Buying and Selling: June 2021 Archives

The answer is yes. Mind you, the only generally available 100% financing left is the VA loan, but few sellers are going to be willing to consider any offer that doesn't have a significant deposit.

Consider the situation from the seller's point of view, and the answer becomes obvious. Here is someone who is proposing to not put any of their own money into the deal. What's their motivation to consummate the deal? Not much, when you come right down to it.

No listing agent in their right mind is ever going to counsel their clients to accept a "zero deposit" offer. It costs money to give this person the only shot at a property for two months or more. (Nobody sane who needs a loan is going to want an escrow period less than 60 days - the time required to fund a loan has more than doubled because of Dodd-Frank). At an absolute minimum, that seller is risking the money to pay their mortgage, taxes, and insurance for thirty days. On a $400,000 property, that's well over $3000, and the amount at risk for the seller is more likely to be twice that. This is money that is gone and they are not going to get back, all based upon the buyer's representation that they want the property. If the buyer isn't putting any cash at risk, there's no disincentive for them in trying to try for a property there's no way they'll qualify for. Meanwhile, the seller is out money on a daily basis from the time they agree to lock the property up in escrow.

Some of you are no doubt asking about pre-qualification or even pre-approval. The problem is that whatever the loan officer said, there's no real way to back it up. It is illegal to require that prospective buyers be pre-qualified or pre-approved with a given lender or loan officer - a strong case can be made that just the simple request is a RESPA violation. I have said repeatedly that the only pre-qualification or pre-approval that I trust is one that I did - but I can't require prospective buyers to do that, and any decent agent is going to learn to ignore the request.

The only thing that means anything to that seller in the way of a guarantee for buyer performance is cash - a cash deposit from the buyer that is at risk if they can not or do not consummate the deal in a timely fashion. This is even more the case than usual if the buyer isn't putting any of their own hard earned money into the deal itself. If a buyer is willing to put 5%, 10% or more into the deal, they ought to understand the effort that that money represents, whether it's through saving it or just through having it not earn 10 percent per year of thereabouts in the stock market. If you're putting up cash you've spent years saving, you understand what that money represents. If you haven't made the sacrifices to save such a down payment and you want to just waltz into a property without putting down a deposit, well, odds are that you've got a rude awakening coming. Because over forty percent of all purchase escrows end up falling apart. So if I'm acting on behalf of a seller, one of the first questions I'm going to ask is "What evidence is there that this person can consummate the sale in a timely fashion, and what are they putting up that they're willing to lose if they change their mind or can't qualify?"

Pretty much every agent who's ever had a listing has had offers come in that were rejected on the basis of "not enough deposit," or that were acceptable in every particular but that. The intelligent thing is counter for a higher deposit or fewer contingencies on it.

Some folks are going to ask about substituting a higher purchase price. The issue that you're going to run straight into is the appraisal. In most cases, offers that include 100% financing are a little inflated anyway. When you add still more money to that, a sufficiently high appraisal becomes difficult. Even if the appraisal comes in high enough, though, we come full circle to the obvious question, "What good is that higher purchase price if you never get it?" If the buyer can't qualify or changes their mind, you don't get that price, and since there is not much penalty for such an outcome, there is no reason for them not to tie the property up in escrow, where nobody else can buy it, either.

For these reasons and many others, nobody sane is going to accept an offer that doesn't include a deposit. Don't waste your time making one.

Caveat Emptor (and Vendor)

Original article here

On a regular basis, I see advertisements for real estate offices that say "discount broker - full service".

This is nonsense. Actually, it is a calculated lie.

A discount broker has consciously chosen a business model whose economics do not permit them to give the same service provided by a full service provider. Here's the rundown.

A discount broker's listing agreement typically calls for them to receive 1 percent of the sales price, and the "selling broker" to receive the area standard, whether it's 2.5 or 3 percent (perhaps higher in some areas). Some few will reduce the selling broker's commission if they end up engaging in Dual Agency, but in most cases, they're after representing the buyers as well, which is bad from your point of view. Assuming your sale price is $400,000, you're paying them $4000 to represent you, and $10,000 of your money will go to representing the buyer. Which do you think has a greater call on their loyalty?

A Full Service broker's listing agreement typically calls for both sides to get the same 2.5 to 3 percent.

So a discount broker is saving you 1.5 to 2 percent of the cost of selling your home, if it sells. However, the majority of the ones I'm familiar with also want to be paid in cash up front, as opposed to making it contingent upon the successful sale of the property.

Let's ask: what does a selling broker or agent do?

They put your property on MLS and put a sign in the yard, of course. And when there is an offer, they serve as "go between" on the negotiations.

This is all a discount broker can afford to do. They have expenses of being in business. Rent, machinery, assistant's salary, etcetera. It's not like they get to freely spend every dollar they are paid, and you're not paying them enough that they can do more. Furthermore, their business model requires them to sell more properties than a full service broker, just to stay in service. The difference in their compensation between a $450,000 sale and a $470,000 sale is only $200. Which would you rather have - the high likelihood of a $4500 paycheck in a couple weeks, or the hope of a $4700 paycheck eventually? They're human too. They are much more likely to advise you to take the sale in the hand now even when you would likely do better to wait. Even though it would make a difference of nearly $20,000 to you (and that may double the money you actually get from the sale in many cases, while making the difference between walking away with money and a short sale in others), it's not important to them. Full service brokers are hardly perfect either, but they tend to be at least somewhat stronger negotiators on your behalf. At least the $20,000 difference it makes to you means $500 or $600 to them.

A Full Service broker can afford not only the Multiple Listing Service and the sign in the yard, but also ads in the papers and other places that people actually see. MLS is the single best way to sell a house, but hardly the only one. Signs in the yard help me find clients and keep my fellow agents from bugging you for the listing, but rarely actually sell that house. Ads in the correct papers at the correct time are the second best way to sell the property, and full service brokers can not only afford them, but they are motivated to do them by the "carrot" of the doubled commission if they also find the buyer. Open houses also help significantly, and full service brokers and their agents have a business model which makes holding frequent open houses worthwhile and advertising them correctly a paying proposition. Furthermore, you're likely to see better offers off of these sale sources. MLS offers are more likely to be people looking to buy on the cheap, whereas advertisements and open houses target people who want to live in your neighborhood. Once you have an offer, full service types tend to be tougher negotiators. Finally, once you accept an offer, the prospect of getting a larger paycheck motivates them to work harder getting the sale consummated, including being at the property for inspectors so that you don't have to. Some discount houses do a decent job of this last, but full service do better.

Which of these alternatives is better? Well that depends upon the state of the market and your situation. In a white hot market where everything that gets listed gets four offers within three days and bidding wars break out between prospective buyers, a discount broker or agent is likely to be the way to go, especially if you mostly care about getting it sold, as opposed to getting the highest possible price. If, on the other hand, the market is a much cooler one like most of the country nowadays, and it takes considerable effort to bring in any offer, or if your property has issues that make it undesirable (less 'curb appeal' than average), you're likely to want a full service broker or agent. Furthermore, if you want to get the best possible price, you want an agent who can and will devote the necessary time to your property.

Your situation also plays a part. If you don't care if the property sells tomorrow, next year, or at all, a discount broker is likely to meet your needs. After all, if you don't get a good offer, you'll just keep the property. On the other hand, if you need the property to sell fast, or if you need the offer to meet certain criteria, and most especially if it would be difficult for you to accommodate inspections yourself (for example, if you're now hundreds of miles away), a full service broker or agent is likely to be the choice for you.

I have seen many sales where paying a full service commission would have caused the seller to end up with more money in their pocket, and I see more every week. They are far more the rule than the exception. Saving that two percent on agent compensation usually means you didn't get 10% or more you could have had on sales price. Or it means the property didn't sell at all, versus selling for a good price. My article Production Metrics versus Consumer Metrics illustrates yet another aspect of this dilemma.

Discount Real Estate Brokers should also not be confused with Discount Mortgage Brokers. The "discount" part of a real estate broker's name usually refers only to listing agreements - people who want to sell a property. For customers who approach them as property buyers, these places usually receive the same full commission that anyone else does. There are exceptions where they rebate part or all of their commission for buyers, which should be disclosed and committed to in writing. But typically if you use them to buy, if it's 3% for the full service folks, it'll be 3% for them (and if you're listing with them in a Dual Agency situation, the difference gets rebated to the buyer, not to you). Furthermore, I have directly encountered several of them who benefit from the presumption that any loans they provide will be as low cost as their real estate services, and this is far from the case. I've had direct dealings with very well known discount real estate brokerages, and their margin on the loan they got their borrower was much higher than mine - from triple to more than four times what mine would have been. My responsibility was to my clients, so I kept my mouth shut and got my clients their money for the sale of the property. But inwardly I was definitely wincing.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Well, sometimes. Okay, most of the time. But not always.

Foreclosures: Bargain hunters beware!

Myth no. 1: A big spike in foreclosures is right around the corner...
...That's because in most of the country, anyone who has owned a home for even a year or two is likely sitting on enough equity to sell or refinance if the loan payments become unaffordable.

Used to be true. Not so much any more. When prices are going up 20% per year, this is true. When prices have slid, anybody who bought for peak or near peak prices is in trouble, not to mention the folks in negative amortization loans that got into a situation where they can't afford the real payment, and now they owe thousands of dollars more than they paid. Nonetheless (as the article mentions) the banks want the loan repaid. They don't want to own the house. A "hard money" lender will foreclose fast and hard, but a regulated lender wants the loan repaid, and they'll pretty much take a loss anytime they foreclose, and it's always bad business, because it's always someone who won't use that bank, and who tells all their friends and family. The bank isn't going to have a representative there to tell their side of the story, so no matter how justified they were in foreclosing, it's bad for business. They will put it off as long as they possibly can.

It can take a couple of years after payments start being a problem before the lender decides to cut their losses and foreclose. Sometimes the individuals concerned go to heroic lengths to stay out of foreclosure, drawing out all their savings, even their retirements to meet the payment. They are usually ill-advised to do so; nonetheless I understand the emotional attachment that occurs. The peak for foreclosure is usually somewhere around the fourth year of the loan. Foreclosures have been falling for years in my local area, as the option ARMs really became popular in 2004 and the trouble really got bad in 2007 have been mostly dealt with.

Myth no. 2: Foreclosed houses sell for far less than their market value.

In a study of foreclosure sale prices in more than 600 counties nationwide in 2005, Christopher Cagan of data provider First American Real Estate Solutions found that, on average, foreclosed properties sold for about 15 percent less than comparable homes in the area that were not distressed. But in states where real estate prices have risen the most, including Arizona, California and Virginia, foreclosed properties sold for within 5 percent of full market value.

This is true. Furthermore, many foreclosure homes have maintenance and repair issues. If I can save myself several tens of thousand dollars of equity by fixing the property up a little bit and cutting the price a little in order to sell it before foreclosure, I'll do it. On the other hand, if I bought it for $500,000 with a 5% down payment on a negative amortization loan, and now it's only worth $420,000, my investment is long gone, and any work I do and any money I spend is helping nobody but the bank. Some people may even strip the copper out of the walls for scrap (I've seen what a few such people have left behind). Some people may even take a sledgehammer and break things in one last act of spite.

In highly appreciated areas, the auction is usually the worst time to buy. Get them from the owners before the lenders pile on all the default and foreclosure fees, while there is still something to save for the owner, equity-wise. Get them from the lenders as REOs after they fail to sell at auction. Depending upon who forecloses, that can wipe out entire trust deeds. For instance, if there's a first and a second on the property, and the first forecloses, that second is gone. Dust. History. Worthless paper with unimportant markings, basically good for fire starter. If it originally sold for $500,000, and there's a $400,000 first and a $75,000 second, but the property is only worth $420,000 now, that second holder is crazy if they show up to the auction to defend it, especially since the holder of the first has added thousands of dollars in fees, every penny of which gets paid before the second gets a penny. The second is unlikely to get a penny, and bidding on it is throwing good money after bad. It's a waste of an employee's time, if nothing else. For buyers at auction, there's a key phrase to remember: cash or the equivalent. You don't win the auction and then arrange financing; you have to have that first. This doesn't apply to sales before and after the auction. Nor does California's ninety percent rule.

You are not (if you're smart) buying at auction sight unseen. You can usually make an appointment to see the property in the days before the auction. You should also look at other properties in the area. Know the market before you bid. Know what you intend to do with the property, know how much it's going to cost. Depending upon the law where you are, there may be a building inspection required, or perhaps you can take an inspector with you. This costs money, so you may want to preview once before you haul the inspector out there. Do your homework before you toss your money into the ring. That's what the people who make money at foreclosure auctions do. It's a full time job if you want to do well, and if you're not doing it all the time, a good agent is a lifesaver. Every situation is different, and it takes a certain amount of experience to know the best way to approach buying a given distressed property. You're competing with people who do this full time for a living. Ask yourself questions like "Why should I be willing to pay more for this property than Joe, who's been doing this for twenty years?" Auctions get crazy and emotional. If you have someone there to help take the emotion out of it, you are less likely to waste large sums of money. If you have someone there to help point out the pitfalls, you've probably just saved yourself every penny of their commission and thousands of dollars more besides. So long as they do what they say they will, of course.

No matter what else is true, there is always an element of risk in buying a foreclosure, more so than most other homes. The owner (the lender) has never lived in the property and is exempted from most disclosure requirements. Often, they honestly don't know about problems that exist. This doesn't mean they don't have to tell you about problems they know about, but having never lived in the property or dealt with its maintenance issues, they just have no reason to know about many problems that really do crop up. Furthermore, the lender addendums that lenders will require to be signed make buyer due diligence difficult, and lenders will not fix anything they don't have to. It can be a real struggle forcing them to make repairs to safety and habitability issues, as they are required to do in California. It is also my experience that the agents that work for lenders aren't at all hesitant to defraud buyer's lenders in concealing property defects that are loan killers - a buyer's lender who may be another branch of the lender that owns the property.

Buying foreclosures is not generally for people who want to just move their furniture into a property. Buying foreclosures can be rewarding, but you need to have a certain amount of financial resources to be able to withstand the consequences of the risk if it goes bad.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

On a fairly regular basis I get email asking what I think of this or that loan calculator on the web, this or that predictive model for real estate prices or loan rates, etcetera.

Loan calculators are pretty simple when you get right down to it. Numbers go in, other numbers come out. It's just math - except that you've got to be careful about the numbers going in. Just because your balance is $400,000 now does not mean it'll be $400,000 after the refinance. It's very possible to do a zero cost refinance that adds nothing to your loan, but most people don't do it. Furthermore, I know I've said this before, but the only calculator out there that I trust is one that I know the provenance of. I've caught more than one company that had programmed its calculator to low-ball the payment. There's no way to tell for certain except using your own calculator, and if you have your own financial calculator, why are you using the web? You can cross check, however, because it's rare that two calculators will be mis-programmed to yield the same wrong answer. Also remember to add in closing costs and prepaid interest and escrow accounts, if you're going to have one, and always figure the cost of any points after everything else is added in there, because that's what the bank is going to do. Finally, don't take it for more than it's worth. Just because they tell you, "nothing out of your pocket," does not mean there are no closing costs. They exist. Somebody is paying them, somehow. Unless you know for a fact otherwise because you've discussed it and know where the money is coming from, I'm certain that "somebody" is you, and they're getting rolled into the balance of the new loan. I've had people bring me paperwork from other companies showing new loan balances thirty thousand dollars higher than they were expecting, with correspondingly higher payments. (I've also told people to never shop for a loan based upon payment more than a few times, also)

For spreadsheets, what you can get is usually an analysis of one variable per spreadsheet. I've programmed a loan comparison spreadsheet, but it only compares two alternatives at a time and it's not really suitable for use with the public, because you have to understand the limitations and GIGO factor. Just like I've got spreadsheets that answer the "rent or buy" question, among others, but you have to understand the limitations on the results imposed by your model.

As a computer programmer, I make a pretty decent loan officer. In order to compare financial information via spreadsheets, you have to understand what points of comparison the calculations are meant to compare. If your data is out of whack, if your assumptions are away from reality, or if you're trying to apply the comparison outside its design limits, what you get is useless.

I have several spreadsheets I have programmed and use. All of them have limits that need to be understood in order to get useful information out of them.

The first is a rent versus buy spreadsheet, that I first talked about in Should I Buy A Home? Part 3: Consequences. In that article, I spent a good paragraph telling you what my assumptions were in cranking the numbers. I think they are good and reasonable assumptions for the markets I have seen in my area in my lifetime, but many people might not. I just had someone make a comment to the effect that "rent doesn't increase with inflation." Well, it hadn't been keeping pace with the cost of buying the last few years when he said it, but that's not the case now. Even then, that wasn't the same thing as not increasing roughly with inflation. Furthermore, we've gone through a period when landlords were keeping rental rates low in the attempt to have someone else pay most of the mortgage of their investment property. Judging by the "loaf of bread" or hourly wage comparisons, or anything else except the price to buy, local rents have increased by a factor very close to general inflation over my adult lifetime. Whatever you think of my numbers, though, the fact remains that they are assumptions, and if they do not correspond to future numbers, the conclusions they reach have no bearing on the real world.

The second limitation upon this sheet is that it's assuming smooth increases. This is not what happens, as anyone over the age of ten ought to know. Over longer periods of time, the data may tend towards an aggregate average, but that says nothing about any given year. In reality, some years are plus thirty percent while other years are minus twenty. Even if my assumptions for averages are good, the spreadsheet that predicts the next thirty years is useful mainly to predict overall level of the market many years out. The numbers for any particular year are so much garbage, as far as the real world goes, where a 5% differential between estimate and actual is often enough to render something worse than useless. Even if my assumptions for average return are right on the money (and if I didn't think they were pretty close, I'd use others), any particular year could be at the top of a peak or the bottom of a market trough. If you know what state the market will be in in a particular year three decades out, why the heck aren't you richer than the ten richest billionaires in the world combined? Knowing what the market was going to do these past few years is a lot easier than knowing what it'll be like thirty years from now! I have what I think are good predictions based upon good models, but I don't have any god-level knowledge of where any part of the economy will be thirty years from now, and neither does anyone else. We see the future dimly, reflected through the present and the past.

Speaking of which, let's drag one of the standard disclaimers out and air the dirty laundry. "Past performance is not indicative of future results." Averages of past results may be the only way we have of predicting the future, but those results depend upon unknowable factors. Somebody could invent something tomorrow that utterly changes the face of housing thirty years out. You think the urban planners of the 1920s foresaw urban sprawl? I know for a fact that they didn't. What no model of the future can predict is unforeseen factors. I can't tell you what they will be or what effects they will have, but I can promise you there will be some. In 1894, Michaelson (who first measured the speed of light) said, "Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth decimal place." This just a few years after the formulation of Maxwell's equations, and within a year Rutherford had changed the atomic model forever, while the basis of quantum mechanics was being laid, and less than ten years later were Einstein and relativity. Michaelson was right in a technical sense that precise measurements were the key to unlocking future discoveries, but wrong in the sense he meant it, that all the major discoveries had already been made. My predictive model is more detailed than most, and I do my best to include all of the factors I see, but I have no way of including factors that I can't see, and one thing I can promise you is that there are some. It may work out that I guess right anyway, but that doesn't mean there weren't any unforeseen factors, just that I got lucky despite them. The further out the model goes, the more it is dependent upon subsequent events no one can predict. Someone could announce man-portable fusion power tomorrow, or "Star Trek" transporters, or any of dozens of new potential technologies that could alter the world, and that's just the technological possibilities. Politics and demographics will utterly change in the next thirty years (When I graduated high school, more people were predicting the world conquest of communism than the collapse of the communist system. Mr. Carter's presidency was not the United States' shining hour).

Just because we know that the precise numbers are wrong, however, doesn't mean that those numbers have no value in predicting the future. The way the numbers will move relative to each other is much more important information. Population is increasing and will continue to increase. Demand in major urban areas and desirable areas will continue to rise faster than supply, and since such areas are where most of us live or want to live, the price of real estate will quite likely continue to increase faster than inflation. Particularly types of housing which are universally desired, such as detached single family residences sitting on a certain amount of land owned basically fee simple. PUDs and townhomes are less desirable for most folks, true condominiums less desirable yet, and below that are apartments. Offer most people the chance to move up on the ladder of desirability, and they'll take it. Since the only thing preventing most people from doing so is price, price is what's going to make it ever harder to make that transition to more desirable housing. Living space in a desirable location is a scarce good. Living space, desirable location or not, is a limited good. The only way to change this is to somehow manufacture more space or arrange to have fewer people to share it. I'm not aware of any plans to manufacture enough space to make a difference to the billions of people on earth, so I'm guessing that barring worldwide nuclear or biological warfare, population density is going to increase, demand for housing is going to increase, and supply is going to stay pretty much right where it is. Nonetheless, this is only a guess. My guess is that housing will be about four to five times as expensive as it is today thirty years out. If it's only twice as expensive as today, we'll all still live in million dollar houses. If it's eight times, we'll be in four million dollar houses. The wider the net, the more probability I have of being right - and the less useful the information is. Unless the price right now is something like two cents, nobody sane is going to invest money for that long without a better idea of what the payoff will be.

Whether I'm right or not is something nobody knows right now, or even how close. Actually, not being quite that much of an egotist, the question in my mind is more akin to "how far off will I be?" But the data is still useful, because it tells me that as long as my assumptions are anything like real, we're all looking at living in million dollar real estate - the only question is exactly when. It tells me what people will be need to be able to pay every month, at least in a general sense, and it tells me that more and more people are going to get priced out of real estate, or down into less desirable housing, and that real estate is therefore going to be a quite satisfactory vehicle for creating personal wealth.

Each of the changes has consequences, assuming it does indeed happen. If it's difficult saving the money for the down payment when homes are $300,000, how difficult is it going to be when they're $1,000,000? At a guess, three times as hard. Fewer people will be able to do it, proportional to the numbers today.

On the other hand, no system of projecting the future is better than the limitations imposed upon it by limited foresight. If the population of the United States drops to 1789 levels all of a sudden - or 1607 levels - all bets are off. Of course if that happens, most of us won't be here to worry about it, and the ones that are will have bigger problems than the price of real estate. It's pointless to waste time worrying about the price of real estate in such possible circumstances, where the price of real estate would be the least of our worries.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

You might get what you pay for. You don't get what you don't pay for, despite the fact that the local dog target loves giving discounters free puffery.

I'm not against discounters. I'm very happy to do a discounters work for a discounter's price. Fifty percent of the pay for less than ten percent of the work and almost none of the liability is a real win as far as I'm concerned. The difference is that I'm not willing to pretend that you're getting the same value from me. In fact, the amount of value the buyer receives from their alleged "agent" is pretty much negligible, and it would be a lie to pretend otherwise.

Let's illustrate with a recent example. Some full service clients of mine had gotten interested in a property. They wanted a fixer property with potential and a view, and they asked me to check this one out. Yes, it had a view, but the view was of a high school stadium, making peaceful enjoyment of the property rather hit and miss, subject to the local sports schedule. It had some potential, true, but every surface in every room needed to be redone. It is going to take $100,000 to get that potential, and the property would only be worth maybe $40,000 more than the owners are asking. Leave out those pesky numbers and a less capable agent can make it seem like a great bargain. If all you're thinking of is a potential $5000 rebate check from the buyer's agent, which can be fraud for reasons similar to these, you may think you got a deal from a discounter. Lots of people never do figure out how much that rebate check actually cost.

If they had been clients of a discounter, they would have been in escrow on the first property. Too bad about that $100,000 they'd have to spend to get $40,000 benefit. On the other hand, I found the same people a property not far away that needed about $40,000 worth of work to be worth $120,000 more than the asking price. What does a discounter do? Write the offer on the first property. Now you've got a property you need to put $100,000 into to make it usable, that's worth only $40,000 more than you paid. Money the discounter would have rebated: roughly $5000. If they didn't have a full service agent to compare with, it even looks like a great deal, because none of the value I provided these folks shows up on the HUD 1 form, or anywhere else as numbers on paper. The value is still there, as my clients know.

If you know enough about the state of the market, what problems look like and what opportunities look like, you may spend less with a discounter, or get a rebate that doesn't cost you several times that difference. If you know everything a good agent does, there is no reason not to put that money in your pocket. But if you know everything a good agent does, why is the discounter making anything? Why aren't you doing your own transaction? Why aren't you in the business yourself and getting paid for your expertise?

A full service agent goes a long way past filling in the blanks on Winforms and faxing the offer. When I go out looking at 20 to 30 (or more) properties per week, I'm not just finding individual bargains. I'm also learning about the general state of the market, what things to look for in a given neighborhood, what common problems are with a given model of house. I know what's sold in the neighborhood recently, and I know what it looks like because I've been inside it, and I know how it compares to other stuff that's out there now. I have a pretty fair idea of what it's going to take to beautify properties, and I know what they'll be worth when the work is done, because I know what other stuff that already looks like that has sold for recently.

Real estate is a career. It may not absolutely require a college education, but many agents have one, and know many things you can't learn in college - because the professors don't know, either, unless they're active real estate agents. A good agent spends a lot of time and effort not only learning their local market, but keeping their knowledge base updated. This thing changes constantly, and it doesn't even change uniformly. How did La Jolla get to be La Jolla? I assure you it wasn't some random seagull anointing the neighborhood from above with the Bird Dropping of Higher Property Values. Rancho Santa Fe doesn't even come close to the ocean, and it's the highest mean property value zip code in the nation. How did your neighborhood get to where it is? Is it likely to change, and how? What are the known and probable upcoming changes in the neighborhood? How is it likely to effect your prospective property? Wouldn't you like to know about that redevelopment zone - or the railroad tracks they intend to drive through the area?

Full service can be a very hard sale when all that you consider is the numbers on the HUD 1. There just isn't any space for "Agent kept you from making a $60,000 mistake," let alone, "Agent showed you an $80,000 opportunity." But people who know property know that there is a lot more to every transaction than the numbers on the HUD 1. If you're dubious, may I suggest this experiment when you're ready to buy: Find a couple full service agents willing to work with a non-exclusive buyer's agency agreements, and sign them. Then compare what happens as compared to the service of the discounter you use for properties you find yourself. There is no need to sign even a non-exclusive agreement with a discounter, by the way, as any sales contract will note the agency relationship for that transaction. Like I said in How to Effectively Shop for a Buyer's Agent, let the ineffective alternative select itself out.

I'm perfectly willing - happy, even - to do discount work for "discounter" pay. I only make half the money, but I can service a lot more than twice the clients for a much smaller level of risk and still be home in time for dinner. I'm even a better negotiator than dedicated discounters, because unlike them, I know what's really going on in the areas I serve. However, saying "full service at a discount price," does not make it so, and I refuse to pretend that it is. Same as saying a fifth-hand Yugo is the same as a new Ferrari, saying something like discount service is the same as full service does not make it true. Furthermore, the people who approach me for discount work usually end up understanding that a real professional is worth a lot more than the extra money I make, and are happy to pay it. Most people have no problems understanding that the reason a good car commands a higher price than a bad car, let alone a skateboard, is because a good car provides more value. People will pay $100 per seat for decent - not great - musicians in concert when you couldn't pay them enough to attend a garage band practice session. Why should this principle hold any less true for expert help in what is likely to be the biggest transaction of your life?

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Every purchase contract I write includes an addendum for Wood Destroying Pests. In California, this is accomplished via form WPA, a one page addendum that requires an inspection and details responsibility for who makes repairs. The work needed is separated into two sections. To quote from the actual standard report, Section I work "CONTAINS ITEMS WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE OF ACTIVE INFESTATION, INFECTION OR CONDITIONS THAT HAVE RESULTED IN OR FROM INFESTATION OR INFECTION," while Section II is "CONDITIONS DEEMED LIKELY TO LEAD TO INFESTATION OR INFECTION BUT WHERE NO VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF SUCH WAS FOUND."

The standard around here is that the seller pays for Section 1 items, the buyer for Section 2. The reasoning for this is quite solid: The lender isn't going to fund loans for properties where they know about termites in the process of eating the property that they're taking as security for the loan. They could very well end up foreclosing upon a property that cannot be sold, or cannot be sold for the amount of their loan. Federal Reserve Regulations frown on that, to say the least.

So when I got this from an agent on an REO, I was skeptical

Hi Dan,
The bank will not pay the termite - Section 1. They said we must get bids and the buyer will need to pay for it. This is not allowable with VA. I already know how much it is - $1550 - I ordered the report. The property needs tenting.

I forwarded that to my clients, who responded:

Thanks for the update. As usual I have some questions.

1. (irrelevant to this article)

2. We are definitely eager to see the termite report. Are they likely to give it to us, and if it does show serious structural damage, can we back out?

3. Is the VA loan going to hinder this or is it a simple matter of writing another check?

4. Would they have told us about this if we were going the conventional loan route?

My answers?

2) They have to give us the information if they have it. Not only is it in the contract and the law, disclosure laws require it. The only legal way not to disclose it is if they honestly do not know. That isn't the case - they're telling us there is known Section 1 work needed.

3) Section 1 work eliminates the VA loan as well as any others unless it's done. It's a condition of the contract. The lender is going to want to see the report. When they see the report, they're going to say no. Section 1 work is a loan killer, no matter the loan type. The only ways to get around it are an all cash offer, or agreeing to eliminate the termite clearance from the contract.

4) They would have had to. See answers to 2 and 3

However, this work is the owner's responsibility - in this case, of the lender who owns the property. Section 1 termite work impacts safety and habitability; not to mention that no agent who doesn't hose his clients is going to agree to clients paying section 1 work before escrow is completed (in other words, before you even take title). Since transactions fail to close for other reasons at the last minute, this means you could end up paying for the work and not taking title. The property and our offer were predicated upon the property being in a certain condition, but now we know it is not in that condition. Work is needed to bring it up to that condition. Therefore, the property is worth less without that work being done. The owners can do this work, or they can give an allowance in the price, and since this work is necessary to get a loan, not doing it makes a major difference in the price.

You can decide what you want to do. This may be just a testing tactic. If we respond strongly, they may give on the issue. If they don't, I would very strongly advise you to reconsider the property - it's very possible that you would end up spending the money to tent the property and still not getting the property. But that isn't my decision to make.

I am certainly going to advise against deleting the wood destroying pest addendum from the contract offer, which would enable us to pretend to our lender that no such damage exists. Not only is it fraud (and they would come after all of us), but what happens if it were to turn out that damage was greater than represented by the sellers?

If they are going to stand upon what the agent is representing here, the property is worth considerably less than the asking price, and they are trolling for an agent who will allow their clients to be hosed in the interests of getting a commission check, or willing to commit loan fraud.

We went back and forth a bit, and this was what I ended up sending back to the listing agent:

My clients are indicating that their offer was predicated upon the Wood Destroying Pests Addendum.

Section 1 Work is required to be done by every lender and every loan type I am aware of. Failure to disclose it (when known to exist) to the lender is fraud. Therefore, it needs to be done prior to loan funding, and therefore prior to transfer of title. Since the only non-fraudulent way to get a lender to fund such a loan is to do the work, it is the responsibility of the current owner to obtain a termite clearance.

Furthermore, since required Section 1 work impacts both safety and habitability of a property, an "as is" transaction does not shield the current owner from the need to repair this fault.

So the current owner is advised that they are required by the terms of our offer and the need for most potential purchasers for financing to do the work.

Otherwise, may I suggest you solicit "all cash" offers?

Here is the situation: The current owner and listing agent know that there is Section 1 work that needs to be done. Knowing this, if we were to conspire with them to eliminate that particular phrase from the contract, we would be guilty of fraud, in that we would be asking the new lender to fund a loan where we know there is a disqualifying condition of the property, but failing to advise them of it. This would be particularly pointed in the case of an agent who also does the loan (and therefore has a fiduciary duty to the new lender), but it doesn't let everyone or even anyone else off the hook: That listing agent is conspiring with malice aforethought to keep relevant information secret from the new lender, as are the current owners, who happen to be a bank, and therefore should be fully apprised of what usual lending standards are. Fraud, fraud, and fraud.

They ended up rejecting our counteroffer. Chances are they'll find someone who doesn't mind committing fraud. Lots of agents do this, as evidenced by the fact that she barefacedly proposed this fraud in written communication (email). That doesn't change the fact that she is proposing an intentional concealment of known information that a party to the transaction (the new lender) has a legitimate interest in knowing, and that is just as much fraud as appraisal fraud, concealing cash back from the seller to the buyer, or any of a large number of other ways to commit fraud in consummating real estate sales. Remember that agents owe a duty of fair and honest dealing to everyone, not only contracted clients. That includes the buyer's lender, whomever it may be. Just because you may not deal with them directly doesn't make them any less of a party to the transaction. Lots of escrow officers and agents are discovering this now in regards to concealing sellers giving buyers cash back, because the property is therefore worth less than presented. The exact same principal applies to the termite report.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

I read a lot of the info. you have on your web page ... thank you.

I don't live in San Diego so I'm not looking for a home.
What I am trying to decide is whether to sell or refinance.

I live in DELETED. My mortgage payments are now approx. $2,400. I cannot afford to refinance into a fixed rate mortgage or interest only. I wanted to reduce my payments and I was recently offered a neg-amortized loan.

While I do have plenty of equity in the home, I balk at the thought of using my home as a piggy-bank. It's just not my style. I feel like I made a terrible mistake. I had a very modest home ... fairly low payments & property taxes ... but I wanted more, so I sold it.

I bought a good-sized lot with the proverbial "fixer-upper." Mistake #1 I should have thought of it as the "MONEY PIT."

Anyway, five years later and I've just survived a remodel but I'm still struggling.

Do you have any sound advice/suggestions?

First off, despite your market being somewhere I am licensed, each area's market is significantly different. Unlike the loan market, each commuting area has enough of its own concerns that nobody can keep track of more than one - not really. If someone called me out of the blue and asked me to list a property even a few miles outside my normal area of San Diego County, I would not have a good idea what it should list for. I can do a comparative market analysis, but that's just cranking numbers, and there's a lot more to market knowledge than cranking numbers. In the last week, I've looked at between 50 and 60 properties, and in the case of 20 to 25 of them, I can explain to an idiot why it is priced wrong by at least 10%. Sometimes they're under, sometimes they're over. Whichever it is, it's not good for the owner. Some agents will tell you there's no harm in being high, which is a premeditated lie. Properties that sit on the market because they are priced too high will sell for less money than the owners could have gotten, and that's if they sell.

Some properties are obvious money pits, while others are vampires, charming on the surface, while they embed their fangs permanently in your wallet. The best opportunities, however, are all fixers. The reasons a good buyer's agent is worth more than they will ever make are legion, no matter how much our local dog-target keeps pushing discounters. I just got a call from one pushing a property I previewed last week. Yes, it had a view, but the view was of a high school stadium, and every surface in every room needed to be redone. It's got potential, but it's going to take $100,000 to get that potential, and the property would only be worth maybe $40,000 more than they're asking. Leave out those pesky numbers and a less capable agent can make it seem like a great bargain. On the other hand, I found the same people a property not far away that needed about $40,000 worth of work to be worth $120,000 more than the asking price. Money the discounter would have rebated: roughly $5000. Difference in outcome: $80,000 in prospective equity and $60,000 of wasted work. Prospective differences in listing agents are every bit as large.

Now, let's consider the kinds of issues that might give you a better idea about what to do about your situation.

You say you've been through a remodel and have significant equity. That's good news in that you are not "upside down", but should be able to sell the home for more than you owe on it. That's better than a lot of folks right now.

However, the unavoidable fact is that it costs money to sell. A good listing agent is going to cost money - and a bad listing agent will cost you more, and this cost is no less real for the fact that most of it won't show up on the HUD-1. A good listing agent is going to tell you to offer a good buyer's agent percentage, also. Furthermore, you're going to buy a home warranty, and a policy of title insurance. I warn my fixer clients that it's going to cost about eight percent of value to get the fixed up property sold at a good price - so they might as well include that estimate in the calculations of whether the property is worth buying in the first place. I'd rather work a little harder, and have a client that keeps coming back to me because they keep making a profit worth making. When I originally wrote this, if you had a property that appraised for $500,000, you might have only gotten $480,000 or less on the purchase contract - and you may have had to give allowances on top of that. $480,000 less eight percent is $441,600, and if you have to give a $15,000 allowance for closing costs, that's $426,600. So you can have a good amount of equity on the face of things, and be upside-down in fact when it comes to the actual sale. Even if you have $100,000 in equity, it just turned into $25,000 to get you out from under a loan you can't afford. It depends upon your local market, the condition of the property, and the neighborhood it sits in. Things are better than that now, but there are many new issues, most of them brought about by regulators that I'll grant meant well but didn't understand what they were doing.

On the other hand, given the fact that you cannot afford your payment, your alternatives do not include doing nothing. If you try to do nothing, you will have your credit ruined and lose the property as well as quite likely get a 1099 love note from the lender that says you owe taxes and possibly (depending upon whether or not your loan has recourse) a deficiency judgment. So doing nothing is not an option.

When I originally wrote this, another alternative was a negative amortization loan. Those are pretty much history now with long overdue regulatory changes, but I'll leave the example just in case they come back: Something fairly middle of the road in a negative amortization loan would have a payment based upon a nominal (in name only) rate of 1%, for which the payment on $400,000 would be $1287, saving you $1100 per month in cash flow. On the other hand, if your real rate is 7.75 (reasonably median), at the end of two years you owe $433,500, and that's not including the prepayment penalty. After three years, when most negative amortization penalties expire, you owe $452,000, assuming rates stay exactly where they are, which I do not expect them to. Even if you got the loan for zero cost, you spent $1450 per month of your equity. In order for you to come out even, you'd have to net almost $479,000. That means you need to get a little over $520,000 sales price in three years if you don't have to fork over that $15,000 allowance, or $537,000 if you do.

It's true that you don't have to make only the minimum payment every month. Nor do you want to. However, let's be honest with ourselves. For most people, most of the time, they will. Even if they had it to spend on the mortgage, the kids need shoes, they "need" a new car, or they "need" a vacation. My understanding is that less than 5 percent of the people who have negative amortization loans make bigger payments than minimum more than five percent of the time. So whereas you won't necessarily owe this much in three years, it seems a pretty good bet to me.

Now here's where people helping people in situations like yours get grey hairs. We're guessing at where the market is going to be in three years. Not only about what we think the general market will be like, but what we think this property will be worth. Some things are consistent. For instance, unless you do another remodel, it's unlikely your property will spontaneously acquire brand new cabinets and stainless steel appliances, and since you are stating that you can't afford your current payment, it's unlikely that you'll be able to purchase such. Your property will probably compare to the rest of the market about like it does today, or maybe a little worse. The carpet will get older, the paint on the walls will be a little older, the shingles on the roof will have used three more years of their useful life. You get the idea.

On the other hand, the market really doesn't have to gain much to offset this. Mostly it just has to firm up, and if it does so, then even a two and a half percent annualized rise in prices would cause you to break even. On the average, that's trivial. Less than half the overall average annualized rise. On the other hand, it's not something I or anyone else can guarantee. It's investment risk. The market could start sliding again, or it could be completely flat. Once you buy an investment, any investment, there is no way to remove risk from the equation completely. One of the things that caused the problems a lot of the country has in the current market was agents who promised the people that their property would appreciate - and sometimes it doesn't. It's one thing for people to make the choice knowing the risks; it's quite another to sell them property by telling them that "real estate always appreciates," or even that "Real estate never loses value." Both are patently false.

People have a tendency to assume that the market will keep doing what it has been doing in the most recent past. At the last update, lots of people were writing how my local market is going to lose another 20% in the next year - completely ignoring that we're no longer priced at economically unsupportable levels, and indeed, we were about thirty percent below where a macroeconomic analysis of real estate prices suggests that we should be. We didn't lose 20% - in fact things went up. The excess inventory ("high supply") that was half the reason the prices fell has been steadily falling for the last year, people are now finding that they can qualify for more house than they thought (removing the bar that has been choking the demand side). Decreasing supply and increasing demand: What do you think is going to happen? Furthermore, buyers were coming out of the metaphorical woodwork at that point in time. I had been running every second of the last previous three months, and I hadn't been soliciting - every last bit of business I can handle was been coming my way all on its own. Furthermore, in the high demand areas of town we were starting to see regular bidding wars like we did in 2003 and 2004, only this time the people involved have hefty down payments, and are qualifying for "A paper" thirty year fixed rate loans full documentation. Five years ago, military personnel had to settle for crummy housing unless they were an O-5. Now I'm finding even E-6s and E-7s beautiful detached homes, bigger than my own, of recent construction that they can actually afford to buy at current prices with full documentation loans.

There is one more level of complexity to add, though. What are you going to do for a place to live if you sell? What do the alternatives look like? How are rents, and what are likely to do in your area? Are landlords going to have to increase those rents? Are people moving out of your area, causing them to drop? A good agent in your area will know. Rents here are seeing significant upwards pressure, and although this isn't your area, the Era of Make Believe Loans is over. Sane landlords can't pretend that as long as rent makes up for the majority of what they spend, they'll eventually get it back with profit when they sell because the prices are rising as fast as they were. Apartments and condos make economic sense to rent out - single family detached housing, not so much.

These, then, are some of the things to consider. There's less risk in the "sell now" option, but you're accepting a significant hit by exercising it. If you hang on those three years, you might be just fine, or you might be hosed even more completely than you are now. When I originally wrote this, given that you know you can't afford the property, if you had come to me in San Diego, I'd probably have advised you to sell now (That advice would likely be quite different now). Selling is the safe option, however unsatisfying it is. Once you have sold, the hemorrhaging is over - you're not bleeding green every month. Sell to someone who can afford the property, and who can afford the risk that it will further decrease in value over the short term. The assumption would be that they would be getting a deal - but what if you hold on to the property and the dice come up snake eyes? You are looking at a maximum length of time before you will have to cut your losses or have them cut for you. This is a recipe for a disaster even bigger than selling now.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Not very long ago, the purchase market in many areas of San Diego went through a phase that could only be described as "piranha feeding frenzy". This sort of market reinforces several pieces of advice I have given here. First, What Happens When You Over-Price Real Estate?: properties priced correctly got multiple offers, properties priced a little under optimal were seeing bidding wars, while properties overpriced just a tad sat until the price got reduced low enough to counter the very high "days on market" counter. Second, all of the subsidiary ideas in How to Sell Your Home Quickly and For The Best Possible Price also got illustrated to anyone paying attention. Properties that were clean, uncluttered, and easy for buyers to get in to see (as well as priced correctly) are seeing multiple offers within a week, while corresponding properties without those virtues are sitting with no offers. Buyers and their agents even learned to avoid short sales, other things being equal.

But the most important thing is something that you kind of have to be a buyer or a buyer's agent to appreciate, and that is to be very careful you don't list your property with someone who doesn't have the time to dedicate to selling your property quickly and for the best possible price.

Here's the situation: You've got this one agent or brokerage. Their signs are all over on listings. "Must be pretty good," people think, and they call that agent, who comes out, schmoozes them, may even talk them into pricing the property correctly, and gets a signed listing agreement.

This agent then promptly disappears to schmooze more prospective listings. When previewing or showing properties where the owner is home, I've made a habit of asking a question of them that really asks about talking to their agent. It's damningly consistent how often these people tell me they can't so much as talk to their actual agent. Even talking to the agent's office staff is dubious. The agent themselves? No way. The only calls these people are getting from the listing office is new agents without listings hoping to use their property for an open house to make contact with buyers and bring more business to their brokerage that way. But working to actually sell the property they've agreed to undertake fiduciary responsibility for selling? Not so much.

Despite the barriers, I managed to talk to one of these listing agents last week. She told me "I have no idea how many offers I've got on the property. My office staff is handling that. I'm too busy because my transaction coordinator isn't doing their job."

Say WHAT? Whose job do you think all of that is? That transaction coordinator doesn't have their name and signature on the listing agreement. They didn't sign it, representing that they would diligently work to sell the property on the best possible terms. The office staff, including the transaction coordinator, is there to dot the is and cross the ts to enable the agent to handle more "big stuff". They are not there so that the agent can disengage themselves from the listing, or go heap more work onto the pile that the poor office staff has to deal with. Yet when I managed to indirectly suggest she should perhaps not accept any more listings until she had a handle on the ones she already had, she acted like I was some kind of alien monster, here on planet Earth to consume the poor hardworking agents such as herself, and usurp their Rolls-Royces. She's making money hand over fist - but her clients are getting hosed.

When I make offers - offers with reasonable deadlines to respond - they are sitting there, without response, for the week I give them, and usually several weeks beyond. It took one company six weeks to respond to a one week deadline offer, and I've got others where if they do eventually respond, the clock is sitting at nine weeks or more. Some of them are plying the time-honored (and horribly weak) technique of the "best and highest" offer - but even they're not picking one for weeks. This is pathetic. And then they have the gall to complain when they eventually do call back that my client has moved on and is no longer interested in their property. Just because it's like I'm talking to a black hole is no excuse to terminate the conversation, eh?

Not that the response to the "normal" listings and lender owned listings is great, but the response to short sales are far and away the worst. It seems that many agents are just having their back offices send all of the offers directly to the lender. No response to the offer, no negotiation and consultation with the actual owner of the property, no fully negotiated purchase contract, and definitely no fighting to get any particular offer accepted. Then they get upset when, after two months of this nonsense, most of the offers have moved on, including the highest, and none of the remaining offers are willing to match that highest offer that the lender just approved. In case you haven't figured it out yet, this means they're back to square one as far as actually getting the property sold, only the "days on market" counter stands so high they're going to have to cut the asking price even further to get any new buyers interested. Never mind that the lender might well have approved any of the offers if the agent had dug in and negotiated it correctly and fought for that offer. Never mind that the agent could certainly have gotten more money out of most - if not all - of the offers simply by coming up with reasons why it was in the prospective buyer's best interest to do so.

These poor people in the back office have no clue which offers are strong and backed up by a buyer's actual ability to perform, either. For that matter, neither do most listing agents. Letter from some lender asserting without evidence that the buyer is supposedly able to qualify for a loan in the amount of whatever loan amount is required? Worthless. What was the qualifying rate used to justify that conclusion and is it still available? What's their debt to income ratio and is there any wiggle room if the rates are a little bit higher, if there is some unreported debt, or if there's some kind of special tax assessment? Is the allowable loan to value ratio going to work for this property? Do these buyers have the cash to close? Nor is pre-qualifying with their favorite lender any better - not to mention that requiring a buyer to do anything with any particular third party - even simply requring prequalification with a given lender is illegal under RESPA.

To make up for the back office and agent's incompetence at deciding whether a given offer is backed by an ability to perform, listing agents are attempting to impose onerous and abusive requirements for buyers in order to make that agent's life easy - not to get the most money from the quickest sale and the fewest problems. I just read a listing that said no offers will be submitted without seven different illegal requirements, and a host of others that certainly act to discourage buyers with even halfway competent agents. Starting the "due diligence" period as soon as the offer goes in, before there is a fully negotiated contract, so the buyer has to spend money when they might not even get a contract, and when they technically do not have the right to have inspectors at the property? Requiring buyers to qualify with or even to use particular lenders? Requiring the contact information for the buyers themselves, allowing them to bypass the buyer's agent and contact the buyer directly? All of those are violations of major legal principles involved in real estate - and I've seen them on many listings within the past few weeks. Nor are they in the nature of "fiduciary duty" because they enable both the agent and their client to be hauled into court for violations of the law, costing far more than the principal could possibly make even if they buyers didn't understand their legal rights. Quite frankly, what these requests most often do is scare away qualified buyers who are competently advised, as well as causing the property to be worth less to the ones that do stick around.

The way to get good responses is first, to not put onerous conditions upon the property in the first place, and second, to respond in a timely fashion to every offer. Whether you counter-offer or explain that there are better offers on the table is determined by circumstances. But by responding to prospective buyers, engaging them in the process, and letting them know you take them seriously, the listing agent and their client are building psychological buy in for the buyers. They are giving the buyers a reason to believe that there is a real possibility of getting this property, and given such, they will focus upon this property. Until there's a fully negotiated purchase contract, those buyers are free to wander off in search of other properties, and if not responded to in a timely fashion, pretty much all of them will. Why not, when there is no response? Even "Talk to the hand!" is more response than I'm getting out of most listing agents these days.

Any time you have multiple offers, that is a golden opportunity to play them off against each other, netting more for the clients. These "top producers" are completely blowing these opportunities, which incidentally would net them more money in commissions, as well, but they're too busy signing new listing contracts to properly service the ones they've got. I'd be too ashamed of myself to associate myself with these listings. I'd certainly never brag about it in the vein of "I sold all these properties!" Have they no professional pride whatsoever? Kind of like someone who's supposed to be a maker of fine cabinetry bragging about creating steaming piles of excrement.

Let's examine the economics of the situation. Say that an agent can have thirty listings, of which three or four will close in any given month and a couple more agreements will expire. Suppose they are getting 90% of the sales price a dedicated agent with two active listings who sells them all quickly will get. Let's say the "top producer" averages 3.5 sales per month, while the not so top producer who actually serves their client interests averages 1.8. Let's do the math.

First off, that "top producer" has thirty signs on thirty properties out there advertising them and their services. The agent who serves client interest has two at any given time - and not the same two for very long. It's repetition and consistency that sell services to more members of the public who don't understand how these things work. Most yard signs (not my occasional listings - thanks to an idea I got from Greg Swann) advertise the agent, not the listing. But people driving by the same sign every day for six months are a lot more likely to call the agent to sell their property than the ones who drive by the same sign for only four to six weeks. Benefit: "top producing" bozo, not consumer. This turkey is selling about 12% of their listings per month, as opposed to the agent we're considering, who sells 90% of their listings per month.

Let's examine who makes how much, as far as the agents go: "top producer" gets 3.5 commission checks per month for 90% of the commission, because they found a buyer that produced 90% of the sales price. Let's say the median price in the area is $400,000, and commissions are 3%. 90% of $400k is $360,000 times 3 percent times 3.5 checks per month means they average $37,800 per month in revenue to their brokerage, of which some goes to the brokerage and some to them. The agent who really gets the property sold gets $400,000 times 3% times 1.8 checks per month, which means they average revenue to their brokerage is $21,600 per month. Which agent do you think the brokerage values more?

Now let's look at individual consumers and how they come out. Let's assume 8% overall cost of selling the property, and a loan for 70% of the value of the property, in this case, $280,000. The person who chooses the "top producer" walks away with $51,200. The person who chooses the agent who actually makes the effort to sell their property walks away with $88,000 - more than sixty percent more money in their pocket. If the loan is for 90% of value, or $360,000, the "top producer" client is going to be short $28,800, while the real agent's client is still going to walk away with $8000 in their pocket. Not to mention that the property sells quickly, so you don't have all the monthly expenses of maintaining it even though it may be vacant. If you bought for $300,000 and have a $280,000 loan at 6% here in San Diego, that's about $1800 per month that the consumer saves, considering insurance, for every month the property didn't sit on the market unsold. All of this is real money! Not to mention the clients of the agent who limits how many clients they work with have a 90% per month probability of ending up happy, while the "top producer's" clients only have a 12% chance of ending up with a sold property, and they are not going to end up nearly so happy.

So if you still want a "top producer" after reading all of this, be my guest. They're easy to find. Just look for all the yard signs sitting in the yard for months - if the listing didn't fail completely. Look for corporate advertising blanketing a particular market channel. But if you look a little bit harder, you can find a competent agent who has the time and will actually work hard to sell your property, properly manage the offers they do get, and sell the property for a better price much more quickly, ending up in much more money in your pocket.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

My aunt is going to move to a new condo and wants to sell her old one. I would like to buy her old condo as an investment and rent it out (as I am already a home-owner). This whole investment/rental buying is all new to me.

She has lived there about 5 years and the value has increased more than double. Obviously I would love to be able to keep her tax base. I am thinking about getting an interest only loan to help me get into this. Can I get a loan for 100% of value? My aunt will need the entire amount to purchase her new place. What suggestions do you have to make the loan process easier and pay the least amount in fees?

It is worth between 360,000 to 390,000 (we haven't yet got an appraisal, this is from comps in area). My wife and I currently have a house in (City) with a value of 650,000 and a mortgage of 400,000. We both work and have some extra income, maybe 400 a month that we could supplement against a renter. I think we could qualify for the loan, but then we would have to refinance our house to cover a down payment and closing costs. We don't have any savings to pull from. My wife hopes to retire in 2 years and I will in about 8 years.

Investment property is a different item from a personal residence, in several particulars. First off, even if it's residential, the loan is a riskier one to the lender. A loan on investment property is going to carry a surcharge of 1.5 to 2 discount points (one discount point is one percent of the final loan amount), over and above any other charges for the rate you choose. Furthermore, despite a lot of research, I don't know a single lender that will currently do a loan on investment property for more than 80 percent of the value of the property (When I originally wrote this, it was 90-95 percent, but there has never been such a thing as a zero down investment property loan). So you need a down payment of at least twenty percent.

The good news is that whereas you do not have savings to pay it, you do have a considerable amount of home equity. Depending upon your exact situation, either a "cash out" refinance or just taking out a HELOC (Home Equity Line Of Credit) might be in your best interest. It depends upon your current mortgage and your credit, and I cannot make a recommendation one way or another without looking at the market you're in for current comparables, running your credit, and seeing what can be done. If you've got good credit and income, and have had the good credit and income for some time, it's more likely to be in your best interest to simply take out the HELOC. I have some without prepayment penalties and are zero cost. If your credit or income has improved of late, it may be in your best interest to refinance, or if you've got an ARM that's about to adjust anyway. Assuming you're "A" paper, you may now be a conforming loan where you would not have been when you took it out, although taking the cash out could cause you to exceed, once again, the conforming limit. Therefore, the acknowledgment that a HELOC is likely to be the way to go.

Cash flow is also an issue with investment properties. If you don't have a tenant, you get zero credit for the rent at initial purchase from A paper. If you do have a potential tenant, with a signed lease for at least one year, the lender will give you a credit of seventy-five percent of the proposed rent towards your cost of owning the home (principal, interest, taxes and insurance). Some subprime lenders will credit you with ninety percent, but their rates are typically higher in compensation. With the vacancy rate in urban California being about four percent, even ninety percent is a bit low, but the standards are what they are. I know many people who are making money hand over fist on rentals where the bank thinks they are paupers.

There is no such thing as an easy documentation investment property. Indeed, for any loan, for all real property you have to show the full breakdown for each property you own. When I first wrote this, you could state your overall income in most cases, and most folks with investment property had to do stated income due to the cash flow computations being so restrictive, but with the disappearance of stated income loans this option no longer exists. Most folks are probably going to have to incorporate and apply for cross-collateralized commercial loans - requiring higher interest rates and still more equity - in order get loans for investment property.

In urban California, however, prices had gotten so high that I did not remember (when I originally wrote this) the last time I saw a single family residence being purchased for rental purposes that "penciled out" with a positive cash flow. As I said in my article Cold Hard Numbers, this is one of the things that convinced me California real estate was overvalued. The penciling out part has now changed. Rents are up and prices are down, and due to all of the pressures placed on landlords by the changing loan rules for investment property, expect rents to continue to climb. I'm in escrow with some folks buying a better house than they're renting right now, and their monthly cash flow requirement is still going to go down, even before the effects of income taxes and all those lovely deductions for mortgage interest and property taxes.

(Got some spare cash lying around? Condominiums are wonderful investments at current price levels in my neck of the woods)

Now, as long as you have the cash flow to last until rents catch up, this is fine. But you need to be very certain that you do have that cash flow. When I originally wrote this, if you were buying for $360,000, that was a first loan at about 6.75 percent right now of $288,000, which gives a payment of $1868 (rates are lower now). Additionally, there's going to be Homeowner's Association dues of probably about $200, and taxes (assuming no Mello Roos) are about $375 per month, or about $200 if you can keep your aunt's tax basis. That sums to $2443 or $2268 if you can keep her tax basis. Now ask yourself how much similar units are renting for? If it's less than $2050 (or $1875 if you can keep the tax basis), your $400 per month isn't going to make up the difference. You might consider a negative amortization loan in this circumstance, but be advised that you're eating up your investment every month, the real interest rate is actually higher than the 6.75 percent, and prices may go down and not recover for several years, leaving you holding the bag for a big loss. It's a risk some folks are willing to take, others are not. I'm willing to do them for people in this situation, but only after I explain all the pitfalls (Option ARM and Pick a Pay - Negative Amortization Loansand Negative Amortization Loans - More Unfortunate Details cover most of them). Usually people who have been informed of the pitfalls decide that these loans are not for them, which is one of the reasons why I question whether the risks have been adequately explained to the forty percent of all local purchases being financed by these. (At this update: Anyone still have any doubts on that?)

Indeed, given the fact that you're going to have to make payments on the Home Equity Line of Credit as well, it's difficult to see how your $400 per month of extra cash flow is going to stretch to cover. If your credit is decent, I could have gotten you into the property, but that's not exactly doing you a favor if you find it impossible to make the payments.

Caveat Emptor

Original here

Agents rationalize this in all sorts of interesting ways, so let's just start by quoting the cold hard federal law. It's pretty damned clear:

RESPA

no person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or understanding, oral or otherwise, that business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person.

Let me repeat the important part: no person shall give and no person shall accept any fee, kickback, or thing of value

Is a "business relationship" a thing of value? It seems straightforward enough - I can't find anybody who says "no" - until we're talking about prequalifying my clients with their favorite lender. Then I get all kinds of hemming and hawing about there being "no money involved," as if the relationship itself were not valuable. That lender would now have client information, the ability to contact them per that "business relationship" codified in law, and likely the ability to sell that client's information (amazing how often the ability to opt out isn't offered until after the information has already been sold). Look up the legal definitions of consideration and value: I assure you that those definitions are not restricted to transactions where money is involved.

This pretends, of course, that there might exist such a referral relationship where there's absolutely no element of "You scratch my back - I'll scratch yours" involved. I have yet to find such a relationship. I suspect that even if I were to emulate Diogenes looking for such, I would die unsuccessful. Even when I am referring folks to real estate agents elsewhere, despite the fact that I accept no referral fees, there is some possibility they will eventually refer me some business back. Even if they don't, I still get the knowledge that these folks I dealt with in some way were satisfactorily served by a competent, conscientious provider. All of these things are of value to me, and if you're a professional agent or loan officer, they should be to you, also. And the business relationship is certainly valuable to the receiver. Therefore, all of these things involve both the giving of and the receipt of value.

REALTOR Magazine

Generally, to operate an affiliated business arrangement legally, you need to:

* Disclose to consumers your interest in the affiliated company
* Tell consumers the cost of the service
* Explain there's no required use, i.e., consumers are free to go elsewhere for the service without penalty

And there's the rub. When you require that consumers use a particular service, they are not free to go elsewhere. It doesn't matter if you don't have a financial interest. The only difference if you have no financial interest is that you don't have to disclose that interest.

It is one thing if the consumer asks for a referral. Then you can tell them about any companies, any providers of services you like, so long as you disclose any financial interests you and your company may have. It is a completely different matter to require them to use your favorite loan provider - and illegal. Even "just for prequalification"

Now if you want to argue about "How do I fulfill fiduciary duty to my client by filtering out unqualified buyers rather than wasting months on transactions that will never fly," you simply need a very few pieces of information: Debt to Income Ratio, Loan to Value Ratio (which you should know yourself from the contract) Credit Score, and Cash to Close. I guarantee you this is more information than 99.9 percent of all loan officers investigate when writing a qualification testimonial. Your client is entitled to this information - they are involved in a decision as to whether to grant credit by agreeing to the purchase contract, which will cost them thousands of dollars if unsuccessful. Then take this information to anyone you choose and ask them if they could get a loan done for this borrower. You have absolutely no reason to require any potential buyer patronize any particular loan provider in order to get this information.

(Here's a letter with an example of the information required)

And here's my public service for the day, to inconvenience those ethically challenged individuals that persist in this illegal practice of requiring buyers to pre-qualify with a given lender:

report RESPA violations

You should send a written complaint describing the practice that you believe violates RESPA. The complaint should include the names, addresses and phone numbers of the alleged violators. It is preferred that you include your name and phone number in case an investigator wishes to ask further questions. You may request confidentiality. Send the complaint to:

U.S. Department of HUD
Office of RESPA and Interstate Land Sales
451 7th Street, SW, Room 9154
Washington, DC 20410

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

The first thing you need to understand in reading any property advertisements is that agents write them to get people to call. They are trolling for clients, not sales. Except in the case of someone who doesn't accept dual agency advertising a listing they actually have, they are written purely with the idea of dangling something out there that clients want. Since most agents like dual agency just fine because it means they get paid twice for the same transaction, understand that only a tiny percentage of the ads that are written out there are written for any purpose other that to get potential clients to call.

Keeping this fact firmly in mind, there are two sorts of places where people go to search for property: Some that are based on MLS, and others that are not.

If it's in MLS or coming from MLS, it better be good information. I can (and do) file violations on liars in MLS. So do others - every time somebody wastes our time by saying the property has something that it doesn't. Filing violations in MLS is simple, it's effective, and after a certain low number of violations, the offender's input access gets restricted. They can't put properties in MLS and they might as well be out of business. Note that they can still "puff" a property significantly; but number of bedrooms, square footage, anything with a number or a yes/no associated with it had better be right. The big violation I'm finding most of recently is advertising it in MLS as "fee simple" when it should be either "PUD" or "Condominium". If it's got homeowner's association dues, it's not fee simple - end of discussion. It may be single family detached, but it's not fee simple ownership, as that homeowner's association has rights with respect to the property.

Everywhere else, everything that is not based on MLS, take all advertisements with a respectful amount of caution - Like at least equal in weight to the building. Once you get outside the domain of MLS, there are few sanctions possible for even the most outrageous puffery - or even advertising a property that does not exist at all. Or anything remotely similar. Some agents won't put anything out there that isn't as close to gospel truth as they can make it, but others are not nearly so fussy, and you really want to avoid the latter sort.

Non-MLS based property advertisements may now be pending, it may be sold, or it may in fact never have existed. The agent put that ad in trolling for buyers. What they want is your signature on an exclusive buyer broker agreement, so they can lock your business up. Readers here know you shouldn't sign exclusive buyer's agency agreements, because that's a poor way to get a good buyer's agent, but most people don't know that and most agents are laying in wait for the ignorant.

A good buyer's agent can help you debunk the nonsense. Quite often, I have clients who should know better, as I've explained this to them - often more than once - ask me about this fantastic possibility they see from site not sourced in MLS. About as surprising as gravity, they turn out to be in some way non-factual. Claiming 2 bedrooms when it's really one, or four bedrooms when it's really two. 1 bedroom when it's really a studio or loft. And sometimes, they actually had it, at that price, six or ten years ago. And then I call the agent listed on the ad, look it up on MLS, and voila! the deception becomes apparent.

There's nothing wrong with responding to such ads, and there's nothing wrong with working with the agents who advertise them, so long as you limit yourself to a nonexclusive agreement, so you can get rid of them when it become apparent they're not guarding your interests. But even with a non-exclusive agency agreement, I'd be asking myself "If they lied to get get me to call, what else are they going to lie to me about?"

I just had a client send me three prospects from one of the non-MLS based search services. All three of them were non-existent, posted by a lead generating service as bait so they could sell everyone who responded as a lead to agents. They didn't have such a property, they never did have it, it wasn't even for sale, and hadn't been for over 10 years. But that's how they get leads, which they then sell to several agents.

Here's another sneaky trick: Services advertising themselves as "foreclosure specialists" go around to all the properties that have a trustee's sale happen. They illegally put a sign in the yard, relying upon the fact that the property is vacant, directing passersby to a phone number. On the phone number, they put the puff description from whatever the last time was that it was in MLS, whatever they can see, or something they can pull from assessor records. They say they have an exclusive listing. What they really have is nothing. I've tried contacting lenders before their new lender owned property gets listed. Even if I have a buyer willing to make an offer, they usually don't want to hear about it. What the places who claim they've got "foreclosures before they're listed" are doing is trying to get suckers to call - in other words, trolling for clients. They simply know that the lenders are eventually going to put 99.999999 percent of these on the market within a few weeks, and they can fend you off until then. They aren't offering anything real. They don't have anything real. They are doing nothing beyond trolling for clients who will generate easy commission checks. They don't have to even sell you that one. If they had anything real, when I call for a client they should be falling all over me, like the agents that really do have foreclosures. Those agents who really do have lender owned listings are falling all over themselves to get back with me. The troll services take my information and say, "We'll have to call you back," and they just don't. I call again, they do the same thing. I ask who's the listing agent responsible for a property and what number to call to contact them, they don't have an answer. Then it comes up on the MLS, and the agency that's been advertising it is nowhere in sight. This is different from people who are buyer's agents who have legitimately gone out and found bargains - because they'll tell you they want to act as buyer's agents. In the first case, they are claiming to have a listing that they do not, in fact, have. In the second case, they are claiming to have found a bargain, and are telling you quite straightforwardly that they are looking to represent buyers. That's what I do. But when you're acting as the agent for the seller, you're not supposed to say anything that violates a fiduciary relationship - in other words, a listing agent is supposed to pretend this property is the greatest bargain since the Dutch bought Manhattan, or at least as close as you can realistically get. It's in the job description, not to mention the contract.

So be aware before you respond to property advertisements that quite often, the property advertised doesn't exist. To avoid leads services, look for specific names of the agent in the advertisement. To avoid problem agents who require an exclusive agency agreement before showing, simply refuse to sign exclusive agreements. Dual Agency is a very bad idea for buyers (and it's not good for sellers, either). If they have the listing, they're going to get paid when the property sells regardless of whether you signed that agreement. If they don't have the listing, they still risk nothing with a non-exclusive buyer's agency agreement.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

Listing Agents say they hate it when prospective buyers (of their listings) make offers on multiple properties, but they keep doing things to encourage it.

It is both legal and simple for buyers to make multiple offers. All I have to do is include some phraseology about this offer will be withdrawn in the event of the acceptance of another offer. Listing agents do the equivalent thing every time they negotiate multiple offers. At least they do it if they are hardworking and smart, rather than asking everyone for their "best and highest offer," a lame, weak technique that has precisely one advantage - minimal labor for the listing agent - and a laundry list of disadvantages. But it should not surprise anyone that if listing agents can do one thing, buyer's agents can respond by executing multiple offers, especially where sellers and listing agents miss deadlines to counter, take weeks to make up their mind, don't respond to requests for information, and have to be goaded into responding at all.

A single offer is stronger for both buyers and sellers. For buyers, it says that you have singled out this one property to make an offer on. You want this one, at least if the seller can be dealt with on a reasonable basis. It says you aren't going to flake out or abandon them mid-negotiation because you have found something you like better, and if you come to an agreement, you're not going to abandon that agreement without reason. Someone making multiple offers cannot claim any of this. For sellers, all of these are valuable features of an offer - perhaps more valuable than an extra $10,000 on the offer. If your agent doesn't understand this, that's a problem.

Furthermore, encouraging multiple offers encourages both lowballing and uncommitted buyers who don't care whether they buy your property or not. There's not much emotional buy-in, but many buyers will throw out a low-ball for marginal properties just to see if they get a response. But even if you do respond to such offers, they're not going to turn into the kind of offer that makes sellers happy.

For all the complaints about multiple offers I hear, though, listing agents seem to keep doing things to encourage them. Sitting on offers for weeks is a bad idea because buyers will move on. Sitting on purchase offers without response for six weeks or more. When the sellers finally respond, the buyers are already in escrow on something else. About a month ago, I got a response three weeks after the offer, two weeks after deadline to respond, during which time the clients decided they wouldn't be happy in the property after all. Agents who delegate assistants (licensed or not) to check boxes on offers are a definite turn off, as well - those assistants have no idea what is a good offer and what is not. They have never seen the property, they have no idea of the market it sits in, no real clue as to general market activity - and if the agent doesn't have their hands on the situation pretty constantly themselves, neither does the assistant. When I call an agent phone number in the listing, and there is literally no way of talking to the agent, or for that matter, any actual living person, that's a situation for a throwaway multiple offer, if anything at all. They're not taking prospective buyers seriously. Put in a lowball multiple offer, if they respond in a timely fashion, great. Otherwise, let's move on with our lives.

If you want buyers to make single offers, you need to respond to them promptly and individually. You need to take the time to understand the offer and the strong and weak points, and you have to understand how it matches up with your clients needs. This takes time, and it takes an agent who knows what they are doing - not a clueless unlicensed part time receptionist who is filling in boxes. This means that in order to get the most mileage out of the offers you get, you have to have a listing agent who has the time to spare for this particular listing. The corporate transaction mills are not the way to get that. There are many reasons I advise people against so-called "top producers," and that is only one of them. If you want the best possible price, you need an agent with the ability to invest enough time in your property to make a difference. Yes, I use loan processors and transaction coordinators. They're not allowed to interact with my clients, and they don't even enter into the picture until and unless we've got a full loan package ready for submission or a fully negotiated purchase contract. They're there to dot the i's and cross the t's - taking care of the routine fine detail work that most clients never know about - not so I can disengage myself from the transaction.

If the agency real estate office is doing everything they can to take as many listings as they can, to the point where the agents cannot properly service those listings, that's a situation where you're begging for multiple, weak offers. I put deadlines to respond on every offer I type. Reasonable deadlines, minimum of three business days, perhaps five, to give the other side plenty of time to respond. Most of my buyer clients have time pressures. They don't have three weeks to wait and see if one offer responds, after which they wait three more weeks to see if another offer responds, when they're operating under any kind of a deadline. I'm working with a client who's being posted here from elsewhere a couple months from now. When we started looking , even a short sale was a legitimate possibility, which should surprise you given my general opinion that buyers should avoid short sales. Inconsiderate listing agents trying to service too many listings have eaten most of the time we had to play with, causing us to now be in the situation of needing to make multiple offers on multiple properties. Buyer degree of attachment to any given property: small. Buyer willingness to negotiate on any given offer: small. Buyer willingness to offer an attractive price in such circumstances: small. And these "top producer" megaoffices listing these properties are wondering why, despite the incredible numbers of offers being made, they're not getting the kind of increases in value we saw a few years ago? Why the offers are all petering out at a low level? Why prospective buyers who do get accepted offers are so likely to bail out on the deal? Why actual sales prices aren't increasing?

Many listings want to accumulate offers for weeks. I've read several listings that say things like "no offers will be evaluated until (two weeks from now)." Okay, if we like the property, and nothing else catches our eye, we'll consider making an offer just before then. Keep in mind, it'll be ten days between when my client saw the property and when they make their offer, it won't be a hot "right now" offer or even a lukewarm "next day" offer. It'll be a multiple offer - only fair, since that's what the seller is asking for. And if my buyers find something else in the meantime, well, there won't be any offer made at all.

Let me ask: what happens when your best offer - most often the first, almost always one of your early ones - has moved on with their life? For that matter, what happens when all the good offers have moved on with their life? You're stuck with the low-ball offer from a flipper, that's what. I'd hate to be in a situation where I told my listing client there were 8 offers - but only the two lowballs were still interested because I had my head you-know-where. But that's what these agents are setting themselves up for.

If there are competing offers and one of them isn't nearly as attractive as another, there is no harm in saying so, and saying so quickly. Either they will drop out of contention or they will increase the attractiveness of their offer. If they increase their offer, my client is happy. If they drop out, my work with them is done, and they're now out there looking at other properties. The quicker I answer, the more likely it is that this prospective buyer will respond with a better offer. I'm perfectly willing to fax over (slightly redacted) critical pages of competing offers in such situations where their offer isn't even close.

Every offer needs to get a timely response, whether it's a rejection, a counter, or an acceptance. This is not only common courtesy, but good business, and the best way to end up with a good price on the final contract, one that the buyer is both willing to and capable of meeting promptly.

Negotiate with each offer individually. Asking everyone for a "Best and Highest" offer is very weak. Any buyer's agents that are worth a damn know how to respond to that one. Individual negotiations (if you happen to actually have multiple offers) works wonders. Put the multiple offer disclaimer on it if it's appropriate, and slap it back to them same day if you can. Keep the negotiations hot. Keep the buyer's memory fresh. Increase the buyer's mental buy-in if you can. This is labor intensive, but it leads to happy clients, bigger paychecks, and more clients. I don't see how anything else can be more important than those three things for an agent. I don't see how anything can be more important than just creating happy clients.

Encouraging multiple offers by acting like you don't care about prospective buyers is a good way to be forced to settle for less money than you could have gotten. I don't encourage it, I don't recommend it, and I very definitely do not practice it. I don't understand those agents and sellers who do. You get the buyers you deserve - the desirable buyers you earn by treating them correctly. Give them respect, give them attention, negotiate with them as individuals, and one good, seriously interested buyer is all that you need to get a good price for the property.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here

This is one of the hardest things to get across to many people - agents included. A property with a fully negotiated purchase contract is not one that someone else can buy. They have a legal agreement binding them to sell it to someone else. If they sold it to you, they could be sued for what is called "specific performance" - in other words, do what you agreed that you would do - and I am given to understand that you don't want to be on the losing end of such a suit.

You are wasting your time making an offer that the owner is not free to accept. I would actually argue it's worse than that: You're effectively trying to bribe someone into not meeting their contractual obligations. If your terms are worse than what they have now it's not a very effective bribe, but you're still making the attempt. If you were in the position of the accepted offer, how much would you like it?

Nor is a so-called "back-up offer" likely to get you the property on any kind of advantageous terms. Watch the property in MLS and see if it drops back to "available" rather than pending, but making a back-up offer will do nothing but weaken your negotiating position if that property should become available again.

There are ways to get out of accepted contracts. The classic one is non-performance of the other party. The other side doesn't do what they said they would do - they go past the agreed upon escrow period, they can't qualify for the loan, whatever. There are as many ways to fail in contractual obligations as there are contractual obligations. Neither side is required to cut the other side one iota of additional slack beyond what is spelled out in the contract.

With that said, if the contract isn't one you want to honor, why in the heck did you agree to it? If it doesn't put you into a better position, why did you agree to it? The only reasonable response to this that I'm aware of is "It is better than no deal, but then someone came along and offered a better one" To which the person on the other end of the negotiated contract will reply, "too late." They have now spent significant resources towards honoring their end of the deal you agreed to. If you hadn't made the agreement, they wouldn't have spent the money for appraisal, inspection, etcetera. None of these transfer to another property.

Another reason this happens is because when the property gets moved to 'Pending' in MLS, that listing agent no longer has prospects calling them wanting to view the property. Many listing agents see the listing primarily as a way to attract buyer clients, and when it's no longer available, see themselves as 'deprived' of that benefit. These are almost always really awful agents, both for buyers and for sellers.

As a final word on the subject, it is possible that some agents will tell you a property is under contract when it is not in fact under contract. Perhaps they're finalizing the last few details and it's really at least in the neighborhood of true. Sometimes, there isn't an offer at all and the agent is simply filtering out offers they see as undesirable - usually from the point of view of a bad agent rather than that of their client, the seller. Unfortunately, what all of these possibilities have in common is it's rarely worth paying a lawyer to fight about. Let it go - there are other properties just as good out there, where nobody is playing these counter-productive games.

Caveat Emptor

This is a right given to buyers agents by my local MLS, and it's a good one, that I like to take advantage of whenever it is practical. The actual property owner - not the listing agent - does have the right to refuse in writing, a copy of which must be provided to that buyer's agent.

This presentation is not intended to be an argument, and the buyer's agent is not permitted to stay for discussion of the offer between the owner and their agent. Think of it as a prepared speech. What I make is very akin to a corporate Power-Point presentation - in fact, it is a Power Point presentation on my laptop when I have the opportunity to put one together. Chances are good that you have seen dozens or hundreds of presentations basically like mine, except that I can guarantee to get done in fifteen minutes or less, providing nobody interrupts and starts arguing. The presentation is not intended to be an argument. It's a sales pitch. It's intended to make a calm, rational case why this offer that my client is making is one that should be accepted. I make my case, thank them for listening, and leave. I am not allowed to be present for the discussion of the offer, so it wouldn't be very smart of me to design my presentation as an argument. Also, it would be pretty silly of me to expect an immediate response. It would be stupid to demand one.

Many people seem to feel threatened by such presentations. My best understanding is that most of these are afraid of conflict. As I said before, however, it's not an occasion for an argument. I am not allowed to hang around for the discussion, and my presentation is geared towards being perceived as the rational thing to do when the discussion starts without me there to defend it. I don't like it when presentations turn into an argument. A presentation is an opportunity for me to speak my piece directly to the seller, unfiltered by any outside influences, so that both parties have an opportunity to gauge the mental state of each other. If the listing agent has done their job correctly, we're going to be saying the same things, albeit from a different perspective. On the other hand, if the listing agent is a problem personality who "bought" the listing, wants both halves of the commission, has their hand out behind their client's back, or any number of other unsavory problems, then a seller should be grateful to that buyer's agent for providing them with evidence to suspect such. Not to mention that presenting an offer in person is the only way I know of to guarantee that said offer doesn't go straight from the fax machine to the trash can without intersecting the seller in-between. Yes, I do know agents that I suspect of this. I could name agents I more than suspect of this - and the only way I can ensure it doesn't happen is request to present offers in person. I'm calm, I'm professional, and if I get a signed note saying the client doesn't want me to present in person, they at least know about the offer. And even if you've known your agent your entire life, "trust but verify" is never bad advice.

This isn't to say bad conduct on the part of a buyer's agent during presentations should be tolerated. If the presentation is made at the listing office or at the owner's home, they have a right to insist that I leave. If we're out in public somewhere, they have the ability to pick up and leave at any moment. It is incumbent upon me to give them reasons to keep listening.

Many listing agents feel threatened by this request. If they have done their job correctly, there is no reason for them to be, because what I'm going to say is going to reinforce the critical parts of what they should have said, thereby bringing them additional credibility in the eyes of their client. If it doesn't, well then the client has to judge the situation on its merits. That listing agent has unlimited access to the client. I have this short prepared presentation limited to one subject - my client's offer and why they should accept it. If the listing agent can't make a better case that their interpretation is better than mine, something is wrong. I'm not trying to steal their client - I want to make certain we're all on the same page. And if the listing agent has done their job correctly and I'm a bozo, well, the comparison isn't going to flatter me. So I'm motivated to get it right.

I do not agree to disclose the presentation or the offer beforehand, however. I am responsible to my client to make the presentation as strong as possible, and tipping my hand short-circuits the entire purpose of the presentation. It isn't like the seller has to come up with an immediate verbal response, as if we were in court. When I'm done, I thank them for listening and walk out. They have until offer expiration to respond - so it's in their best interest to schedule me as soon as possible. I just had a request where the listing agent refused unless I faxed over the offer first - which defeats the entire purpose of making the presentation. No. There is no reason you need to see it beforehand - unless you're trying to cover for your own lack of competence. You've got the same data I do. You can figure out precisely which comparable properties I'm going to use, and propose your own. I similarly, have to anticipate this and tell why the comparables I pick are the correct ones, and make the comparisons make sense in the real world. I have a short presentation time to make my case. You have unlimited time to disagree with me, in free format. I'm not allowed to be present for discussions unless you intentionally start those discussions with me present. If I do say something you disagree with and you can't out-argue me before your own client with all of those advantages, something is rotten in your State of Denmark. Not that the presentation is intended to be an argument - but if the listing agent insists on making it one, all of the advantages are in their corner. I can't fight either a listing agent or an owner who doesn't want to be reasonable. I can't force anyone to agree with me, to sign a contract they don't want to sign, or anything else. Actually, if someone on the other side is not going to be reasonable, both me and my client are better off finding out right away. What I can do is build a coherent rational case why it is in the seller's interest to accept our offer.

Nor will I agree to limit the subject of my presentation, at least not any further than presenting the case I need to make. I'm not going to talk politics, I'm not going to display any of the internet's famous prurient material, and I'm not going to do anything else that's irrelevant. I will cover the state of the market, I will cover which properties are and are not comparables, and I will cover why this is a good offer that should rationally be accepted. I recently had a listing agent tell me that they would only agree to let me make a presentation if I limited myself to one section of the presentation I usually give - the "my clients are good people" spiel. I could have lied and told them I'd do it. Instead I told them that their condition was not acceptable. This right was intentionally granted to buyer's agents precisely because there should be checks upon the agent on both sides, and in many cases, clients trust agents in defiance of all reason because they don't understand that the agent is telling them garbage because nobody else gets to talk to them. Whether a buyer's agent makes an in person presentation isn't the listing agent's call. They can certainly counsel the client on the subject, but the decision as to whether to accept the presentation is the client's - precisely because the agents we're all trying to get rid of are going to be the ones trying to prevent anyone else from talking to their client.

I haven't really done all that many of these yet. But the format of the presentation is pretty simple: Show them I'm a good guy, show them my clients are good people, talk about their situation. Then I segue into what the market conditions are, and the property and its position in the market. I show why the property is a good match for the client and why the client is a good match for the property by market position. I show why this offer makes sense in light of market and market position. I talk about the benefits of accepting the offer. Then I close by talking about how my client really wants this property, how well my clients qualify and evidence that they will be able to consummate the transaction - why it's a good fit all around. Finally, I thank them for listening and, assuming there are no questions, leave.

If nobody starts interrupting and arguing, it all takes ten to fifteen minutes. As I said, I'm not looking to attack anybody. Attacking doesn't get me a fully negotiated purchase contract, so it doesn't make my clients happy. What I am looking for is the opportunity to make my case in person, and present all of the evidence I want presented. The reasons it's advantageous to do so are obvious, but let me add one more: You would not believe all how often listing agents (or their clueless assistants!) do not read material that is in the offer, do not understand it, or don't understand even the most obvious implications of what is there. Some fraction of this is intentional filtering - not wanting their client to see information that client is entitled to see because it is part of the offer (this is called "intentional breach of fiduciary duty" in court filings) - while some is unintentional negligence, in that they're going through motions and making checks in boxes, and they don't pull their noses off the grindstone long enough to realize what's there in the offer and why it is important. But it is in the interest of both principals that this evidence be presented, and if the listing agent is too busy to take the time to understand the offer, they've got too many listings to properly discharge their fiduciary responsibilities to them. This is what is called prima facie evidence - "on the face of it", it is obvious that they're not properly discharging those duties. By allowing a buyer's agent to make a presentation, they are relieving themselves of a lot of potential for legal difficulty down the line, because the buyer's agent should talk about all of this stuff. That's the whole point of the presentation.

It's also an opportunity that everyone should welcome: to put human faces on the transaction, instead of just these mysteriously appearing pieces of paper and voices on the phone. It gets the buyer and seller thinking of each other in terms of being real people. It very much tends to lessen the tendency of people to draw lines in the sand and issue ultimatums, it increases the probability that this will become a fully negotiated purchase contract, and it becomes very helpful later on if we need subsequent negotiations because something new happens or is discovered about the property.

Here's one final benefit of the presentation: the listing agent has this same right to present counter-offers. I have to admit to encouraging tit-for-tat in my clients for this - if the listing agent allowed me to present, I think it's a good idea to reciprocate. If they didn't, that's not a good sign for the counter presentation or the transaction for that matter, and maybe we need to find another property not represented by such an problem personality. Whatever my attitude, it's my client's call. In the final analysis, you can't win a fight with a listing agent who is determined to be a problem personality. All you can do is avoid the fight by going elsewhere. To be fair, the same applies from the other side as well.

Caveat Emptor

Original article here