0
0

Evil Buyers Display Extreme Cruelty to Distressed Sellers


 invite response                
2007 Apr 17, 5:43am   33,430 views  547 comments

by HARM   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

buyer eyeing seller

Sadistic, Greedy Buyers Toying with Sellers Like Cats with Prey*
Copyright © 2007 UnReality Times®. All Rights Reserved.
by David Lereah, Leslie Appleton-Young and John Karevoll

As the alleged real estate bear market enters its second year of hitting bottom, some buyers out there are clearly enjoying this one-time market aberration --perhaps a little too much. Is deriving sadistic glee from other peoples' suffering a nice thing to do? The Germans have a word for this: schadenfreude (and we all know what cruelty the Germans are capable of!).

According to Donald Parisi, president of the Realtor Association of the Fox Valley (IL), buyer cruelty is reaching grotesque proportions:

"Parisi said he believes ‘doom and gloom’ media coverage has hurt the market. 'We’ve seen some very ridiculous offers,' Parisi said. 'People shouldn’t be desperate … The problem is some buyers are out there just to take advantage of the marketplace.'"

This view is further clarified by Jim Fox, manager of Realty One in Canton, Ohio:

“As unrealistic, said Fox, are some would-be buyers; they expect sellers to practically give their homes away. ‘Some people, … they want us to help them steal a home,’ Fox said.”

Even more to the point than Mr. Parisi, Florida Realtorâ„¢ Becky Troutt gets right to the heart of the matter:

"I think some of the buyers are out for blood! ...There is a difference from 'getting a deal' and 'trying to get something for nothing'! Just because the market is slow right now and homes take longer to sell.....doesn't mean that sellers are going to give their homes away and it doesn't give you the right to go for the jugular vein! How insulted would you be if you were that seller and someone asked you to come down off your price $90,000? Do you think you would say...ok sure no problem. I'm not spinning my heels in mud with an unrealistic buyer who only wants to try and rip a seller off!"

A note to home buyers: If you only want to pay $200,000 for a home......don't look at homes that are $90,000 more than you want to spend or can afford just because it's a slow market, and you think you can get a seller down that much.....because....IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!"

Now, that's telling 'em like it is, Becky!

While the unbridled greed and glee exhibited by these sadistic buyers (and the American Dreamâ„¢-hating press) are stomach-turning awful, they are not the primary causes of this upside-down market. The real culprit for this most unnatural and unhealthy market condition, is well understood in the industry:

"What appears to be driving the increase in foreclosures is that home values are not rising, DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage said. 'Take away home-price appreciation, or ratchet it down or even make prices negative, and all of those forms of (economic) distress start to result in increased foreclosure activity,' LePage said."

Clearly what's needed here is massive government intervention to protect homeowners and rekindle the normal 20%/year appreciation. This might take the form of a distressed homeowner mortgage buy-down, or federal underwriting for all the kindhearted subprime lenders who generously enabled low-income Americans participate in the American Dreamâ„¢ (often mischaracterized by Gloom'n'Doomers as a "bailout").

To proactively tackle this looming crisis, the NAR and CAR have teamed up with the MBAA (Mortgage Bankers Association of America) to sponsor the Save the American Dreamâ„¢ Act of 2007. Says NAR Chief Economist, David Lereah, "We are urging people to sign our online petition, and write, call, email and beg their Senators and Congresspersons to support this badly needed piece of mercy legislation. Home ownership is as American as apple pie --only you (and Uncle Sam) have the power to save it! Please do your patriotic duty and support the SADA. God bless."

[*Note: while the offset quotes and links are real, this 'article' is a parody]

#housing

« First        Comments 315 - 354 of 547       Last »     Search these comments

315   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:32am  

My logic isn't flawed, you just need to learn that there is more to an issue than just what a JBR thinks is fair.

316   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:33am  

Peter P is a jerk. Just kidding, he is so damn likeable that someone had to say it.

317   DinOR   2007 Apr 18, 5:37am  

Hi_there,

This all started when Malcom "took offense" to NAR being described as a monopoly but thanks for the Monday Morning Quaterback ctrique!

By_there :)

318   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:39am  

Oh Dino, now you're going to speak for me. "He started it!"

319   HeadSet   2007 Apr 18, 5:40am  

"Peter P is my favorite. He is the most practical guy around here."

Why? Do you sell sushi?

320   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 5:41am  

I'm happy to see free markets flourish. I don't want the government picking winners and losers. Malcolm you're switching contexts in the debate arbitrarily. We've now switched from a legal/economic discussion to a practical/ideological one.

I'll revert back to my practical question (no jargon added):

Is it fair that the MLS boards force members to sign an exclusivity agreement that prevents them from using any competing services?

If that's ok then there sure are a whole lot of companies out there missing some spectacular "excess" profit potential.

321   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:43am  

"Is it fair that the MLS boards force members to sign an exclusivity agreement that prevents them from using any competing services?"

I have no idea. What competing services do you mean?

322   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:44am  

It would seem like a bad long term business decision to me, but what do I know?

323   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 5:47am  

Oh come on Malcolm. It's an honest question. The competing services are those you keep telling us will make all this moot.

The MLS Boards put member agents in jeopardy by forcing them to "marry the MLS" and ne'er lay eyes on anything else. Misbehaving agents are kicked out of the "membership", which is after all just a big club. Are there any barriers to honest competition in that system?

324   DinOR   2007 Apr 18, 5:47am  

Malcom,

I'm *not a JBR. I'm a bubble-sitter. There's a difference. While CA might prove to be a bit of a challenge there's no community in OR I couldn't well afford to buy in to. I chose not to.

They say there's at least "some" truth behind every sterotype and with as much as we're seeing "the fee driven abusive mortgage broker" being played out in real time for all to see I just find it hard to believe that anyone would (or should) rush to any REIC member's side?

Since it's now obvious to anyone following that NAR/MLS "is" a monoploy you've quietly abandoned that saying technology alone will provide the disintermediation? Why didn't you just fess' up earlier and save a lot of trouble?

325   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:47am  

Randy, this is not arguing objectively because to form your argument it would be more compelling if you could actually cite the clause, then I can read it and give my opinion.

326   Boston Transplant   2007 Apr 18, 5:48am  

Honestly, if I went down that path there are so many industries you would have a problem with, that you would literally rethink some very basic foundations.

Such as? For most consumers, the difference between paying a 6% commission and a 2% commission is far greater than the TOTAL SPENDING for most other categories.

Malcolm, I've been enjoying the debate between you and Randy, but in my opinion his points are more compelling, largely due to superior organization and debating skills. I would like to see you outline your position in the way he has (and not in one sentence either). Present him with a set of falsifiable tests as he has to you. Until then, you haven't convinced this lurker.

By the way, is this lawsuit spurious?

http://www.realestatejournal.com/buysell/agentsandbrokers/20050511-hagerty.html?refresh=on

327   Boston Transplant   2007 Apr 18, 5:49am  

By the way, I fully agree that dead weight is a critical issue. Other than supply and demand, it is the most vivid and useful concept I remember from my undergrad econ minor.

328   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:51am  

I challenged the initial premise that all monopolies were illegal, and questioned how a tradegroup is a monopoly? I questioned if you actually knew what a monopoly was because it seemed to me that you were using the term for shock value.

JBR is just a term and not meant to anyone personally. It is used third party with me because it denotes a mindset. No offense intended, though claiming to be bubble sitting is basically telling everyone that you want to be a property owner.

329   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 5:52am  

Clause = Craigslist.

Some (but not all) MLS board agreements establish grounds whereby the member advertising a home on Craigslist is in violation of their Terms of Use (ToS) and can be removed from the membership and denied rights to access and utilize the MLS.

330   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 5:54am  

Clause = Zillow's new buyer&seller market making thingy. Agents attempting to use this will most often find themselves in violation of their MLS board agreement.

331   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 5:55am  

Clause = OpenMls.com

332   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 5:56am  

(Note, the last in that list is soon to embrace Second Life "virtual real estate" listings. So, they're damned to failure anyway and agents participating there deserve whatever punishment they get.)

333   DinOR   2007 Apr 18, 5:56am  

Well... partially true. I own several properties, here and abroad but do not currently own my primary residence. One day, when this market runs it's course, reverts to the mean (and seriously cleans up it's act) I'll own my primary residence (again).

In the meantime I live quite comfortably (and bank the difference) thank you.

334   Boston Transplant   2007 Apr 18, 5:56am  

Here's another article:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/26/real_estate/buying_selling/real_estate_waste/

Some excerpts:

As a result, says Susan Creighton, the director of the Bureau of Competition for the FTC, traditional brokers try to maintain an advantage over Internet-based brokers, fee-for-service providers, and discount brokers that threaten to undermine high commission rates.

Here's some of the methods, according to the FTC:

* Don't show discounter's properties. Traditional brokers "boycott" discount-brokers' listings. They refuse to show discount brokers' properties and even refuse to show their own listings to buyers brought in by discounters. This clearly violates the ethics of their profession and the fiduciary duty they have to the sellers, but discounters report that it happens all the time.

Aaron Farmer, founder of Texas Discount Realty, a fee-for-service and discount broker in Texas, says traditional agents harass him, tell clients that he is out of business, even berate his agents in public.

* Seek legislative actions to restrain trade. One panelist, Steve DelBianco, of executive director of NetChoice Coalition, pointed out traditional brokers are not reluctant to seek legislative relief to protect their interests.

335   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 5:57am  

I think Randy is a fine debater, I just have a different perspective. I addressed all of his and DINO's points, I don't know what else you would have me do Boston.

I agree with all of it, it is unfair, NAR is a propaganda machine, I agree with it all, but that doesn't mean that they are any different than any other trade group, and they have a right to their proprietary systems.

I have given plenty of first hand proof that they can try in futility to set 6% as the norm but the free market is just to powerful a force.

I haven't seen one point that I disagreed with stick or seem compelling. Sorry.

336   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 5:58am  

Clause = Google real estate, when they open up that API and folks start getting creative about how to end run MLS.

337   DinOR   2007 Apr 18, 5:59am  

Hi_there,

I'll deal with you later.

338   Boston Transplant   2007 Apr 18, 6:00am  

What's strange to me is Malcolm's attempt to defend these kind of practices with the argument "that's how business works". Yes, that's how business works. But the way the Justice Department works is to end these anti-competitive behaviours. From a societal point of view, you should be rooting for the Justice Department, not the NAR. This will lead to greater efficiencies for the consumer (by eliminating the dead weight Randy refers to).

339   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 6:00am  

Randy,
If the clause really says that listing on other engines violates TOS, it would seem wrong to me.

340   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 6:02am  

Boston, I believe that our system flawed and all is better than most places so even if it means presenting a point of view that may seem aligned with NAR and distasteful I can only offer my knowledge to pool with others. I will not though judge a system because I don't like the prices they charge.

341   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 6:03am  

Realtors list on MLS and in newspapers routinely that is why I requested clarification.

342   DinOR   2007 Apr 18, 6:03am  

Boston Transplant,

Yeah uh, great article but until Aaron Farmer makes a victorious court appearance that's all just a bunch of anecdotal gobbledy-gook, right.

Knee capping is always "anecdotal" (until they're yours).

343   Peter P   2007 Apr 18, 6:03am  

Randy is a great factual debater. I admire him for that.

344   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 6:05am  

Malcolm

I'm sorry, I thought you meant the formative clause of my argument, not the verbiage from an agreement.

345   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 6:06am  

It's business. Sorry if commerce seems unfair, but people challenging an industry who in my opinion is just operating like anything else should be challenged. I believe that it should be a burden to get the government to unravel an industry, you don't want it so easy that every whiner gets reform laws passed.

346   cb   2007 Apr 18, 6:07am  

MLS, the Canadian perspective.

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/201219

347   Boston Transplant   2007 Apr 18, 6:07am  

Malcom, I will concede that anecdotal evidence gets thrown in there, but clearly it has enough merit for the justice department to get involved, per my first article. Does anyone know what the outcome of that lawsuit was?

348   HARM   2007 Apr 18, 6:08am  

Malcolm,

Just curious --why do you call DinOR "Dino"? Every time I see that, I think of a certain Stone Age reptilian cartoon pet.

349   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 6:09am  

FTC Action, 2006

Demonstrates the type of clause to which I was referring, and the fact that local MLS boards have indeed been found guilty in courts.

MLS agreements can be found on the internet, but you'll note that pretty much all of these are posted in violation of copyright, which the boards hold close to the vest.

July 13, 2006
FTC Charges Austin Board of Realtors with Illegally Restraining Competition
Board of Realtors Required to Eliminate 2005 Rule Blocking Internet Searches for Non-Traditional, Low-Cost Brokerage Properties

The Federal Trade Commission today charged the Austin Board of Realtors with violating the antitrust laws by effectively preventing consumers with real estate listing agreements for potentially lower-cost unbundled brokerage services from marketing their listings on important public Web sites. In settling the charges, ABOR is prohibited from adopting or enforcing any rule that treats one type of real estate listing agreement more advantageously than any other listing type, and from interfering with the ability of its members to enter into any kind of lawful listing agreement with home sellers.

350   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 6:09am  

I don't know, that's just how my mind read his name.

351   Peter P   2007 Apr 18, 6:10am  

Every time I see that, I think of a certain Stone Age reptilian cartoon pet.

Don't laugh, I will not be surprised if dinosaurs reign your virtual neighborhoods soon. They deserve a second life.

352   Malcolm   2007 Apr 18, 6:11am  

I want the existing laws enforced. If MLS illegally prevents listings elsewhere I would have to agree with that point.

353   DinOR   2007 Apr 18, 6:11am  

Isn't that what "Vinnie" says when he pops somebody in the knee caps?

Hey! It's just business, you understand. Nothin' personal.

Malcom, I can't speak for the 298 million in this country that are *not realtors but given their druthers I imagine most would prefer 1% over 6% if actually given a real choice. But hey what do I know I'm just a JBR?

354   Randy H   2007 Apr 18, 6:12am  

Again with emphasis added:

July 13, 2006
FTC Charges Austin Board of Realtors with Illegally Restraining Competition
Board of Realtors Required to Eliminate 2005 Rule Blocking Internet Searches for Non-Traditional, Low-Cost Brokerage Properties

The Federal Trade Commission today charged the Austin Board of Realtors with violating the antitrust laws by effectively preventing consumers with real estate listing agreements for potentially lower-cost unbundled brokerage services from marketing their listings on important public Web sites. In settling the charges, ABOR is prohibited from adopting or enforcing any rule that treats one type of real estate listing agreement more advantageously than any other listing type, and from interfering with the ability of its members to enter into any kind of lawful listing agreement with home sellers.

« First        Comments 315 - 354 of 547       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste