Buying and Selling: November 2018 Archives

The phrasing in parallel with Animal Farm is intentional. Sellers need to understand this, and so do buyers, especially in a hot real estate market. Some offers are more equal than others, and knowing how to choose between competing offers on the selling side is critical. On the buyer's side, understanding this and anticipating it so as to make your offer attractive to a seller with a good agent is critical to success in making offers.

Even if they are for the same number of dollars or even for larger amounts, some offers are much less likely to actually consummate than others. If they don't consummate, all that happens for sellers is that they wasted their time, their money, and came up with nothing. Furthermore, once you have a fully negotiated purchase contract, the chances of renegotiating it so the seller gets more money are nil. Most purchase contracts, the seller needs to make concessions due to things discovered to be suboptimal with the property. Sad to say, there are even some very shark-like real estate types that go around making offers with the intention of using every little thing to renegotiate the contract in their favor. They make their offer look superficially attractive and then once they have a purchase contract start demanding concessions right and left.

There are currently three major things likely to prevent a transaction from actually going through. The first is the Home Valuation Code of Conduct sticking the transaction with an appraisal that's lower than the purchase price. I had an appraiser choose two completely trashed lender owned beaters down the hill as comparables ("comps") for my client's beautifully maintained property in a more desirable location, and there wasn't a thing I could do about it even though there were more comparable comps. When this happens, all the issues in When The Appraisal Is Below The Purchase Price for Real Estate come into play. If the loan standards are eighty percent Loan to Value Ratio and the buyer only has 20% to put down, when the appraisal comes in low, the cash isn't there to make it happen and the transaction will fail. In some cases, private mortgage insurance can maybe extend it to ninety percent currently, possibly 95% in some cases, but 100% financing is out of the question for anyone but veterans, and adding private mortgage insurance often means the buyers don't qualify on the issue of debt to income ratio. Most often, if the appraisal comes in low it means that either the transaction is going to fall apart, or there is going to be a mixture of the buyer adding more cash to the deal and the seller lowering the price. If the buyer doesn't have more cash to add to the deal, it doesn't take much predictive ability to see that things are going to boil down to the seller deciding whether they'd rather find another buyer or take less money, and it doesn't take much insight to see that a very limited amount is likely to mean you're better off taking an offer where this isn't an issue.

The second thing likely to prevent a transaction going through is issues with the property. Something is discovered during the buyer's due diligence period that causes them not to want the property, or to not want to pay the originally negotiated price. It could be anything. These issues are always with us. The only way not to be surprised by them is for the seller to be honest with themselves and do their own due diligence beforehand.

The third major deal-killer is buyer inability to qualify for the loan. Either they represented themselves as having more cash than they do, they really don't qualify for this loan on this property, or some miscellaneous loanbuster issue pops up. This is why I insist that every qualification letter I write and every letter I'll counsel my clients to accept be a pre-qualification written for that specific property and that specific offer. A generic "They qualify for $300,000" letter is wasted paper. The person writing that letter must also make specific representations as to why the buyer qualifies on the basis of debt to income ratio, loan to value ratio, credit score, and Cash to Close. For my listing clients, it the offer doesn't do this, I send the buyer back to try again. I tell them what the letter must cover, and I will counsel my clients never to accept an offer that doesn't include this information.

Running an automated underwriting program is easy and popular, but never acceptable for this purpose. Automated underwriting results are only valid if they don't change anything from how it was submitted. Let me tell you something that happened to me not that long ago: I got an automated underwriting accept and priced and locked the loan and sent the file through on that basis. My processor, for reasons beknownst only to them, took it into their head to run automated underwriting through again on precisely the same file and got a lesser acceptance that raised the cost of the loan and cost me most of the money I would have made on that loan, and it could easily have changed to an outright rejection of the loan. This was for a refinance where nothing of consequence changed except for a precise appraisal amount that was still well within guidelines. What do you think is likely to happen when the purchase price changes or the the precise loan amount or any of dozens of other factors changes by a little bit? I never accept automated underwriting results for a purchase offer. Manual underwriting rules, however, are universally good, particularly in the A paper world. If something happens at one lender that causes it to have trouble, somebody else will take it if the manual underwriting standards are met.

I should also stress that sellers live in a world where net proceeds are what is important. If the transaction doesn't close at all, the net proceeds to the seller are negative regardless of what was offered. Even if the transaction closes, an offer for $200,000 requiring them to pay $5000 for seller paid closing costs is in actuality $5300-$5500 less net money to them than an offer with no such requirements. A good agent (on either side of the transaction) is going to make careful consideration of this.

So keeping these in mind, which offer is the most attractive to a seller, assuming the same number of dollars and desirability of the offer?

All cash offers are always going to top this list. If the buyers don't care what lenders think, if they don't need a loan or a loan contingency, don't have to be concerned with loan standards, that eliminates an entire layer of complexity that includes most of the likely reasons why things fall apart. An all cash offer without an appraisal contingency is the Gold Standard. They are saying "The property is worth $X to me - I don't care what an appraiser thinks" They can still be intending to over-negotiate every little thing revealed by the inspection, but there is less to go wrong from a "nothing you can do in the initial contract" standpoint.

The next category on the list is offers where there buyer has significantly more cash than lender standards require for the contemplated loan type, particularly if they're planning to use it for the down payment anyway. This means that the buyer has the option of continuing the transaction even if the appraisal comes in low. Since all the incentives right now are for appraisers to come in low on the appraisal, this is happening a lot right now and there is nothing anyone can do about it except repeal those ridiculous appraisal standards. If the buyer has more cash, when the appraisal comes in lower than the purchase price the viability of the transaction doesn't depend upon the seller deciding whether to take less money or put the property back on the market. If the buyer has more cash than absolutely necessary, the parties can meet in the middle rather than the seller being the only one with room to give. Conventional financing purchase offers of thirty percent cash or more and VA loans where the buyer is putting down cash even though they don't have to fall into this category, and even FHA loans where there is a cash cushion. I always want to address the question of "How low would the appraisal have to come in before this transaction has difficulty because of it?" Offers where the buyer has this cash cushion means that if the appraisal comes in slightly low, it isn't just the seller deciding whether to take less or put it back on the market.

I would rather have conventional financing than government. Government involvement puts a bottleneck, or single point of failure on the transaction - if the government won't put their seal of approval on it, we're done. It also takes longer. That said, I need to say that both VA and FHA are unfairly tarred in many agent minds because until a few years ago they were costly bureaucratic nightmares for the seller. The bureaucratic issue has largely changed, but it is still an issue even if it is a much smaller one, and a VA loan in particular does not permit a buyer to pay a lot of very real and necessary costs, so the VA loan needs to be for a higher number of dollars to break even on this point with conventional ones.

If a buyer wants a government loan but can go conventional, that will delay the transaction if they start out government but need to change to conventional, but it should still close. There is a fallback position. This is a critical difference and makes such an offer superior to one where they have no choice but a government loan, particularly some special or limited funding government program like the mortgage credit certificate or locally administered first time buyer programs, both of which are limited budget and usually run out almost immediately upon receiving a new funding allocation.

Both when writing an offer and evaluating one, I always want to address the question of what circumstances or combination of circumstances could cause this to fall apart. As a buyer's agent, I want to show the listing agent that my client wants the property and I have considered how to get around potential failure points. As a listing agent, I have a fiduciary responsibility to help my clients evaluate offers and make an informed choice on which offer to accept based in part upon likely failure points. Comparatively few agents meet that responsibility (one reason we've got such extreme transaction fall out now) but the good ones are all among them. A good listing agent is always looking for evidence in an offer that the buyer's agents have considered possible failure points and how to get past them.

Waiving the appraisal contingency is always an argument in favor of an offer. It can be symbolic, but it says "The property is worth $X to me, and I'm willing to pay that whether or not the appraiser agrees". Nonetheless, if there is a loan contingency attached to such an offer it's not an unlimited blank check. If the appraisal comes in lower than the difference the buyer can cover, the transaction is still going to fall apart. If the buyer has no extra cash, waiving the appraisal contingency accomplishes nothing. But a prospective buyer having $10,000 extra cash and no appraisal contingency should be something that is very valuable to well informed listing agents and their clients.

What if your offer is less desirable in these terms, quite likely because you have no choice? Well then you need to offer more money to sweeten the deal and give the sellers a reason to choose your offer over any others. When I'm acting as a buyer's agent, I always discuss how much competition we're likely to see from other offers if my buyers like a property. It's not a perfect science, and I never trust a listing agent telling me how many other offers they have (Unless the answer is "none") or for what dollar amount, but it's like gravity: if you don't take it into account, you're certainly not going to get where you want to go - a successful purchase.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

If you have three real estate companies sending you emails with multi-listings, if you want to see one of the properties, who gets the commission? There five properties that I want to see the inside of the houses. Company A, B, C, etc. One house is listed by one of the three people that have been sending me emails.Am I obligated to sign up with an agent if I want to see the inside of a house? Do I tell the other agents not to send me anymore multiple listings?

That depends upon you and upon the agent and upon what sort of agreement, if any, you have signed.

If you haven't signed any representation agreements, nobody has grounds to complain. I don't ask for any agreement just to have listings automatically e-mailed to a prospect (within limits), or even an automated site for them to manage those listings. I have to have MLS access anyway, and that comes as part of the package. I look at it as an opportunity: for a few minutes work, I'm likely to end up with a prospective buyer. If one in a hundred of these converts to a transaction, I'm ahead of the game. The ratio is much higher than that. I could use it as an opportunity to set up my toll booth, and many agents do, but although they may be "top producers" because they cut out other agents with an exclusive representation agreement for having their receptionist take five minutes out of their day once to set this up, they're not the sort of agent someone who compares agents in action will likely choose. In any walk of life, the person who has to cut the competition out is telling you they're weak.

If you've signed a non-exclusive representation agreement, the one who is the primary motivating factor behind the sale should be the one paid. This may be the agent who introduces you to the property, or it can be the agent who answers all of your questions well enough that you're willing to make an offer, or (best of all) the agent who opens your eyes to the possibilities of the property after six other agents have shown it to you. It can also be the one who fast talks or pressures you into making the offer, but that's the beauty of non-exclusive agreements. You can fire such agents by just not working with them any more, and they're out of your life and out of the transaction.

If you've signed an exclusive representation agreement, then the person you signed the exclusive agreement with is legally entitled to be paid. This is a problem if someone else really sold the property to you, or if you've signed two or more such agreements. Furthermore, you can't fire bad agents with an exclusive agreement except by waiting for it to expire. You sign a six month exclusive agreement in April, they're going to get paid for any transaction you start through October (and possibly longer) - even if you told them you never want to see their face again before April was over.

Many agents will ask you to sign an exclusive representation agreement before they do anything. You shouldn't sign one at all. Non-exclusive is plenty good to protect the agent while preserving your protections against a bad one. And there is no reason not to sign the standard non-exclusive agreement.

I have heard every rationalization under the sun as to why exclusive agreements are desirable. The only person they're desirable to is insecure or incompetent agents. There is no advantage for the consumer to sign one. Exclusivity prohibits real competition, where the consumer can observe your skills and your attitude in action. Anybody can look good in the office before you've seen a single property together. That's just sales patter. The proof is watching them in action when you're evaluating property together. That's where you can tell the best agents from the friendly idiots, the high pressure commission grabber, and all the other problem personalities around. And sometimes, that's where you find out that they're not so friendly after all. Unless it's showing one of my listings, I won't go out with someone who's signed an exclusive with someone else, and neither will any other agent I know of. I'm not going to show someone the bargain I spent twenty or thirty hours finding so that an agent who couldn't be bothered to get out of their swivel chair can get paid for the work I did, but you'd be disgusted at how often I get the request.

If all you're getting is a sit on their hands agent who never leaves their office to scout property for you, whether they're an explicit discounter or someone pretending to be full service, then the purchase contract itself has confirmation of the relationship and there is no need to sign an agreement in advance of this at all. The same is true anytime you approach an agent with a property you have already determined to make an offer on. The agency relationship is confirmed in the purchase contract, indeed, in the initial offer. There's absolutely no need to sign any kind of representation agreement with them outside of that. It's simply one more method by which rotten agents lock up business, because if you sign that exclusive agreement they ask for, they've got you for however long it lasts. I've been told - by clients - about listing agents who wouldn't communicate an offer until they had signed a buyer's representation agreement - a clear violation of fiduciary responsibility to that owner. I've heard every rationalization under the sun here, as well. "I'm putting my time into this! I deserve to get paid if it falls apart!" is the most common one. My response is to such agents is, "Not yet you don't, and if you're concerned, make sure it doesn't fall apart" The reason agents get paid as much as they do is because their pay is contingent upon a successful, fully consummated transaction. It's right there in all of the standard WinForms contracts. If an agent can't make this transaction go, if this transaction falls apart, they haven't earned any kind of right to mess up another one also. If you, the client, want to stick around once you've seen them in action, that's great! If not, that should also be within your range of choices. An exclusive agreement removes that option.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I am an adamant believer in the Non-exclusive Buyer's Agency Agreement. In practical terms, as opposed to the Exclusive Buyer's Agency Agreement, it is so much to the advantage of the consumer that it isn't funny, and it doesn't usually hurt good agents. On the other hand, the proponents have one argument going for them that I do respect, having experienced it more than once. I start a client on the searching process. I explain it's going to take looking at a minimum of 12 to 15 properties before they know what the market is really like in their area in their price range. I find a whole bunch of properties, and start taking them to a few. I offer rational, real world comparisons of their comparative virtues. Ask about what they liked versus what they didn't, what they could live with and what they couldn't. And then, in between, one or both partners gets a wild hair about going to view another property. I've explained what their price range is, but they either don't realize it's out of their range or don't care. They just want to see what it's like. And because the property is out of their price range, it's going to be a more desirable property - that's why the owners think they can get more money for it!

So they go out, and after my careful work of making sure to stay within their budget, on a sustainable loan they can afford, this other agent shows them what, by comparison, is the property of their dreams and says they can buy it!, and he knows where they can get the loan! If this sounds familiar, it happens a lot. "Dan was showing us such ratty properties by comparison! This guy is showing us beautiful stuff we love! Let's buy one!" and the first I find out about it is they tell me they're in escrow on someone else's property.

Most people buy based upon emotion. If you want to make one change in the value of your financial future, learn how to take emotion out of your decision-making process, especially on anything big enough to require payments. Once people have emotionally convinced themselves that they deserve this property, my rational analysis of the situation doesn't have a snowball's chance in July of talking them out of it. I know this very well. I could stamp out buyer's transactions at the rate of three or four per week by showing clients two or three ratty fixers within their budget and then moving in for the kill by showing one immaculate property in ready to move in condition for thirty percent more. But this is hosing people with malice aforethought, and no matter how many others do it, I'd have problems shaving without looking in the mirror, and I need to shave every day that I work. The reason that wasn't within their budget is that they cannot afford the payments, or they cannot afford the real payments. I've said this before, but there are no tricks to make the real cost of the loan cheaper. There are ways to lower the payments for a while, but they always come back to bite you in a few years, and the situation will be worse than if you had taken the sustainable loan in the first place. Buying a more expensive property than you can afford is a way to put yourself on a course for disaster. Kind of like Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

And that's why there is money in fixers. It's all very well for people to say they are interested in the $400,000 fixer that fits within their budget and that they can fix it up and sell. Particularly first time homeowners, particularly young married couples, and especially if they have children, show them the $600,000 move-in ready property and they will bite almost every time, budget buster or not. Put all three factors together and not all of the wisest people in history together could talk them out of it.

So the smart operator offers $350,000 for the fixer that's been on the market for four months, spends $40,000 on upgrades like carpet and modernizing the kitchen or adding one more bedroom and bathroom, and turns around and sells for $620,000, of which she keeps approximately $186,000 in profit. If the buyer needs them to pay some closing cost in order to make the transaction happen, she still makes $175,000 for a few months work. Not bad, eh?

The average couple won't have $40,000 to upgrade the property immediately. I consider myself very lucky to have worked with two such couples in the last year. Most potential buyers try to minimize the down payment as much as possible. But if they buy that livable fixer, they have a lot more room on their monthly budget and as much time as they want. At 6% interest rate and California standard property tax rates, the $620,000 loan has a payment of $3717, plus $646 in property taxes. The fixer property, even if they buy for $400,000, the payment is $2398 and the taxes are $417. I know that it's smarter to split the loan into two if you can, but work with me for the sake of simplification. So the already fixed property costs $4363 per month, while the fix it themselves costs $2815. That's over $1500 per month difference they have to put towards fixing it up, or anything else they want to. In two years, they've got the $40,000 from that $1500 per month payment difference alone. This is leaving aside the issue that the rate on the bigger loan isn't going to be as low. The new owners can concentrate on the most important updates. Sure, it's a pain. That's why buyers are willing to pay $620,000 for the ready to move in property. Actually, they'll line up to pay $620,000 for the more attractive property. It's just the way things are. And they get done with their two year project, and now it's worth every bit as much as the property that was worth $620,000 to start with. At 5% annual for two years, that's $683,000, and it's getting to the point where I expect our local market to grow faster than that. If they sell, that's approximately $235,000 in their pockets (tax exempt in most cases) instead of in the professional fixer's. If they bought the move-in ready property and then sold, they'd net about $15,000 by the same calculations.

Now most properties, even fixers, won't generate quite this kind of quick windfall. But that is a real example I encountered not long before I originally wrote this. Moral of the story: fix it yourself if you can. By isolating off the emotional appeal, you've made yourself - or saved yourself - a lot of money. And the reason there is money in fixers is because most people won't do this, instead convincing themselves that they're good people and they deserve this beautiful property. And you know, most folks are pretty good people, and they do deserve a beautiful property. But if you deserve the property that's beautiful now, you also deserve the huge cost, and the huge loan with the huge payments to maintain it, and you definitely don't deserve all the profit that the folks who buy the first kind of property make from the sale.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

It's not difficult to see how some of the weakest agents and loan officers I know make lots of money. They work for an office of a well advertised chain, and when they get the walk-in traffic, no matter what happens, it's "A great property," or "a great loan." Nice place, priced a hundred thousand above where it should be? "Great property!" Attractive on the surface, but has a cracked foundation that's going to cost a hundred thousand to replace? "Great Property!" A 2/28 a full percent above what you could have had with a thirty year fixed, and with a couple thousand dollars in extra closing costs? "Great Loan!"

It's like working with a cheerleader.

A lot of ex-cheerleaders make a very good living as real estate agents and loan officers. The personality types are a good fit for sales, whether it be real estate or loans. Enthusiastic about everything, no matter how messed up it is. Their answer is always, "We can do it!". The people who don't understand what's really going on, and don't compare it seriously; they hear a putative expert going on like this, and all their warning reflexes get defused. It's human psychology, that when all the barriers should be going up in such situations, they go down instead.

Here's a cold hard fact: There's no such thing as a perfect situation in real estate. No matter what you're doing, buying, selling, or getting a loan, there are always trade-offs. Sometimes the trade-offs are obvious, as with loans, where there is an explicit tradeoff between rate and cost. Sometimes, they're not so obvious or direct, as when comparing between properties for sale. You can understand those trade-offs, and choose the one most advantageous to you, or you can choose in ignorance, metaphorically stamping "sucker!" on your forehead.

A stronger agent or loan officer will explain those choices, and put the consequences of each in context. "This one is $50,000 more, but has another bedroom, another bathroom, and is 300 square feet larger. This one is $40,000 less, but it's going to cost you $80,000 to fix the foundation. This one is $30,000 less, but it's going to cost you about $10,000 for carpet and paint." On the loan side, "You can have a thirty year fixed rate loan at 6.5% for a total cost of $1500, as yield spread will pay the rest, or you can have 6% for a total cost of $8000, or you can have a 5/1 ARM at 6% for $3000, or a true zero cost 5/1 ARM at 6.375%" . An informed choice requires knowledge of both reasons for and against a given option. I don't try and tell them which property to make an offer on or which loan to like more. I can present one in a better light than another, but making the choice is not my job. My job is explaining the consequences of the choices the clients make before they're stuck with them, because in real estate, like everywhere else in real life, there are no "do overs".

People like to be told that everything is going to be easy. But that's not the way to get a good bargain in real estate. You shop for the best loan, force loan officers to compete, compare properties, force your agents to come up with bad things to say about every property, fire any listing agent who won't tell you hard truths from the first time they open their mouth. Real success in real estate is never easy.

Real estate transaction can be made easy - at the price of giving the other side what may be the best deal since the Dutch bought Manhattan. Real estate, particularly in high cost areas where the largest proportion of the population live, is valuable enough that just a few percent of the purchase price can be more than most people make in a year, and if you're not on your guard, you may never know you've been had. I talked with a guy recently who had no clue that there was an identical property four doors down being offered for $140,000 less than he paid, at the time he paid it (I didn't tell him. Not my client, and done is done. No use stirring up trouble or getting him aggravated over something that could no longer be remedied). Really pay attention to the things people will do to save much smaller amounts of money for a few weeks, and it will remove all doubt in your mind as to whether scams happen. To use another gratuitous example, the vast majority of all the negative amortization loans out there. What percentage of people do you think are going to sign off on, "pay interest two percent higher than you could get, compounding against you in the lender's favor, end up owing more than the property is worth and being unable to refinance, and won't be able to afford the payments in three to five years, thereby ruining your credit for life and losing the property as well," if everything is laid out with full disclosure? But millions of people did, and I'm still getting email most weeks from people who were lied to by their loan officers and agents and only figured it out at signing! Bobby McFerrin wrote a great song, but "Don't worry, be happy!" is not the key to a successful real estate transaction. In fact, it's the direct opposite. If you're not willing to be a diligent guardian on your own behalf, I'm willing to bet money that nobody else involved will, either.

Around here, even a "small" transaction puts $300,000 or so onto the table. Ask yourself, "What would I do with $300,000 at stake?" Then ask yourself what the worst scoundrel you know would do with $300,000 at stake. I assure you that the world of real estate has people out there worse than any fictional villain - I've dealt with some of them. The fictional villain has to be believable; the real person only has to exist. Finally, ask yourself what somebody who's almost - but not quite - a saint might be willing to do with $300,000 on the table. The variations should give you a good idea as to the gamut of possibilities, but people are ingenious when it comes to ways to squeeze extra money out of someone else.

Now ask yourself: Do you really want to hire a cheerleader as the expert on your side in light of this? Or do you want a cold-hearted analyst who really understands everything that can go wrong, and is going to tell you the downsides as well as the upsides of everything? It may not be as complex as the game of celestial billiards NASA plays with probes like Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini-Huygens, but a constant between the two is that, like celestial mechanics, real estate transactions have critical moments where if you are just a little bit wrong in what you do, you end up heading in completely the wrong direction, if not splatted into the side of the waypoint at several miles per second. Nor can you usually fix it later if you get it wrong at the critical moment. If you doubt this, spend a little time on any of dozens of real estate forums, reading the stories of the people who got it wrong, and are now trying to fix it.

Buying real estate, or financing it, is a huge decision. So big that the emotional hind brain with all the "flight or flight" stuff over-rides our rational decision-making process, which was layered on in our complex operating system we call a brain much later, and loses out any time there is a conflict between the two. Fear and suspicion are hardwired into the hind brain. If anything about the situation is uncomfortable, the primary reaction of the hind brain is to get out of that situation. In fact, in many cases, the only way some sales folk can move a lot of people off their hunkered down position in mental concrete is by pretending that there is no possible downside to the transaction. Not only is this cheerleading behavior a calculated lie (unless the sales person really is that clueless themselves), but it destroys any element there may be of the healthy response of evaluating the situation completely, from a rational viewpoint. There is no such thing as a real estate transaction without potential downsides, and the ones you don't know about or don't understand are generally much worse than the ones you do.

I don't know how many times I've heard people say things that reduced to "I can't be rational! This is far too important for that!" A good professional's most important job function boils down to keeping intellect in the process. I can't make Mrs. Lee (and women make the decisions when picking out the cave!) decide she emotionally likes the property enough to buy it (Even if I could, I wouldn't - that way lies professional disaster). That's Mrs. Lee's part of the process, and Mr. Lee will help. I can give them enough concrete reasons why or why not to get past that reptilian hind brain's emotional over-ride of the thought process.

I've got to admit that the thought of being able to buy real estate and get loans stress free appeals to me, too. Being a carefree adolescent or child is appealing on a certain emotional level. But it's also profoundly dangerous. One of the wisest and most profound things I've ever read, despite the mixed metaphors, was the following:

"'Let George do it ' is not just the lazy man's motto. It is also the credo of the slave. If you want to be taken care of and not have to worry, that's fine; you can join the rest of the cattle. Cattle are comfortable - that's how you recognize them. Just don't complain when they ship you off to the packing plant. They've bought and paid for the privilege, and YOU SOLD IT TO THEM"

So how about it? Do you want to be comfortable, or do you want to be involved and understand everything going on? Do you want to have it all easy, or would you prefer to plan it through? Do you want to work with a cheerleader, or with an analyst? Maybe you've been reading the news these past couple years. Millions of people are in the process of losing their homes, having their credit ruined for years, and having the rest of their lives ruined, financially. Millions more have already been through it. I've yet to hear of one who was the client of an analyst-type agent or loan officer who disclosed everything the client needed to know at the appropriate time.

There's always going to be a leap of faith somewhere in a transaction. Short of learning the jobs of three or four professionals on the same level of knowledge and practice as they possess, there is no way around this. But by going in with your eyes open, doing your own due diligence, and cross checking what you are told, you can make that leap into a short step, and give yourself confidence that your trust is not misplaced by verifying it isn't misplaced where you can check. Because most of the crooks out there are fundamentally lazy, and can not or will not do the work and preparation that will enable their little drama to withstand even small amounts of real scrutiny. Most of those desperate people I read or get email from, trying to recover from being royally taken advantage of, could have been saved by very small amounts of skepticism and research.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

This is a real, major and pervasive problem in the industry. For a while, it mostly went away as listing agents were desperate for any offer, but it has come back. At least two properties my buyer clients have made offers on in the last few months have sold for substantially less than my clients offered and were both willing and able to pay for the property. Their offers were never acknowledged, nor did we receive a counter-offer. I can tell you this because I have copies of the offer paperwork and have since obtained the final sales price from public records.

This happens for two reasons: The listing agent wants both halves of the commission, and control issues having to do with kickbacks of one sort or another from other sources.

The first is by far the worse. Even if the property sells for ten percent off the price it could have gotten (which may be most or all of your possible equity), the listing agent representing both sides gets paid eighty percent more than if the property sold for the highest possible price to an offer represented by someone else. There are many agencies and brokerages out there that do one thing very well: Getting signatures on listing agreements. Everything else, not so much, but they really are great at getting access to property owners. No matter what city you live in, you've seen the advertising of this type of brokerage. They claim they're great so you should do business with them. However, anyone can claim they are great, especially in non-specific ways.

The goal of all of this is to get you to take the easy way and come to them first, because if they're that successful to afford all that advertising they must be doing a pretty good job for their clients, right? As a result, they can get listing agreements out of property owners who don't understand what's really going on. I hope regular readers know better, because I've gone over why you don't want a "top producer" listing your property before. However, because that signature on the listing agreement gives them control over the property, control over access to the owner of the property, control over what information the owners have access to, and control over who can so much as see the property, there isn't much anyone except the owner can do about it. Indeed, once they sign the listing agreement, there's not much even the owner can do about it.

There are also control issues with kickbacks. Illegal though it may be, many brokerages mandate that all of their transactions go to a certain title company, a certain escrow provider, etcetera, because they somehow make more money (either through kickbacks, common ownership, special services, or reciprocal referrals). However, if the listing agent controls both sides of the transaction, who's going to tell the principals involved that the agent is breaking the law?

Quite often, they even restrict showings of other people's clients, because one of their agenda items is using the property to get buyer clients. Rather than actually working to sell that property (which is what they are obligated to do), they dangle it out there as bait so they can make contact with the foolish sort of buyer who calls the listing agent to see the property and force them into a buyer's agency contract. I was out of town for two days one weekend, and one set of my clients called a listing agent about seeing a property. First, the listing agent told them that "Sure, no problem to see it today!" even though the MLS listing which all other agents see said "48 hour advance notice - by appointment only" There might have been a special circumstance of which the listing agent was aware, but I kind of doubt it because they also wanted my clients to sign an Exclusive Buyer's Agency Agreement in order to see that property. Since I make it a point to educate my clients on this point, they knew to refuse.

Here's the real sticking point: When that agent signed the listing agreement, they accepted a fiduciary responsibility to that seller. It is their responsibility to get it sold for the highest possible price in the quickest time with the fewest problems. It is a violation of that fiduciary duty to their listing client to act as that agent did towards my clients. Their duty is to get that house sold. If someone doesn't see it, they're certainly not going to make a good purchase offer. Anything unnecessary that causes or might cause a buyer to balk about making an offer on that property is a violation of their contractual and legal fiduciary duties. By conditioning prospective buyers seeing the property upon anything other than being there at the first mutually reasonable time, they are in violation of that fiduciary duty to their listing client. However, I must once again ask: If they control all access to that owner, who's going to point this out to the owner?

Here's one person who definitely can't: Any prospective buyer's agent. Both agency law and MLS rules everywhere that I am aware of make it a punishable offense for buyer's agents to contact that owner directly. A buyer's agent could lose their license, MLS access, or both for doing so. It doesn't matter if I "only" lose one - I can't stay in business without both. In other words, the one group of people who have the professional knowledge and interest to possibly inform that property owner that they are being hosed is legally and professionally constrained from doing so. Yes, Virginia, real estate law is structured to protect the major chains and brokerages that advertise constantly (and control the National Association of Realtors and state associations, so they control the vast majority of real estate lobbying).

Nonetheless, if you want to sell your property quickly for the best possible price and without it coming back to bite you, you really do want an agent. The pitfalls and ways that the real estate sharks trap you into their own private feeding frenzy really are enough to make you want an agent even if you couldn't do anything to protect yourself from the bad ones.

So what is a self-interested consumer to do to protect themselves?

Two things: Eliminate the motivation to do this, and eliminate their control over access to you, the property owner.

Both are easy if you know how before you sign the listing contract. Afterwards, they are considerably more difficult if not impossible. Since most consumers don't know enough or don't care enough to do the research beforehand, this is why the vast majority of people who want to sell their property aren't protected. Some listing agents do a very creditable job even though you're not legally protected, but many others don't. Nor is there any real way of gauging their personality for certain ahead of time. It's easy to say the right things before that listing agreement is signed, then go off and do something completely different. Do you want to bet the return on a half million dollar investment on how they will really handle it?

The easy one first: eliminating control of listing agents. There is one exception to the rule about other agents having no permission to contact you: If they are instructed to. Most of the time, you (as the seller) don't want to talk to other agents. But there are two exceptions: If they're having difficulty seeing the property, and if they're making an actual offer. If the listing contract is silent about these two issues, then the listing agent controls these absolutely. Actually, it's their broker, which amounts to the same thing at best, and could be much worse. So if you don't negotiate this in advance, know that you're committing complete control over these two issues to that agent or their brokerage, and there literally is no way for you to find out about any difficulties they don't want you to know about.

What you, as a consumer want, is to get at least duplicates of any offers sent to you directly, and you want to be the one people come to with access issues. You want there to be explicit instructions in MLS to call you directly with any access issues, and to send at least copies of all offers to some facsimile number or email address that you control - not the agent. Put this right into the listing contract. You are entitled to check this on the listing at any time, and you should wander into your listing office at least once during the first week the property is on the market (without telling them you're coming) and demand a copy of your property's full MLS printout - the one that other agents see. You are permitted this on your property and your property only, so be prepared to prove you are who you say you are (Photo ID and copy of listing contract). You should also do this every couple of weeks the property is on the market. Check that the instructions stay what you want them to say in this regard.

Note that even if prospective buyers and their agents don't comply with this instruction, the listing agent has no real way of knowing they didn't. Especially if you wait for that agent to contact you instead of calling them the second you get the fax or email. If they don't contact you within 24 hours, that's everything you need to know about that agent and brokerage. As a buyer's agent, I would be happy to send such duplicates - it means I have some real assurance my client's offer doesn't disappear into the trash can, as I'm pretty certain the ones at the start of the article did. As a listing agent, even if I'm working with the buyers to get me more information (like whether they are qualified) before presenting the offer, I'm going to make sure my seller client knows we've got an offer right away. For me, this happens whether there are instructions to send offer duplicates directly to you or not, but if it didn't, how would you know? I won't get offended by such requests. No good agent who will work for their clients best interests should get offended. It's a legitimate control you are exercising upon the situation, just like any other contractor-contractee relationship. The old maxim about "trust but verify" applies. The agents who get offended or don't want to do this are the ones you should avoid at all costs.

Eliminating the monetary motivation for agents to filter out offers submitted by other agents is harder, but even more important. You as the seller do not want your agent also representing the buyer. Whose side would they really be on? In most cases, all but the worst crooks will be on the side of the seller, but there isn't any way to be certain you aren't one of the exceptions. There are tricks and things that one agent can do that you really can't guard against in general, but it is much less likely that two agents each representing different parties will collude upon. Anything shady, no matter what that might be, and at least one of them can be held legally responsible in a court of law! Nobody wants to be representing the mark in a con when the mark can come after them with an attack lawyer and expect to win a major damage award plus court costs and in many cases jail time.

The way to do this is actually pretty simple: Write it into the listing contract that you will not accept Dual Agency. Period. You don't really care if the buyer is represented or not - if they choose not to be, that's their problem - but you won't permit your agent to represent them. That agent needs to pick a side of the transaction - yours - and stay on it, or they're not getting the listing. If they show the property to some prospective buyer or some buyer wants them to submit an offer, there is a standard form - the Non-Agency Agreement, that explicitly states that both the buyer and that agent agree that there is no agency relationship being created, and the agent is doing whatever they are doing because their contractual relationship with you, the owner of the property, requires that they do it. Tell that agent you won't even consider offers made without another agent until they show you the Non-Agency Agreement. If they can't give you their absolute and sole loyalty for the sale, do you really want them to have the listing?

Furthermore, write it into the listing agreement that if there isn't another agent involved, your agent won't get to keep the buyer's agency share of the commission. A small amount of additional compensation is in order - there really is extra work and extra costs involved, so I ask for an extra half a percent if the buyer is unrepresented, which might just about pay for the extra my transaction coordinator charges plus the gas for meeting the appraiser, inspector, etcetera. You don't want your agent shooing away unrepresented fools offers, either, as they might do if they had to do extra work for no extra pay. You want to put the listing agent's financial motivation squarely where it belongs - they get paid the most money by getting you the highest price on the quickest sale with the fewest problems, not by getting both halves of the commission and the maximum in referral kickbacks.

I'm not real hot on Designated Agency, either, where two different agents working for the same brokerage are buyers and seller's agent. It can work, but the controls necessary to safeguard consumers on both sides are both complex and opaque to that consumer - not to mention that most brokerages don't have them. As a rule of thumb for buyers, if you're working with a good buyer's agent, have been for a while, and it just happens you like a property one of the other agents that works with them is listing, chances are decent that might be okay (about 8 in 10). If you contact the brokerage because they're the ones listing the property, and they refer you to their in-house buyer's agent, chances are 999+ out of 1000 that you should run, not walk, in the other direction. For sellers, it's worse. Unless your listing agent is unavailable for some reason, or that other agent from the brokerage can show a pre-existing buyer's representation agreement, I wouldn't want that offer. There are too many games that can be played, and it makes collusion to someone's detriment much more likely, as these agents work together constantly and might well have the level of mutual trust and teamwork (and possibly direction from the broker) to make a scam work and get away with it. In the majority of cases, this collusion more likely favors the seller than the buyer, but there just isn't a good way for anyone to be certain. As always, if there's a game being played and you can't prove who the mark is, you should assume it's you. Real estate attracts a lot of sharks because of the potential for high profits, and even the cheapest properties have enough profit potential to attract those sharks and all of the con games they play.

The difficult part about this is that the vast majority of agents, even those who aren't necessarily among the worst, will strenuously object to these provisions. Most agents really want to "double end" their deals - represent both the buyer and seller - simply because they do get paid more. Most have never taken the time to understand all of the ethical and legal issues with "double ending" a transaction. But these provisions against getting both halves of the commission really are necessary to remove the motivation that causes bad agents to throw up barriers to offers not represented by them. You don't want them to even be tempted to filter out offers, restrict or refuse showings, or require that prospective buyers do business with their business associates, all of which are bad for you, but result in that agent eventually receiving more money either directly or indirectly.

One more thing is beneficial: Require a notation in MLS that says you welcome
buyer's agents presenting offers in person. Your agent should also want to present counter-offers in person. This not only gives you another opportunity for outside contact uncontrolled by your listing agent, it humanizes that transaction. It turns a faceless fax machine spewing paper into real live human beings. You'd be amazed how much it helps the probability of the transaction actually closing.

The issue of listing agents acting for their own benefit to the detriment of the clients is real, is common, and is once more increasing in magnitude. If you're a property owner who wants to sell on the best terms possible, you need to protect yourself from the problem before you sign that listing contract.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

One of the hard things to get through to sellers is to understand the characteristics of the sort of buyers they need in order to have a successful transaction. If a given set of prospective buyers can't afford the property, they might look anyway. They might even make an offer, and it's possible the offer might even be accepted. But in the current loan environment, the necessary loan won't fund, so the transaction isn't going to actually happen.

Furthermore, it's a good idea to know the income characteristics you're aiming at by the price you set. If you set a price of $400,000, what does someone who can afford a combination of cash and loan that add up to $400,000 look like, in the economic sense of the word? You'll know better than I who makes and does not make that kind of money in your area, but you should know it. I know it for San Diego. This isn't the kind of knowledge that comes from 10 minutes on the internet. I know what professions do and do not make the required money, and what professions for which it's a matter of where a particular prospect falls on that profession's pay scale, but it's taken me years to learn, just for San Diego, and every city is different.

The point is this: Once you've figured out how much various professions make and the price you think the property is worthy of, that gives us a lot of information about how to get the property sold. You have to figure out how to get the attention of buyers in that category, you have to have a plan of how to set the bait so they will go look, you have to figure out how to make the property attractive to them when they do go look, and they have to have a clear action to take in order to make an offer. In theory, this is nothing more than the standard marketer's AIDA (Attention, Interest, Desire, Action) sequence, but the practicalities take a lot of effort to learn in this specific instance.

Most areas have their own character. Some neighborhoods have a working class character, while others attract highly paid professionals. Some have an artsy orientation, others are very matter of fact. Properties have their own characteristics. The one property in the neighborhood with a panoramic view of the area is not going to appeal to the buyer who's looking for any hole in the wall, so long as it's in that neighborhood so their kid can go to Super Education High School. Put property character and neighborhood character and the price you want to obtain together, and if you're a listing agent, that had better give you an idea of exactly who you're hoping to attract to your property. Like all targeted marketing, you won't turn away someone from out of the targeted demographic, so long as they can actually get the transaction done, but you don't have to be in the business long to discover that you'll do better by appealing to the degreed professional who makes the money to qualify based on Debt to Income Ratio for an 80 to 90 percent Loan to Value Ratio loan, than you will targeting the fry cook who's saved and invested for twenty years and is all of a sudden ready to buy the property now that he has a 70 percent down payment. That fry cook may show up on their own anyway, but how many people do you know who save that much over that long a period and then want to spend it all on real estate? As opposed to the newly married professional couple who've been in their careers a few years each, have a little bit of money saved, and now they want to stretch their budget as far as they can? Most people take precisely this latter path, and that is why you should concentrate your efforts to sell to those people most likely to buy your property.

The rates are going to change a little bit every day, but in most cases, it's not going to be significant change. Things like interest only loans will stretch their qualification a little bit, but those are best approached with a trembling hand for purchases, and you're better off planning for the buyer being advised that the property may be too expensive for them in such an instance, and having a plan in place, than you are hoping that everything goes perfectly for you to sell to an unsuspecting buyer. Yes, you're selling and once you get your money, you really don't care what happens. But these days, a lot of agents and loan officers are suddenly discovering the advantages of really looking out for their client's best interest, and you don't want to assume that your prospective buyer's agent will not be one of them. Remember, you're trying to look ahead and get a consummated transaction for the best practical price - and a buyer with a loan that does not fund is not the one you want, no matter how good the initial offer.

Not all loan amounts are the same. Conforming Loans are better than "Jumbo". There is no more 100% financing except for VA Loans (and they have issues of their own). Subprime was kind of in Never Never Land back then (now it's mostly dead). If you read between the lines of what their reps were saying before the industry imploded completely, they wanted A paper borrowers who didn't know they could get an A paper loan. And nobody wants to touch stated income loans right now, no matter how good the credit score or down payment. Fact. Whether you're a seller or a buyer, you can live with it and plan for it, or you can fight it and still lose.

So what I'm going to do is compute the monthly cost of housing on purchases of a given size, together with the income to qualify. I'm going to assume this is California, with California property tax rates. Furthermore, I'm just going to make a flat allowance for Homeowner's Insurance plus Association dues of $250 per month. It's not exact, but it'll put you in the right ballpark. With a specific property, you can get closer, or course.

Let's start with 90% financing, a 90% loan with PMI, because that's the only way to do it right now. This obviously requires the buyer having a 10% down payment plus a bit, and limits us to conforming loan amounts. I'm also going to do the numbers at an assumed 6% loan rate, because that is a better long term rule of thumb. Here's what it takes:

In other words, a family who wants to buy a $400,000 property with a 10% down payment needs to be making almost $82,000 per year. Them's the facts, and that's not including any existing debt service they may have. Credit cards, car payments, student loans, etcetera. If other debt service is $500 per month, you raise the income to qualify by over $1100, and the yearly income by $13,000 plus change. San Diego's Area Median Income is a little over $69,000, and a family making that much money can afford a loan of about $320,000 currently - if they don't have any other debt. If they have a huge down payment, of course, it's easier, but how many people have you encountered recently with huge down payments?

Now, let's consider people who actually have a 20% down payment. Most likely, they bought a condo a few years ago and now they've sold it, but they had enough equity in the condo to account for that 20% down on the more expensive property. Or they sold the condo and bought a starter home, and now they've sold that and are looking to move up again. This is without PMI, and having some equity means that not only are the terms of the loan more favorable, but you don't have to borrow as much to buy a property that costs the same, and so a property of the same value is much more easily affordable.

Once again, this assumes there's no other debt service involved. But if you've got a home with a $700,000 price tag, you're still looking at trying to lure in a buyer family that makes a minimum of at least $10,000 per month. These kinds of buyers are not going to go for old carpet and a carpet allowance. They want the seller to have already dealt with it. Even if it's the cheapest, most beat up property in Rancho Santa Fe, on the smallest lot, the sellers are still going to take a hit on the price that's a lot bigger than the actual cost of such things for not dealing with it themselves.

For a successful listing, you need to know your target market - know who you are trying to sell to. It's a hard lesson to get across, but it really is necessary to pick your targets in order to hit them. Some people do buy properties that are apparent mismatches between their lifestyle and the property, but not many. As listing agents, we need to understand what is and is not a match before setting off to attract a buyer, and recommending appropriate measures to the owner before it goes on the market. We need to write the listing promo appropriately to attract to needed demographic, and not only we but our clients as well are much better off by concentrating our marketing efforts where they are most likely to net a fully consummated transaction at the best possible price.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Somebody asked me that.

Well, I'd want to set some aside for liquidity and reserves, in case something happened where I needed money now. invest those funds in a diversified mutual fund and money market portfolio. Once that's done, I'd buy some rental properties, because when government inflicted economic sabotage shakes out, anything I buy now is going to be a lot more valuable in real terms. Leverage the money right, and we're talking at least two to one return, probably more like four to six.

Specifically, Condominiums, and Townhomes. High density housing.

Why? Well for an illustration as to the first part of that reason, look at my article Economics of Home Ownership in High Density Areas. We're in a phase here in southern California where we're getting ready to switch, by economic necessity, away from the single family detached property on its own lot and towards the community interest lot. Land is just too expensive. The average person or family, making an average paycheck, can no longer afford single family detached housing within commuting distance of work unless they've got one heck of a down payment. The demand is too high, and the supply too limited, for everyone who wants one to have one. When that sort of situation happens, price goes up until enough people get priced out.

Here's the trip: When you're talking rent, half million dollar single family detached housing rents for maybe $1800 per month. But if you buy a $200,000 condo, it rents for $1000 to $1200. Put 20% down, and it's very possible to have a positive cash flow on such a unit - something it's not currently possible to have with the detached house. The fact that the spread is so small is temporary, of course, but in the meantime it's an opportunity for a sort of arbitrage.

Furthermore, the average family can afford a fairly nice condominium or townhome. It's just that during the Era of Make Believe Loans, people were told they didn't have to "settle." So they purchased properties far beyond their real means, because they were being told they could qualify for those ridiculously high dollar value loans.

(I call it the Era of Make Believe Loans because the agent made believe people could afford more expensive properties, the lender made believe that people could qualify, and the consumers made believe that there weren't deadly traps they were falling into on every single one of them. It was seductively easy for everyone. The agent didn't have to sell only the property the client could afford, or "settle" for the smaller commission. The lender and loan originators could make money hand over fist on paper. The consumers could pretend they could afford a property far beyond their means, and didn't have to "settle" for what they could really afford. And people are still making believe that the Era of Make Believe Loans is going to come back.)

But denial has a definite half life when it encounters pervasive economic reality. Once it's become accepted that the housing market has stabilized from its free fall, people will be forced to look reality straight in the eye. We had the bubble, we had the pop, and now it's time to start going up again. Once it starts happening, families will be forced to confront the fact that they can't get the American Dream all in one easy step by essentially clicking their heels together and declaiming, "There's no place like Oz!" They will have three options: Stay a renter forever, move away to somewhere there is less demand or more supply, or settle for what they can afford, leveraging it to something better. When larger number of people realize that those are their choices, the demand for and price of condominiums is going to shoot up.

So, put $40,000 or $50,000 into a $200,000 condo, rent it for $1200 per month, and your cash flow is just about even. That's the second half; the situation right now, as it exists. I've predicted rents are heading up in the near future several times (and they have been). Rent goes up, I'm making a couple hundred dollars per month while values are climbing. In a few years, I've a property that has doubled in value while making me some small cash in the meantime. Multiply this by a dozen, and I've got two to three million dollars from an investment of six hundred thousand or so. Plus, of course, I'm going to pull all the old flipper's tricks just before I sell them. Yes, there's risk - risk that can be minimized and dealt with. That's why I wouldn't be sinking every last penny I had into it, a mistake way too many people have made in the last few years.

Right now, the market in Southern California is very highly segmented, meaning that prices and demand for some things (Single family residences in desirable parts of town) is through the roof while there's a glut of other things (condos in most places). Condos are, for most people, what my econ professors used to call substitute goods for single family detached housing. But when people figure out that it's condos or rent or leave the city where they really want to live, they'll start going for the condos. The hassle of HOAs is nothing near as bad as having a landlord.

Of course, nobody's giving me a million dollars. But if you have $50,000 sitting around, you can make about 10% per year in the stock market with a reasonable amount of risk, Over ten years, that's turning your money into about $138,000. Or, if California real estate increases at an average rate of 5% per year for the next ten years (our forty year average is about 7%), that $200,000 condo turns into a $325,000 condo, while your loan has been paid down to $125,000 and you walk away with $200,000, not counting the cash in your pocket between now and then. If we should actually tie our long term average of 7% annualized increases, that's a $390,000 condo and you walk away with $265,000. Meanwhile, the cash flow picture gets better every year as rents increase. Your choice, of course, but I'm not the only one who sees an opportunity here.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

If a home for sale has a refrigerator included on the listing report, and the buyer's agent does not write that it goes to the seller in a contract, is the buyer actually entitled to the refrigerator. I am actually going through this right now.

The listing does not matter. What does the purchase contract say? That is the complete controlling fact of the whole entire transaction.

If the contract is silent, what matters most is whether the refrigerator in question is appurtenant to the land or not. Appurtenances are things which are physically and structurally attached to the land which is always the primary thing being sold in a real estate transaction. For a standard house, nobody would seriously argue that they have the right to remove it, because it is attached securely to the property. There are service pipes coming out of the ground attached to the ground and a foundation it is attached to. There are electrical service wires, telephone wires, and cable TV wires. All of which would come up if you pulled the house away. So the house is appurtenant to the land. This is how all real estate transactions are really structured, by the way. You are buying the land, and the house, if there is one, comes along because it's attached to that land.

So if the refrigerator is somehow built in, such that removal would be a nontrivial project, then it's appurtenant to the land. If all you have to do us unplug it and push it away on a dolly, that's not appurtenant, and there is no more reason why they should have to leave that than why they should have to leave their dog, cat, or child.

Now this is not to say that you can't build an excellent court case based upon the fact that there was an implicit promise made in the listing, and everything else in the contract was built off of what that listing said. Talk to an attorney for more information than I can ever give you on that score.

Even if they're not obligated, the seller might leave the refrigerator anyway. Maybe they've got another, maybe they are just living up to what they promised even though they might not be legally required to do so. It's not like most people go around looking for ways to be evil. I've never met anyone who acted like a Disney villain. I have met some pretty shady characters, but mostly they're more sophisticated about it.

The thing to do, if you're concerned about the refrigerator or anything else where you want it to stay, is to put it in the purchase contract. If the listing says these appliances stay, putting it into the purchase contract won't offend the owner - it should be something they expect.

In any of these cases, the seller can force you to go to court by being an obstinate donkey, even when they haven't got a leg to stand on, legally speaking. It's not like you have the magic power of enforcing agreements. That power belongs solely to the executive branch of government, which will take no action in cases like this without a court order. Whatever the court says is final. Be aware, however, of the cost of bringing the law into it. Unless it's some $25,000 wonder fridge, it is not likely to be worth going to court over, and maybe not then. Much cheaper to buy a new refrigerator, and your expected return on investment is much higher.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

I am seeing a very disturbing trend these past few months. Rather than do the work they should be doing, listing agents are treating the entire short sale process as a kind of "Black Box", delegating the negotiations with the lender to a negotiations firm, treating the negotiation firm's advice as if it were handed down from on high, and expecting buyers (and their agents) to blindly follow along in profound indifference to the buyer's interest. Sadly, they're getting a lot of cooperation from buyer's agents who should know better but are acting more like sperm donor agents than real agents.

I have seen the following demands from these knuckleheads :

• trying to require buyers to pay repairs, termite etc before they own a property, when in fact the transaction may never come off
• requiring buyers to pay the negotiation firms that they had no role in hiring, because the lenders allegedly won't allow it to come out of sale proceeds. Maybe you should take the hint the lenders are giving you - these negotiators and their recommendations do not serve the interests of any of the three principals to a short sale transaction. The interests they serve are those of a lazy (and horrible) listing agent
• Agreeing to keep the offer open at least sixty days without an accepted purchase contract

The answer to any of these demands is short, simple, and to the point: No.

You want my client to pay for repairs to a property they don't own (and most often the sellers don't want to take it off the market)? How can agreeing to this not be a violation of buyer fiduciary interest?

You want my buyer to give keep an offer open two months without a valid purchase contract?

You want my buyer to pay a firm that they have no role in hiring and does nothing to represent their best interests?

First off, ladies and gentlemen, if you don't have a valid purchase contract, the thing to do is walk away. There is a world of difference between "offer accepted pending lender approval of short sale" and "we have submitted your offer to the lender" In the first case, you have a contract with one contingency - kind of like a loan or inspection contingency on the buyer's side, only from the seller's side instead. Nothing wrong with that. Transactions with seller contingencies happen every day. But it also means you have an accepted offer. There can be only one accepted offer, and once there is an accepted offer, the property needs to be removed from the market and no other offers may be considered until this one falls apart. In other words, the seller is stuck with the buyer every bit as much as the buyer is stuck with the seller.

But if you don't have an accepted offer, what you have is "Hope I get it". Kind of like the Little Engine That Could, except there is no defined end to the process and it's not under your control. It's just repeat the mantra of "Hope I get it' until you get told that you didn't. That choice of phrasing was very considered, by the way. Under this scenario, listing agents submit multiple offers to the bank - a recipe for disaster if ever there was one from both the perspective of the buyer and the seller. If the bank keeps getting offers, what are they going to do? That's right, keep the property on the market hoping for a better offer. Whereas if you show them some hard back and forth negotiation and one or more prospective buyers dropping out of the process until only one is left, that's good evidence that that is all the property is worth.

Understand this in your bones: That short sale lender wants one thing above all else: Their money. As much of their money as they can possibly arrange to get back. The owner's job transfer, illness, etcetera, are not their problem. I straightforwardly advise buyers to avoid short sales but some people decide they just have to try for one. That lender needs to see conclusive evidence that there is no way they are getting any more money out of this property and this owner before they will approve the short sale. They need to understand that this is all the market will support, and that the current owner cannot pay them any additional money, and that if they don't get off their fat backsides and approve this pronto, not only are they going to end up with less money when this buyer walks, but they're going to have to pay the expenses of getting it sold as well as the penalties for having a nonperforming asset on their books.

The way to approach that is to negotiate hard with prospective buyers, as if the lender weren't part of the picture. You still have to disclose short sale status, but negotiate as if it's a regular sale (Sadly, many listing agents can't even do that). The best evidence that this is what the property is worth is that you tried to convince multiple people to offer more, and this one you picked is the one that's the best for the lender. Submitting more than one offer to the lender is a recipe for Delay and two different forms of Denial from that lender. They are going to want to wait until they get still more offers.

The lenders do have a secondary concern to getting their money, and that is time. It may be difficult to believe for agents and buyers and sellers who wait three months waiting for the bank to make up their mind, but the bank really would rather move quickly. Time costs them more money. It's just that most listing agents do not and will not do the work of actually getting the offer approved by the short sale lender - which they accepted responsibility for when they took that listing. "Short sale specialist" means a lot more than hiring a negotiating firm!

This nonsense about asking buyers to fork over cash for repairs before closing, asking them to keep offers open without an acceptance of that offer, and asking them to agree to pay the negotiating firm are all things that an appropriately represented buyer is going to ask for concessions for. Concessions on price, concessions on indemnification, concessions just for putting up with the ridiculous nonsense on stilts. This all translates to the buyers who are well-qualified and have plenty of resources walking away, while the ones who are marginal or even below qualification level are perfectly willing to hang around in the hope that a miracle will happen. What else this means is that the property sells for a lower price. But the Broker's Price Opinion has no way to reflect these unattractive things making the property worth less to the buyers. It is therefore going to come in higher than the sales price. So we have two additional ways that the transaction falls apart because the listing agent couldn't do the correct thing in the first place. With stuff like this happening, is it any mystery why four out of five short sales fail? Is it any wonder that the better buyer's agents advise their clients to avoid short sales?

Short sales done correctly are really pretty much like regular sales, albeit with one long, difficult and thoroughly unpleasant step added. But what happens before that step shouldn't be any different for a short sale than any other property. Nor should what comes after be any different, except that the seller cannot get any cash out of the deal. The one extra step that is actually necessary does impact buyer desirability, but not nearly so much as all of the unnecessary nonsense (euphemism alert!) that some listing agents insist upon adding.

All of this is, incidentally, one more piece of evidence that most major real estate brokerages are built around the seller and listing property for sale for minimum effort on their part, especially of any actual licensed agent involved. The buyer can go hang. In some cases, literally. No buyer's agent worth what comes out of the south side of a northbound cow is going to counsel their buyers to put up with this stuff, at least not without a lot of concessions including a major downwards adjustment on price (and as I covered above, the lenders will deny such sales when the broker's price opinion comes in too high). But people still keep calling listing agents about their property without having a buyer's agent to advise them. Given that, the agents think they'll find some clueless victim to sell it to. All too often, someone proves them right. In the meantime, like Tina Teaser, the worthless listing agent who is really impeding the sale of the property uses the listing to make contact with as many buyers as possible.

Buyers can't force sellers to sell, much less to sell to them in particular. But sellers and listing agents shouldn't be blind to things that cause buyers to walk away or to be willing to pay less simply because the sellers are not getting cash out of the deal. Especially in a short sale situation. They may not get cash, but soon enough they will be back to getting 1099s for forgiveness of debt, a taxable event. Every dollar they can prevent the lender from losing is going to help them.

The general statistic is that one short sale in five actually comes off. Given the nonsense listing agents expect buyers to put up with, it's no wonder that buyers getting disgusted and walking away is right at the top of the list of reasons for fall out. Sellers need that buyer - without a buyer, they don't have a sale, and nobody sells their property on a short sale without a need. Nor does this nonsense on stilts motivate the bank to get off their backside and approve the short sale. Quite the opposite, actually.

Caveat Emptor (and Vendor)

Original article here

I want to sell my home for sale by owner. Is 1.5% a good amount to co-broke? Or will agents avoid me?

In most of the country, this is a buyer's market right now. You need to compete more strongly for that buyer's business than anyone else in order to win the sale.

When I'm working with a buyer, the contract says that my brokerage gets a certain percentage of the sales price. So it doesn't matter too much to me what your co-broke (aka CBB, paid to a buyer's agent by the listing agent or seller) is to me. If you don't pay it, my buyers will. Furthermore, my contract is non-exclusive, so I have incentive to get them into whatever property is going to make them happiest, as soon as possible. If I won't (or can't) do it, somebody else will, and that's how it should be, so if your property really is the best property for that client, the low co-broke won't stop me. As I said, I get my minimum percentage from any property I help the client with. Better the minimum off yours than nothing when somebody else turns them onto yours. So you're not going to be eliminated by good agents on that scale alone. However:

Even to agents in situations comparable to mine, a low CBB like that is very indicative of an owner who is overly greedy, has over-priced the property, and won't negotiate it down to anything reasonable. I've seen this at least dozens of times, probably hundreds. No exceptions to this rule yet. Better I just don't waste my time or worse, that of my clients.

This is on top of the constant issues of dealing with a For Sale By Owner (FSBO), 99% plus of whom want me to act as their agent. or at least do the work of their agent and assume that liability, as well as the buyers'. Well, I don't do dual agency anyway, and I certainly don't do it unpaid, and because there's nobody with E&O insurance on the other side of the equation, I can do all of my due diligence and then some, but because the seller lies, I still end up sued by an unhappy buyer because I'm the only one involved they can get money from. FSBOs have literally 100 times the disclosure problems agent represented properties do. Trying to persuade owners who think they did everything they need to by putting a sign in the yard to fulfill the rest of their legal obligations is a painful process, and getting them to negotiate in good faith is chancy. I've had - and heard from other agents - more "chiseler" episodes from trying to buy a FSBO property. The probability of dealing with the "chiseler" goes up by at least a factor of 10 for all FSBO properties. And if you think I don't cover this with my clients, you're wrong. It's part of my job to let them know the risks of what they might be getting into, before they're in the middle of them. A good percentage of all clients comes straight out and tells me that they don't want to consider FSBOs once I've explained the facts.

Yes, a lot of this is "guilt by association" type judgments. Nonetheless, it's how you are asking people to view you. People who hang out with outlaw biker gangs are presumed to be outlaw bikers. Doesn't matter if you wear a suit and tie and a $400 haircut and have a nice genteel manner. You're an outlaw biker gang member, and until and unless people get to know you as an individual, that's the perception you're going to have to live with. (Lest my meaning be mistaken, I'm pulling a hypothetical example. I don't think I've ever actually met or seen an outlaw biker gang. There was a large biker club seated next to us at a restaurant not too long ago. Their clothes and haircut were a little out of the ordinary, but they were mostly like other folks. Had a great conversation about our respective kids with one couple). I'd like to have the time to individually know all of the properties available well enough to discard guilt by association, but there aren't enough hours in the day.

Finally, if my buyer's cash is a little tight in the first place, the fact that they're going to have to come up with that money out of their pocket can be a deal-killer right there. Buyer cash to close is the number one obstacle to a successful transaction. It's a "lose your license" offense for agents to attempt to negotiate a higher CBB at point of offer in my state. Agents do it anyway, but I have zero sympathy for them when they get caught. But having to come up with that extra amount of cash can drive my buyers below a breakpoint on the loan, and possibly even torpedo the loan altogether, which means it's significantly harder to convince myself your property is the best one for the client.

One more thing: For agents who get exclusive buyer's agency agreements, as opposed to the non-exclusive ones I work with, your property is not a contender. Period, end of sentence. You're making them work too hard, plus they want the highest CBB they can get, and they get paid no matter who helps the buyers buy, and they have enough control to make it very difficult for a buyer to go to a place with a low CBB. Not to mention that their usual CBB is higher and this means yet more difference between what you're paying and what their contract calls for, meaning that even if their client should somehow find your property, and love it, the cash to close issue is going to make it very difficult for them to do business with you.

So you make the call:

Buyer's market, you have to make your property look more attractive than anyone else's to even attract attention. Price, condition, location - you've got to have something that stands out above the market to attract an offer in the first place, and everything else has to be competitive as well.

Add the fact that a low CBB tells experienced buyer's agents that you're someone to stay away from

Add all of the FSBO issues, and there's a lot of them. They're not minor from the agent's perspective, and they're even worse from an informed buyer's.

Then top it off with hitting the buyer's cash to close, potentially killing a viable deal, and both the buyer and their agent want to know why they should bother with your property, as opposed to the one across the street, with a CBB that pays the buyer's agent what they've got coming without the buyer having to come up with cash, with an agent on the other side who at least might know your market and price it correctly, and is unlikely to try to deceive my client by not disclosing known issues, and is going to get all of the work done in a timely fashion without me having to work them over, because they want to get paid too, and they don't want this transaction coming back to bite them any more than I do.

Which of these two properties do you think buyers and their agents are going to find more attractive? Even if they're equivalent properties priced the same?

People aren't looking for reasons to buy your property. They're looking for reasons not to buy your property. If you want to sell your property, get a good agent to list it for you, list at a price that reflects the current market, and offer an average CBB for your area. If you don't want to sell your property, why are you putting yourself through the hassle and expense of putting it on the market?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I just got off the phone with an agent who claims to have three offers on the property, but he doesn't want to counter the offer. He just wants my client to voluntarily throw more money (or more something) onto the table.

We're going to decline to do that.

The offer we made was good. The other agent, if they knew what they were doing, would just be fishing - or rather, hoping to get us to go fishing voluntarily, adding more and more bait until they finally decide they had better hit it. Not really a horrible strategy, but wickedly vulnerable to agents who understand negotiation. The only reasonable way to respond is to ask the other side to take it, leave it, or tell you what they really want. Someone who understands negotiation is going to tell them exactly what I did - which is "You can take it, leave it, or counter. But we're not going to go on a fishing expedition. Tell us what you want and we'll talk about it."

However this particular agent either didn't know what they were doing or were pretending not to know. As a rationalization for his actions, he said, "I've had multiple offers and lost them all when I countered."

So?

Every listing agent gets desperation checks. Sometimes they're flippers looking to turn a quick buck. Sometimes they're serious investors. Sometimes they are even people who intend to live there forever and ever. What all three of these (and many other situations) have in common is that they say to themselves, "Let's see if we can get it for that."

The intelligent way to respond is usually to counter offer. Below a certain point, of course, you want to respond with, "Offer rejected - do better!". But if they're in the right general ballpark, the way to get what you want is to tell them what you want. You won't get everything. That's what negotiation is all about. But you would be amazed at how often terms that are important to one party are something the other party can meet without any downside.

Furthermore, you don't want to sell to a "Let's see if we can get it for that" offer. Yeah, some folks will walk away if you counter. Those are the folks that you don't want to sell to anyway. Even if every single one of ten offers walks away, you haven't lost anything - because those people weren't willing to offer a reasonable price. If you price the property correctly, it will get offers, and you will be able to sell to one of them for right around the market price. If you over-priced your property, desperation checks are all that you're likely to get. If you underprice the property, you will get hordes of offers, but it's unlikely to be bid up as far as where it should have been in the first place.

(How can a consumer tell if their property is over-priced or under-priced or priced just right? By the offers you get and their timing, of course! It's one of those zen things like the chicken and the egg. It's also why the discussion of list price should not be easy for anyone - because by the time it becomes apparent you went with the wrong answer, fixing it will only repair some of the damage)

You never know which offer is and isn't going to come back with something better. So you give them a reason to offer you something better by telling them what you really want. Yeah, number one on the list is usually money. But sometimes it isn't. And sometimes subsidiary concerns can make all the difference, even getting the property for fewer dollars than another offer.

Being unwilling or unable to counter without losing good offers is the mark of a very weak agent. Unfortunately, by the time you find out they're a weak agent in this fashion, it's probably too late. When I'm the buyer's agent, I don't really want the first offer accepted, and those few of my clients who've had it happen can testify that I really am mortified when it happens. I want to talk about what my client wants, and how we can go from the first offer to something both sides are happy with. Whatever happened to "never take the first offer"? Don't they teach that anymore? The first offer is just an opening, like "hello" in a conversation.

One legitimate fear is that an unqualified buyer may sign a counter exactly as it is, creating a purchase contract that ties the property up for months while you find out they can't really qualify. That is the only situation where I delay the actual counter until I am certain the buyer can qualify. But I do call the offering agent and ask for more evidence the buyer will be able to qualify. This is in line with the precept of "ask for what you want, and explain why they should give it to you" precept. After they provide information that persuades me these folks will qualify for the necessary loan, they'll get a counter.

Counter as fast as you can - within a day is best if you can. Don't wait for X number of offers before you counter. Every day you delay is a chance these buyers will get interested in something else and walk away, or just get tired of waiting and move on with their search. It does no good to counter six weeks later when they're almost ready to close escrow on a different property. Even if they're not in escrow on something else yet, if you take more than two weeks ( within three days is much better!) at the most they've mentally written your property off and moved on with their search. It's no longer fresh on their mind. You've lost your window of opportunity.

If a qualified buyer signs one of several counters my clients make, that's not a disaster. That's exactly what I want. Every counter I put out there is something that would make my client happy. Do I care which offer gets signed? Well, sometimes when something about their situation (like having a known problem agent representing them) makes me hope it isn't them. But that doesn't stop me from putting the offer back out there. It's my clients needs that are important, and if my client needs me to deal with these issues, that's part of why I'm getting paid.

Not being willing to counter is like hoping the fish is going to jump right into the boat. Yes, you know they're out there in the lake, but you haven't hooked them and you definitely haven't landed them yet. The property is the bait, but the counter is the hook - it lets them know exactly what you want, and why they should give it to you. You're more likely to get what you want by telling a buyer what that is.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

The stock market has a phenomenon where a company's stock is "Priced for perfection." It may sound nice, but "priced for perfection" is emphatically not a good thing. It's where the stock price of a company has been bid up so much that only if absolutely everything goes the company's way is it going to be a good investment. If anything doesn't fall the company's way, their stock will prove to have been overpriced because the income stream will then not support the stock price at current market levels. In a nutshell, an analyst who tells you a stock is "priced for perfection" is telling you that it's very likely you'll lose money in the short term, and even if it's a good solid company the time to buy is not now.

Real estate has a similar phenomenon. Real estate agents aren't stock analysts, so I've never heard someone else use the phrase in this context, but it's very similar to the stock market phenomenon of the same name. I saw a property a few days ago that brought the concept to mind more strongly than any other I've seen recently.

The first thing that leaped out at you was that this property was a work of art. Someone had put a huge amount of money and labor into this property. The kitchen was almost brand new, well laid out, and had pretty much every amenity or convenience I can think of. The floors were all beautiful. The back yard pool needed to be resurfaced, but the entire thing was laid out beautifully for entertaining. The front bedroom had been converted to a very functional and attractive office. Both bathrooms were gorgeous and modern. The electrical was wonderful. Even the garage had been done up with a dozen or so tall cedar (cedar!) storage cabinets.

But the more I thought about it, the less I liked the property. First off, it was a tiny house with tiny rooms on a tiny lot - it was only the fact it was vacant that prevented it from driving this point home on the level of a ball-peen hammer between the eyes. My clients were talking about moving walls to make it more livable, and with everything they thought of, I immediately had a reason why they didn't want to do that, relating to either eventual sale value or severely impacted livability in the meantime. You literally could not do anything to improve the house without adversely impacting something else. My clients were hung up on how gorgeous the whole thing was "But this room is small and we want it bigger" and I had to explain that you could get the room by taking it from the kitchen or garage. If you take it from the kitchen, there goes that beautiful kitchen you love and the family area goes away. If you take it from the garage, you lost half those storage cabinets you love. Want to expand the master? Same trouble. The Second bedroom? There goes a third of that yard you love, and all that's left is a small ring around the pool. There simply was no room. The current owners had done literally everything that could be done.

Then there was the matter that the neighborhood was in such a condition as led me to believe it had seen better days, and this was the smallest house on the smallest lot. The investment potential in such circumstances is limited, to say the least. The house was priced with a premium for how beautiful it was now - but new appliances get old, beautiful surfaces do age, and entropy will take its toll. The more I thought about it, the more strongly I was against my clients buying it. The only thing in favor of buying it was the same thing in favor of buying any residential property right then - the generally low price condition of the market in general.

The entire effect was a property that just oozed the "I'm beautiful! Buy me!" vibe that works so very well on the majority of middle class buyers. And if it was a "forever and ever" house where you just wanted to live there exactly as it was, and didn't care about how much your heirs get after you die, there would be no reason not to buy it. But such buyers are exceedingly rare. I can think of one such set I've had in the last three years, and the people I was with weren't them, so as I explained the property's shortcomings to them, I kept going back to what their Plan was, which included likely moving again in a few years.

Lest you misunderstand, it was neither a Misplaced Improvement nor a Vampire Property. It was in excellent shape; the only repair bill I could see coming was resurfacing the pool. And the neighborhood supported its value just fine, thank you. No, the neighborhood wasn't beautiful, but it was decent, and everywhere you looked were bigger properties on bigger lots. If they weren't so exquisitely cared for, they still supported the value of this property just fine. The problem with this property was precisely how beautiful it was, which made it attractive to Mr. and Ms. Middle class, and therefore quite likely to bid the sales price up and considerably over the real value of the property. Future value appreciation would be limited to general market increases, less the effects of time on all of the beautiful surfaces that are freshly installed now, less the effects of what looks like a neighborhood that is on a gradual downslope relative to the general market.

Would I have pointed any of this out if I were the listing agent? Are you out of your mind? When listing, my responsibility is to get the highest price for the quickest sale and the fewest issues. If I were the listing agent, I would have pointed out all of the beautiful areas and exquisite craftsmanship, and kept my mouth shut about how small it was and how their plans to move this wall or that would adversely impact everything else. That's the listing agent's legal duty, it's good business and it's even fair, honest and ethical dealing.

In this case however, I was acting on behalf of the buyers, so I had an obligation to talk to my clients and save them from being seduced by the property, or at least enter into the relationship with their eyes open. If on sober reflection they had wanted to make an offer anyway, I certainly would have done so, but it's the buyer's agent's legal duty to point out and explain any downsides they see to a property. That many alleged buyer's agents fail in this is not an excuse for me to do so. It's also a crucial difference between a discount agent who rebates a percentage of their commission and a real buyer's agent. I saved my clients a lot more than the entire agency commission by talking them out of this property; something a discounter would never do. Not to mention that they would have been miserable the entire time they were in the property. Which means I may not get paid for my work that day, but when I do get paid, I will have earned every penny before they even see the property they eventually do buy, by keeping them out of this financial disaster waiting to happen. It will happen to someone - but not my clients.

This is one more illustration of why you want a good buyer's agent, and why you want to sign a non-exclusive buyer's agency agreement. A bad or discount agent will never spot this problem, and if you don't give them the security of knowing you're willing to keep working with them as long as they do a good job, there's no incentive for even the good agent to mention it. I would have told them anyhow - what's right for my clients is right for me, period. But it shouldn't be news to anyone that there are agents who will keep quiet about such things if you're only asking them to show you one property. Find a Good Buyer's Agent and be willing to sign the standard non-exclusive agency contract. It really does protect you.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I am buying a home, but the contract said they wont sell the oil rights, what does this means? should I buy

That was J Paul Getty's great contribution to real estate, and why he got so rich. He retained the mineral rights on every parcel he sold, and it has become standard practice in the industry nationwide, if not worldwide, with respect to most property. Such rights typically pass without any rights of ingress (meaning they can't enter your property), but it typically isn't difficult for the holders to buy rights of ingress from someone in the area. This means they can't sink a mine shaft on your property unless you sell them the rights to do so. It is to to be noted that you're not likely to be real happy if one of your neighbors sells them access, either, but you can't control that directly. Zoning boards and conditional use permits and all of that, not to mention the courts. I'm neither a lawyer nor any kind of elected official so I am not going there.

Odds are that the person selling you the property does not, themselves, own the mineral rights. Most developers have bought the property without mineral rights attached, or if they did buy them, they have most likely long since sold them to some speculator. Even if you buy from a developer, they probably don't own the mineral rights any more, let alone the property's post developer homeowners, who didn't buy them in the first place. Since they can't sell what they don't own, that's what the contract is going to say, period. It isn't a matter of negotiating skill or them holding on to a mineral windfall at your expense. Those mineral rights are no longer part of the surface parcel - they've already been sold off, most likely before the developer did the first minute of work on the land to get it ready for the houses to be built. Somebody else owns them. If you want a parcel with mineral rights, look elsewhere. If you want a place to live, all it means is that the chances of you getting a mineral windfall change from remote to zero.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

I just moved into a rental house with an option to buy. I figure I can probably save up around $40-45k for a down payment in three years. how should i save? The Roth IRA tax loophole for first time home buyers maxes out at $10k and takes 5 years anyway. It sounds dumb, but the best safe short term investment I can think of is savings bonds. There has to be something better!

When I originally wrote this, a down payment was not a requirement. For people with not too horrible credit, who could document enough income to afford the loan, at or below a conforming loan amount, 100% financing was available. Unless you've got access to a VA loan, that is no longer the case. Every other loan requires one. I'm confident lenders will start doing 100% loans again within a few years, but if you wait until then, you're going to miss the appreciation that's going to convince them to bring it back.

As to the possibilities: A Roth IRA, along with traditional IRA, 401k, etcetera, are special accounts with tax advantages which are mostly forfeit if you intend to use them for relatively short term goals. More important is your choice of investment vehicle.

Your major constraints here are a relatively short time frame and you want a certain amount of safety. The idea of investing the money is that you want to get more money, not lose your investment savings.

So if you're going to move outside the realm of guaranteed investments for this purpose, you are going to worship at the altar of diversification. Stocks generally go up, but can go down (roughly 28 percent of all years since records have been kept), and indeed, are not anything like a panacea. Therefore, if you're going to risk the stock market or the bond market in order to obtain their higher returns, you're going to want to diversify, diversify, diversify in order to prevent anything short of a general market decline from ruining your investment.

With that firmly in mind, individual stocks are probably not a good idea. If successful, the idea is that the income will be mostly capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate. Unfortunately for this idea, it's hard to get efficient and diversified individual stock investment for less than $100k. At $100,000, you've got a down payment to be extremely proud of.

The same with individual bonds to an even greater extent. When most bonds run in $10,000 to $50,000 denominations, diversifying is not really an option when you're just trying to save up for a down payment. If one of your bonds suffered a significant downgrade, bond price would take a hit, and therefore a very large part of your investment would suffer a setback.

Next on the list is government savings bonds and bank CDs. These offer a guaranteed return. The problems are that it's a mediocre return at best, and it's all ordinary income. Still, 2.5% or so for bank CDs is safe and secure, even if it reduces to about 2% after taxes. US Treasury securities have a four year minimum holding period to get their guarantee. Me? I stopped loaning the government money decades ago.

All of the various insurance products are a bad idea. You're saving for something you want within five years, not something forty years away or trying to insure a possible loss. Nor does the tax treatment help. Secure commodities investment is one of those oxymorons like "plastic glass".

Finally, there are mutual funds. These are diversified by their very nature. In fact, my usual complaint is that they are too diversified, but in this case, that's actually good due to the short timeline (only a few years, one hopes). Pick a good fund family that covers all of the major asset classes, including bonds. Yes, you pay management fees (and advisement fees or a sales load if you are smart to help keep you from over-reacting to short term market events), but you can average nine to 13 percent per year, pretax, seven to ten afterward. A large portion of gains will be capital gains, taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. This isn't a certain or guaranteed investment, and can lose some of your principal, even all of it in theory. Nonetheless if you're comfortable taking what is in my estimation a small amount of risk, it can really pay off.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

My husband and I bought a golf course-view house in DELETED. We closed 5 days ago; moved-in 4 days ago; and 2 days ago found out that the golf course is scheduled to close. It was announced by the golf course management 2 years ago at the home-owners' association meeting, and the seller and her realtor most likely knew. But they did not disclose it to us, even though they had ample opportunity to do so. They had advertised the house everywhere as golf course view. We definitely would not have bought the house if we had known that the view is there only for 2 more months. We paid for the view and know that homes without a view like that go for a lot less.

Now a school or more homes are scheduled to be constructed in its place. What are our legal rights? Can we "return" the sale of the house?

Please advise. Thanks.

First off, I'm not attorney, so this is layman's perspective. Get an attorney who specializes in real estate in your state, and ask them. Each state has its own law.

Here in California, agents and sellers are liable for disclosing not only what they knew, but what they reasonably should have known. They are required to disclose all such information that a reasonable person might consider in their decision on whether to buy a particular property, and by well precedented legal extension, whether to pay a particular price. Cases have been decided based upon an increased water bill, that the court ruled should have tipped the owner off to the fact that there was a leak somewhere, and water is notorious for its erosional capability, among other things. Were you in California, it appears as if you might have a very strong case. I have no idea whatsoever about whether it's worth pursuing, even if the law in your state is similar. For that, you need to talk to a local attorney.

The first question that attorney is likely to ask you is what evidence you have that the former owner knew, or should have known, that the golf course was closing. Announced at homeowner's meeting is good. In the minutes is better. HOA informing all of the residents directly would be better yet. Neighborhood vows to get together and fight the closure? Probably best, especially if your home's former owners were somehow listed as being members or directors. That's the evidence they knew part.

Evidence that a reasonable person might not have bought that property at that price is pretty easy to come by in this case. Golf courses are highly desired, highly sought after neighbors on the part of many people, and golf course views are valued. Schools, not so much. People want good ones close, but they don't want to deal with playground noise, or high school football stadium noise for that matter. Advertisements of the property as being next to a golf course, or looking out over a golf course, would likely be good evidence to have, because it would show that the owners knew that golf course view was a part of their value, and they were committing this deception maliciously.

Then we get to the real crux of the matter: How certain are you that they didn't slip one piece of paper that says, "The golf course is closing so they can put a new school in" into that ream or four of paper you signed at closing? Or a few sentences on one of the standard disclosures? Not only whether they informed you, but also when and in what manner can be important. If they had a marching band blowing a fanfare to attract your attention to this fact before you had come to a final agreement, that likely blows any case you might have out of the water. If they slipped it into your stack of papers at closing, that might be a horse of a different color. Talk to your lawyer about that.

Now as to remedy. No matter how egregious it was, you're unlikely to get a free house out of it. Possibly, if the agent knowingly misrepresented the situation and you can prove it. Less likely if all you can show is that the seller know, but the agent may have been acting in good faith accordance with the seller's wishes. They shouldn't do this, but let's stipulate that nobody is perfect, and maybe they weren't being paid for that part of a listing agent's services. You may also be able to sue your agent, if you had one, for failure to protect you from these scalawags and perform their due diligence. Then again, if you didn't have a full service buyer's agent, you're not likely to be able to sue them successfully. If you're stuck with the former owner as your only legal target, you may still be able to get not only damages, but legal fees and possibly punitive damages out of it. Alternatively, you might also be able to force them to buy the property back, if you so desire, instead of the other remedies. Talk to your lawyer.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Over the last couple of decades, there's been a rising movement, mostly on the part of those who want a piece of real estate agents business, to sell agents as a toll booth. Tollbooths sit there, guarding the entry to the road you want to travel on. Once you've paid, you get access to the wonderful world of MLS and making offers on real estate - or having offers made upon your real estate. This movement has accelerated in the last ten years or so, with the universal advent of broadband internet connections and ungated sites with all of the listings for sale in a particular area.

Even a large number of allegedly "full service" agents and brokerages have sold themselves based upon the tollbooth model. "Sign up with me, and you get access to all of these wonderful things along this road to where you want to go."

Unfortunately for these agents, there's always someone willing to provide a cheaper tollbooth.

The bar to get into the real estate business, when you really look at it, is absurdly low. I've seen good arguments with valid points for either making it much more difficult or eliminating licensing requirements altogether. Score seventy percent or above on a multiple choice test that doesn't have math any more complex than multiplication and without any practical applications whatsoever, pay a toll of $100 or so to the state of your choice for licensing, and another $100 or so for MLS access, and you're in business! They even let you use a calculator for the math on the test!

It shouldn't be any great surprise that we have large numbers of agents who think that's all there is, let alone members of the general public. Therefore, agents who pretend to be agents - and look like they might be, on paper - can cut the toll to access MLS and the world of making and receiving offers on real estate. They pretend that they do something important, sitting in their offices with a fax machine and ZipForms. It even looks impressive enough, on the surface. "I went into this lady's office, and she fired up a computer and it spit out this contract for me to sign, and she faxed it off to the other agent and now I'm in escrow! Best of all, she's going to give me 2% of the purchase price for doing business with her!" So all of the friends and relatives, who according to the way they think are making $5000 or $10,000 by using this person, drop by, and she makes $2500 to $5000 on every single one of them, by pretending to do something valuable, that can really be done by any high school graduate capable of using a word processor. Alternatively, "I went to this guy's office, signed a listing contract that pays him 1% up front instead of 6% when it sells, to put my house on the MLS, He even let me pick the price I wanted to sell it for!" Now every agent worth their license knows what's wrong with both of these scenarios (and if you are an agent who doesn't, you need to learn before you talk with any members of the public), but the average person who doesn't know what they're getting into. They don't even know what they don't know, and they think they're getting a real bargain.

Lest it be said that I'm being all holier-than-thou, I'm perfectly willing to make $2500 to $5000 acting like a high school graduate with a word processor and fax machine. And a license, can't forget that license! I'm even happy to do this work! And if all you need is someone to grant you that access, like paying toll to access that road, I'm perfectly happy to collect my little toll and send you on your way. Instead of one full size toll that takes me dozens to hundreds of hours to earn, I can earn one of these half-size tolls every couple hours. People who come to me for this level of service may wonder why I never try to "upsell" them on the more expensive package, or at least the majority who don't understand what's really going on do. Furthermore, the probability of such tolls coming back to bite me, legally, is practically non-existent. I made no representations as to the state of the property - I didn't even go visit! I advised them of their responsibilities ("get an inspection!", "fill out this TDS!") and have their signature on documents that say I did. And I never promised their property would sell, or that the property they're buying was worth what they were offering. Whether or not they realized that's what they were doing, they were saying they were perfectly capable of handling all those aspects for themselves, and they signed that piece of paper that says what I am and am not going to do for them.

But once again, there's always someone who's willing to build a cheaper tollbooth. That's not the future of a successful real estate agent, to get paid less and less for doing nothing, anymore than that's the future of a successful software company, a successful health insurance plan, or a successful anything. And for those people who think they're getting a some kind of bargain, would you be happy paying a word processor that kind of money for a couple of hours of work? There's always someone willing to operate a cheaper tollbooth, but unless you really understand what you're up to, a tollbooth is not what what you are really looking for.

What's going on, of course, is people who don't understand what they're not getting are just thinking in terms of cost. If you don't understand what you need to, if you don't even understand that there is more to what a good agent does than MLS access, a word processor and a fax machine, if you've dealt with agents who expected full pay for being MLS access, a word processor and a fax machine, then you think you're getting a deal when someone offers you a discount. But if you're an agent, you have to ask yourself why people should be willing to pay you that much money when people are willing to take less. If you're one of those discounters, you should be asking yourself why people should continue to be willing to pay you 1% when there are people who will do it for 1/2%. And if you're one of the latest wave of internet based super discounters, making money hand over fist, you should be wondering why they should continue to pay your half a percent when someone starts offering it for 4 tenths of a percent, 3 tenths, or less than one tenth. They can still make money at that level, but anyone can do nothing just as well as anyone else, and with a little more time, we get down to the economically stable point where you have people in a sweatshop in Bangladesh typing and emailing a contract they took over the telephone for $10 per transaction, all working on one license that the owner of the company got 15 years ago. Or completely automated, without human interface at all. No service, no knowledge, no liability, and no protection for the consumer, but they certainly are cheap. That's the endpoint of the tollbooth model of business, and it's visible from here.

If you want to know how this shortchanges the consumers, check out any one of dozens to hundreds of domestic real estate forums. Every day, you see people talking about having already made a mistake that is going to cost them a dozen times what a good agent would. These people generally want to know how to get out of the situation unscathed, but you know and I know that's not likely to happen. You've got to be ahead of the curve and not make the mistake in the first place. There are sharks out there for whom such people are nothing more than their lawful prey. Some of them are the agent sitting on the other side of the transaction. Others are investors, hoping to snare someone who doesn't understand everything they're doing. The uneducated buyer thinks "It's a beautiful house, we love it, somebody says they can do the loan - what could go wrong?" The list of tricks that get played on sellers is, I believe, probably longer than the list that gets played on buyers if less common individually. More tricks, smaller market shares.

One of the things I keep harping on is the fact that real estate deals are for large amounts of money. Numbers big enough so that 10% is more than a lot of people make in a year, and I've seen at least a gross of 10% coups - or bigger - pulled off in properties I have actually been in and compared to others on the market within the last year. What does this mean? If you're a shark who can pull off one 10% coup per month, you're in Fat City. You've got the Manhattan penthouse, the private jet, and the rock star lifestyle - more and more so as your deals get bigger and more frequent. If you pull off one 10% coup per year, instead of making $60,000 per year, you're making $100,000 per year immediately, and with just a few years like that, you're living the rock star lifestyle also! And you know the best part of all? Most of the suckers think they got a bargain! I went and talked to the guy that got taken worse than anyone else I knew of a while back, who paid over 40% more than he could have had a basically identical property for a quarter mile up the road, and he's happy as a clam, because he likes the property and he got 2% of that 40% back in the form of cash! Nor do you have to make 10% per transaction to be profitable. If you can consistently pull off 5% coups, or 2%, you're still in the money.

When I'm acting for buyers, my business model is that of a big game hunting guide. For this, you need to know the lay of the land (market), where the most desirable game is, the tricks to spotting its trail, the ruses it may use to escape, etcetera, etcetera - and all before some other big game guide leads their client to bag my client's trophy. You've also got to know the traps laid by the dangerous predators and avoid them. My goal is to make a 10% net difference to my client's final position, Either 10% cheaper, or a property comparable to one that might legitimately fetch 10% more. Buddha forbid my clients don't end up with anything, but that's preferable to shooting some farmer's prize cow, or the farmer themselves! Meanwhile, the people who don't understand this are singing Tom Lehrer's Hunting Song, whether they realize it or not. The problem is that in the real world people who figuratively shoot "Two game wardens, seven hunters, and a cow" instead of the deer they were after face some pretty severe and ongoing consequences.

Before the new appraisal standards, considering appraised value, the lowest difference I had made the previous year was a little over 15%, and that's just negotiating capability and market knowledge. I had got a couple of strictly honest appraisers, and not one of those purchase appraisals came in lower than 115% of purchase price. Even with all the problems the new standards are causing and the fact I have to take whatever turkey the appraisal management company assigns me, I'm not having difficulty on purchase appraisals. To change the independent element (me negotiating purchase prices for the right property), those same appraisers I kept using torpedoed almost 30% of the refinances I was hoping to do. Add the number of traps I've kept those same clients out of by spotting problems before we made on offer, and it adds up to quite a chunk of change they've got in their pocket, or that they don't owe some lender, because I did my job as an agent, not the least part of which is that I take responsibility for not selling them something they can't really afford.

As a listing agent, the process has a lot more lead time. I can interview buyers in the morning, and if they're as ready to buy as they think they are, get an understanding of their situation in an hour or so, be looking at properties myself that afternoon and showing the ones that pass my muster to them the next day. Listings take longer, and are more like a fishing expedition. First, you have to know what kind of fish you're able to catch with the bait you have available. You're not going to hook a sperm whale with krill. You've got to know where these target fish hang out. Then you've got to figure out how to make the bait look attractive to the target fish, how to get them to notice this bait, how to get them to hit it hard enough that you can set the hook and haul them in. Among the factors you have to understand is how much patience the client has. Just like in fishing it doesn't do any good for the fishermen to keep hauling the line out of the water before the right fish is willing to hit it - but the real trick is working the bait so it gets hit as quickly as possible. Sometimes the situation isn't right - usually because the bait won't catch what the fisherman wants, no matter how much you do. Nor does getting the bait hit (getting an offer) necessarily mean a landed fish (consummated sale), particularly not at the offer price.

A lot of the people I counsel to wait, or who don't like the asking price I want to set on a property will go sign up with someone else who's willing to promise the moon to get that signature on the listing agreement. I've never had one of them call me up to gloat that I was wrong. The ones that I've seen actually sell sold for less than I believe I could have gotten, and it took months. Some were even victims of the "Jaws" phenomenon as well. That is what happens when the homeowner gets desperate for any offer - the big shark comes along and eats them.

You may have noticed that both of these analogies are pretty violent, and the better known activities they emulate tend to end up very badly for the big game, or the fish, at least on a successful mission. Nor is there any kind of "catch and release" program. Whether you realize it or not, that's the way the game is played. The language is normally civil, not something out of pro wrestling trash talk, but it's no less deadly for being played with offers and contracts instead of rifles and gaffes. Military men who intend to kill the enemy if they can are very careful and very respectful of capable opponents - they live longer that way. They know somebody's going home in a body bag, and they don't want it to be them. With the amount of money at stake in real estate, the incentives are there. Look at some of the reality shows on TV, and what the contestants go through for much smaller prizes. The tollbooth model of agency seems to be producing an ever larger number of willing fish and game. Actually, they're eager!

Real estate may be the largest transaction of most people's lives, but most people don't do it very often, particularly not in the same area. People will move cross country to a new city they've never been in before, and expect to buy real estate within a month. They'll expect the rules for sellers now are the same as the rules for buyers ten years ago when they bought - if they even understood the market then. They have been led so far astray by the popularly pushed tollbooth model of real estate (and its media depictions), that they have no idea what they're doing wrong - or what they're not doing that they should be.

There's not only marketing to consider on the listing side, and search on the buyer's. There's knowledge of laws, of procedures. There's negotiating tricks that put you into a better position, or prevent someone from disadvantaging you. There's sucker bait, and being able to recognize it - or far more than someone who doesn't do this for a living can. There's buyer qualification issues and property maintenance issues. Do you know how to spot them? Here's a couple free hints: The answer to the first has nothing to do with prequalification letters, and the answer to the second should not be, "Get an inspection!" The former are a waste of paper and the latter is leaving an issue to be resolved at the final point of no return and hoping it gets caught there, and hoping the other side is willing to renegotiate the agreement in accordance with your views as to what reasonable is. There are location issues, condition issues, amenities issues, price issues, market issues, financing issues, and issues that mix several of these.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch in the real world or in real estate. You can be careful, do your own due diligence, pay the fees for superior service, and get someone who acts as an effective guide to big game, or an effective charter sportfisher, or you can pay your little toll and likely end up as the fish or venison on the table. Yes, it's work. No, it's not easy. If it was, anyone could do it just as well as anyone else. Since that is not the case, then we need to consider alternative hypotheses, and using the one that best fits the facts.

The people who habitually dine well on fish and big game? Either they buy and sell enough real estate in that area that they are effectively agents themselves, or they've learned what a fantastic investment paying a good guide is. Yes, the good guides can also eat very well off their profession. That doesn't change the fact that you end up with a better dinner, even considering the chunk of meat you paid them, and if it keeps you from being the meat on the table, well, you make your own call how much not having your financial antlers nailed to a wall somewhere is worth to you. Think of it as financial evolution in action.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here