There is no downside risk. If the bidding war fails to materialize, you under no obligation to accept any of the offers.
OT- Dealing with an unethical realtor
- Thread starter apgoosebumps
- Start date
There is no downside risk. If the bidding war fails to materialize, you under no obligation to accept any of the offers.
There is seldom any incentive for a realtor to get a seller an extra $5-$10k at risk of losing the sale. This is my overally problem with realtors. Closing the deal is paramount.
The escalation clause is kind of BS. what is it ? a stop order? If the realtor was truly dishonest, they shouldve had a friend put in an offer for $825k so you get max price, $830k (and they get max commission)
The escalation clause is kind of BS. what is it ? a stop order? If the realtor was truly dishonest, they shouldve had a friend put in an offer for $825k so you get max price, $830k (and they get max commission)
The realtor I got when I had a house for to sell didn't mention that he had a full time job before I contracted with him. So he was a part time realtor.
Posts like this represent EVERYTHING that is wrong with message boards LOL.
Thanks for contributing nothing to the thread RUchip!
What is wrong with some people in this world? (directed towards poster KT71)
The Original Poster is COMPLETELY RIGHT being upset with his realtor because she acted unethically by not relaying all of the offers in their entirety.
The offer price and the price that the OP got for the house has NOTHING to do with anything.
Exactly. Maybe if the realtor had priced his house $40k too low, he would be as "lucky" as the OP is.
While I agree with you that this world has become a "what can you do for me" kind of world.... I would disagree that this thread is an example of that mentality.
This thread is about ethics and morality and being upset when a realtor does not follow through in the way that is promised.
Not sure how you morph the OP being upset because their realtor did not act ethically into the OP having the mentality of "what can you do for me."
I'm confused by one thing. Your post implies that there are "ethical" realtors. It never occured to me that they existed ... other than the realtors who read this. You guys are good and my comment doesnt apply to you.
MikeRU1776:
Two points:
1. The guy was satisfied with the list price or he wouldn't have listed it at that number. He got 40K more. Tough to think he got screwed.
2. He didn't take the time to ask for all the offers, it seems, or at least review them. Still made out like a champ.
But most importantly I really don't give a shit and neither should anyone else. Sorry, got a house to sell can't answer any more posts. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and don't fret for the OP he did fine.
Two points:
1. The guy was satisfied with the list price or he wouldn't have listed it at that number. He got 40K more. Tough to think he got screwed.
2. He didn't take the time to ask for all the offers, it seems, or at least review them. Still made out like a champ.
But most importantly I really don't give a shit and neither should anyone else. Sorry, got a house to sell can't answer any more posts. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and don't fret for the OP he did fine.
my problem with the real estate industry is that i think it is drastically over priced today, with lack of options.to equate the fees charged with the actual sweat equity put in and expertise needed.
it's the percentage basis with no other options that i have issue with
in the OP's case, assuming 6%, that would be $47,400 in commissions.
and for how many actual man hours of work by the agent(s) involved??
lots of able college educated individuals in full time work who don't take that home in a yr.
lots of able individuals working full time in low paying jobs, who don't take that much home in 2 yrs.
and i don't see RE agent as requiring a "brain surgeon" level of training, that they should command that kind of fee for a limited number of hours of actual sweat equity.
and i have no desire to fund the massive media ad blitz of Remax etc, to promote themselves. (not my house).
the 2 agent set up, (sellers and buyers), pretty much greatly restricts negotiations over fees.
the "buyers agent" thing was certainly a clever piece of work by the industry.
the "buyers agent" contractually ties up the buyer under the promise that it won't cost the buyer anything, and that the seller will pay all the freight for the buyer's agent. (something the seller never agreed to when the agent was pitching his services to the buyer).
then the buyer's agent uses that contractual agreement to essentially extort money from the seller.
looks to me a lot like the buyer's agent is not so much helping the seller for that fee, as he is extorting the seller not to sabotage the sale of his house.
when i bought my home i had a buyers agent for a while.
this was back in the pre internet days, when only the realtors had access to the MLS.
even then though, i realized my agent was doing nothing for me other than printing out some pages off the MLS.
i also realized that i would rather speak directly with the seller, than have someone else speak or set things up for me.
i discontinued my relationship with the agent at the first opportunity.
nice lady, but i didn't see what service she was doing for me.
with Zillow free to everyone with internet, why does anyone actually need an agent any more?
while i like the idea of having an agent as a seller, i can't make peace with the price charged.
and as for "buyer's agents", if the buyer wants an agent, let him/her pay for it.
my guess is the instant buyers started being on the hook to pay for their own representation, would be the instant buyers stopped signing with buyer's agents, and found out they could walk though prospective homes just as well by themselves.
i do see a service provided by the real estate industry, i just don't see said service justifying the fees involved.
on a side note, in regards to the OP's initial post, i notice no one has mentioned the possibility that the agent could have had an equity interest, (representing both parties as opposed to just the seller), in one person getting the house, rather than another. (thus a possible conflict of interests)?
not saying that was the case. just pointing out the possibility.
it's the percentage basis with no other options that i have issue with
in the OP's case, assuming 6%, that would be $47,400 in commissions.
and for how many actual man hours of work by the agent(s) involved??
lots of able college educated individuals in full time work who don't take that home in a yr.
lots of able individuals working full time in low paying jobs, who don't take that much home in 2 yrs.
and i don't see RE agent as requiring a "brain surgeon" level of training, that they should command that kind of fee for a limited number of hours of actual sweat equity.
and i have no desire to fund the massive media ad blitz of Remax etc, to promote themselves. (not my house).
the 2 agent set up, (sellers and buyers), pretty much greatly restricts negotiations over fees.
the "buyers agent" thing was certainly a clever piece of work by the industry.
the "buyers agent" contractually ties up the buyer under the promise that it won't cost the buyer anything, and that the seller will pay all the freight for the buyer's agent. (something the seller never agreed to when the agent was pitching his services to the buyer).
then the buyer's agent uses that contractual agreement to essentially extort money from the seller.
looks to me a lot like the buyer's agent is not so much helping the seller for that fee, as he is extorting the seller not to sabotage the sale of his house.
when i bought my home i had a buyers agent for a while.
this was back in the pre internet days, when only the realtors had access to the MLS.
even then though, i realized my agent was doing nothing for me other than printing out some pages off the MLS.
i also realized that i would rather speak directly with the seller, than have someone else speak or set things up for me.
i discontinued my relationship with the agent at the first opportunity.
nice lady, but i didn't see what service she was doing for me.
with Zillow free to everyone with internet, why does anyone actually need an agent any more?
while i like the idea of having an agent as a seller, i can't make peace with the price charged.
and as for "buyer's agents", if the buyer wants an agent, let him/her pay for it.
my guess is the instant buyers started being on the hook to pay for their own representation, would be the instant buyers stopped signing with buyer's agents, and found out they could walk though prospective homes just as well by themselves.
i do see a service provided by the real estate industry, i just don't see said service justifying the fees involved.
on a side note, in regards to the OP's initial post, i notice no one has mentioned the possibility that the agent could have had an equity interest, (representing both parties as opposed to just the seller), in one person getting the house, rather than another. (thus a possible conflict of interests)?
not saying that was the case. just pointing out the possibility.
