08”

This is the guideline for shorts listed on the home page of Sandicor MLS (www.sandicor.com).

As has become common in these posts, the example given does not look shady in the least unless you only look at public access MLS sites.

Those remarks are on like half of all listings. However, generally, they are not in the publicly viewable remarks. They are usually in the confidential remarks (with the lockbox code and the owners personal cell phone).
The fact that the seller is listing it herself is also rather common. If I had to sell right now it would be short and the listing would look similar. Because short sales have to be listed low to get any offers, I would likely have tentative acceptance within 1 week.
Further, most of the public access sites have piss-poor public records access. If you can reasonably string together this same argument after viewing all records tied to this property (the assessor is at 1600 Pacific Hwy, North side of bldg), then I will listen but nothing appears amiss here.
The interspousal has a recording date of the same day that they bought the place (July 06). That is common and not sketchy.

This post is a good example of why it is a bad idea to get shrill regarding something about which one has little understanding.

[urbanrealtor]

SD, if you can explain why this is shady, I will listen. See below.

“When you list a short sale, you are REQUIRED TO INDICATE “Y” IN THE COURT/LENDER APPROVAL NEEDED FIELD. Later, when the seller has accepted an offer and you are waiting for lender approval, you do NOT have to change the status of the listing to pending, BUT YOU MUST EDIT THE MANDATORY REMARKS by using the drop down menu and choosing “Offer Accepted Pending Lender Approval of Short Sale” posted 11/07/08”

This is the guideline for shorts listed on the home page of Sandicor MLS (www.sandicor.com).

As has become common in these posts, the example given does not look shady in the least unless you only look at public access MLS sites.

Those remarks are on like half of all listings. However, generally, they are not in the publicly viewable remarks. They are usually in the confidential remarks (with the lockbox code and the owners personal cell phone).
The fact that the seller is listing it herself is also rather common. If I had to sell right now it would be short and the listing would look similar. Because short sales have to be listed low to get any offers, I would likely have tentative acceptance within 1 week.
Further, most of the public access sites have piss-poor public records access. If you can reasonably string together this same argument after viewing all records tied to this property (the assessor is at 1600 Pacific Hwy, North side of bldg), then I will listen but nothing appears amiss here.
The interspousal has a recording date of the same day that they bought the place (July 06). That is common and not sketchy.

This post is a good example of why it is a bad idea to get shrill regarding something about which one has little understanding.

[urbanrealtor]

SD, if you can explain why this is shady, I will listen. See below.

“When you list a short sale, you are REQUIRED TO INDICATE “Y” IN THE COURT/LENDER APPROVAL NEEDED FIELD. Later, when the seller has accepted an offer and you are waiting for lender approval, you do NOT have to change the status of the listing to pending, BUT YOU MUST EDIT THE MANDATORY REMARKS by using the drop down menu and choosing “Offer Accepted Pending Lender Approval of Short Sale” posted 11/07/08”

This is the guideline for shorts listed on the home page of Sandicor MLS (www.sandicor.com).

As has become common in these posts, the example given does not look shady in the least unless you only look at public access MLS sites.

Those remarks are on like half of all listings. However, generally, they are not in the publicly viewable remarks. They are usually in the confidential remarks (with the lockbox code and the owners personal cell phone).
The fact that the seller is listing it herself is also rather common. If I had to sell right now it would be short and the listing would look similar. Because short sales have to be listed low to get any offers, I would likely have tentative acceptance within 1 week.
Further, most of the public access sites have piss-poor public records access. If you can reasonably string together this same argument after viewing all records tied to this property (the assessor is at 1600 Pacific Hwy, North side of bldg), then I will listen but nothing appears amiss here.
The interspousal has a recording date of the same day that they bought the place (July 06). That is common and not sketchy.

This post is a good example of why it is a bad idea to get shrill regarding something about which one has little understanding.

[Author]

Posts