patrick.net

It's always a great time to generate a commission check for a Realtor, however!

A big flaw in real estate is the commission system. They don't get paid unless you buy.

Hourly real estate lawyers would be a much better system for buyers, but psychologically, most people can't stand to pay even a relatively small amount by the hour though it would be much less cost in the end than paying a percentage commission. Like one tenth as much.

Not sure how to get around that psychology.

Or maybe the aunt is one of rare honest ones. But, I have seen so many times(there was an article too) that most of the realtards drank their own kool-aid and still sticking with it. So many bought their house and investment properties during peak and not letting it go. I think there were very few who really thought that housing could crash.

While this might be true, I wouldnt bet that realtards know what they are talking.

Hourly real estate lawyers would be a much better system for buyers, but psychologically, most people can’t stand to pay even a relatively small amount by the hour though it would be much less cost in the end than paying a percentage commission. Like one tenth as much.

Again, it ain't about drawing up the contract and handling the closing paperwork. It is about finding a buyer in the first place. You cannot replace a realtor with a lawyer/title company/preprinted form. In fact, having a realtor does not even do away with the need for title company/lawyer. To replace the realtor, you will need a way for the seller to reach buyers in a way that is comfortable to the buyers.

Consider, for example, the "Housing Referal" list available at US military bases. When a military member transfers into a base, he can look at the housing list and see all the houses for sale from people who are tranfering out, plus other FSBOs. Many of these home have assumable VA loans. If the incoming guy sees a home he likes, he just contacts the owner, signs a contract (depends on the state, contract supplied by Housing Referal from Base Legal Office, office supply store, NOLO Press type paper, or private lawyer), and contacts a title company or lawyer for closing. Many military are comfortable with FSBO, based on thier experience with frequent transfers. Housing Referal also lists rentals.

https://www.ahrn.com/langleyafb.php

More of this is the way to compete with realtors. It's about getting buyers/sellers together, not the contract and closing. With enough competition, the realtor commission may be pushed down to 1% or so (like the "Estate Agents" in Britain), and using a realtor would not be so bad. At 1%, I would expect the end of the MLS as we know it.

As a whole, realtors are idiots, but that doesn't mean they are all idiots.

When I short sold my home last year, the listing agent somehow brought in a buyer, and while the offer was $60K under asking, in retrospect, it was a great deal considering that one year later, the value dropped a further $300,000 compare to direct comps in the area.

I gotta give him credit for getting that house sold as quickly as he did in a tanking market. 7% under asking in those conditions was, in hindsight, amazing.

HeadSet says

More of this is the way to compete with realtors. It’s about getting buyers/sellers together, not the contract and closing. With enough competition, the realtor commission may be pushed down to 1% or so (like the “Estate Agents” in Britain), and using a realtor would not be so bad. At 1%, I would expect the end of the MLS as we know it.

I actually think you could replace the entire MLS and realtor system with an improved version of Craigslist and you wouldn't have to pay anyone a commission. Think about what Craigslist has done for local classified ads...

stocksjustgoup says

As a whole, realtors are idiots, but that doesn’t mean they are all idiots.
When I short sold my home last year, the listing agent somehow brought in a buyer, and while the offer was $60K under asking, in retrospect, it was a great deal considering that one year later, the value dropped a further $300,000 compare to direct comps in the area.
I gotta give him credit for getting that house sold as quickly as he did in a tanking market. 7% under asking in those conditions was, in hindsight, amazing.

It was amazing for you, but terrible for the buyer that is now $300K underwater because a couple of smooth talking RE agents convinced them they were getting a deal...

stocksjustgoup says

When I short sold my home last year, the listing agent somehow brought in a buyer, and while the offer was $60K under asking, in retrospect, it was a great deal considering that one year later, the value dropped a further $300,000 compare to direct comps in the area.

Oo..where is the love for that realtard? This is the height of an irresponsible idiot who backstabbed a person who trusted "an expert"

lyoungblood says

It was amazing for you, but terrible for the buyer that is now $300K underwater because a couple of smooth talking RE agents convinced them they were getting a deal…

It's not totally amazing for me. I'm still in limbo-land as to whether I'll be sued for the short sale deficiency. But that's another story.

I wouldn't say the realtor conned anyone. The people who bought the house put $400,000 cash down and had no sale contingency. It is a great house, on a hill, view forever, horse property, you name it. A house like that is special in many ways. It just happens to be worth $300,000 less today than it was a year ago. That doesn't make it a bad house, though, or any less desirable compared to those around it.

stocksjustgoup says

lyoungblood says

It was amazing for you, but terrible for the buyer that is now $300K underwater because a couple of smooth talking RE agents convinced them they were getting a deal…

It’s not totally amazing for me. I’m still in limbo-land as to whether I’ll be sued for the short sale deficiency. But that’s another story.

Doesnt the American Recovery Act allows short sale to be exempted from the usual scheme where you have to pay income tax on the difference? Why would they sue? Was it HELOC/refinanced mortgage? My understanding is that, even if you have used 80/20 loan, they can't sue you.

dont_getit says

Doesnt the American Recovery Act allows short sale to be exempted from the usual scheme where you have to pay income tax on the difference? Why would they sue? Was it HELOC/refinanced mortgage? My understanding is that, even if you have used 80/20 loan, they can’t sue you.

In California, a bank can't sue you for a deficiency if the loan(s) were used to purchase the house. However, if you refinance and/or later take on a second loan, a bank can elect to sue you for the difference in a short sale.

I took on a second loan, and was only able to pay half of it back after the short sale. The first loan was paid in full. The bank did not sell the loan to collections, but it seems they're using a collections agency to contact me. I've done my thing in making sure they only contact me by mail, so that eliminates the harassing phone calls, but it's still not fun to know I could be sued. I have a few aces in my sleeve that might show the debt was settled due to the wording in their short sale acceptance letter, plus a counter that the loan could have been construed as predatory, but those could be longshots.

In the end, the law allows them to sue me, and if they do, it'll all be worked out in court---most likely bankruptcy court.

And I'm not crying... I punch myself in the face every day for getting into this mess.

Ouch Stocks. Did you at least get some bling out of the second? I'd hate to think it was a remodel of the house you then had to get rid of.

sfbubblebuyer says

Ouch Stocks. Did you at least get some bling out of the second? I’d hate to think it was a remodel of the house you then had to get rid of.

If they were to 1099 the deficiency (probably not gonna happen), I would be able to show that the money was primarily put back into the house.

So no bling, unfortunately.

stocksjustgoup says

dont_getit says

Doesnt the American Recovery Act allows short sale to be exempted from the usual scheme where you have to pay income tax on the difference? Why would they sue? Was it HELOC/refinanced mortgage? My understanding is that, even if you have used 80/20 loan, they can’t sue you.

In California, a bank can’t sue you for a deficiency if the loan(s) were used to purchase the house. However, if you refinance and/or later take on a second loan, a bank can elect to sue you for the difference in a short sale.
I took on a second loan, and was only able to pay half of it back after the short sale. The first loan was paid in full. The bank did not sell the loan to collections, but it seems they’re using a collections agency to contact me. I’ve done my thing in making sure they only contact me by mail, so that eliminates the harassing phone calls, but it’s still not fun to know I could be sued. I have a few aces in my sleeve that might show the debt was settled due to the wording in their short sale acceptance letter, plus a counter that the loan could have been construed as predatory, but those could be longshots.
In the end, the law allows them to sue me, and if they do, it’ll all be worked out in court—most likely bankruptcy court.
And I’m not crying… I punch myself in the face every day for getting into this mess.

Yeah..Ok, so it was the refinance that lets the bangsters on your tail. I read somewhere thats what this loan modification is doing to people. They are refinancing into a bigger trouble which is a recourse.

Well, atleast you were out before you are in a hole for another $300K, thats a good thing.

dont_getit says

Yeah..Ok, so it was the refinance that lets the bangsters on your tail. I read somewhere thats what this loan modification is doing to people. They are refinancing into a bigger trouble which is a recourse.
Well, atleast you were out before you are in a hole for another $300K, thats a good thing.

Yep... I toiled with the idea of foreclosure and walking away, but the short sale option gave me the best chance at owing the least amount of money.
The ironic thing is that some of the money from the equity loan was used to prep the house for sale, and it's the equity loan that put me over the edge to needing to sell in the first place.
Assuming any bank ever loans me money again to buy another house (doubtful), I'm not borrowing a god-d*mn dime against it any point out in the future.
"No Recourse" should be coveted and held on to as much as possible.

stocksjustgoup says

Assuming any bank ever loans me money again to buy another house (doubtful), I’m not borrowing a god-d*mn dime against it any point out in the future.

“No Recourse” should be coveted and held on to as much as possible.

I think the way gov wants to keep the housing prices up, dont get surprised if they pass a law where everybody who owned house at one point will get a loan regardless of their credit score. Do I hear Credit Recovery Act, may be part of stimulus package II or III.

Realsores don't bring in buyers. They "list" the house, meaning that it's placed on the mls. They place an ad in the local paper or publications, stick a sign in the ground and sit & wait & hope for the best. Oh - and charge 7%.

An easier way would be to place an ad, if you feel like it's necessary pay for an ad to be placed on the mls, stick a sign out front and sit & wait & hope for the best. (and put up signs in the grocery stores, do the word-of-mouth thing, and list on FSBO sites...) and pay for the stuff up front for substantially less. Realtors being necessary are a myth. They're helpful if you live out of town and can't do it on your own (and no family to help). They're ancillary to the sale.

Alot of banks around here are advertising lists of their repos on their marquees.

"her aunt never tells her clients that…"

I can tell her aunt will never be a successful R.E. agent who never tell the truth even in front of their friends and families.

N.A.R. are bunches of successful R.E. agents.