Forum Replies Created
Wow so you think that it is purely and simply due to the vendor demanding they put the advertised price up $100k huh? i think what has happened-the R.A has told trhem its worth x amount, its got a heap of interest, got some bids over the upper limit and they have gone 'oops this is actually worth another $100k'. Either way the R.A has made a monumental balls up. If not, if it is simply due to the vendor have a last minute irrational greed fest thinking they can get another $100k…hmmm we will see. Like I said ultimately the market will decide.
As for missing out on bargains etc-not even. Like I said, its more a matter of my wasted time that annoys me. Imagine if I advertised a new BMW X6 for $30k-Id have people banging my door down, then tell them oops actually its now for sale for $130k. Dont you think they would be slightly annoyed at me for wasting their time for coming and looking at the car? What would they think of me-that I was dishonest and shonky…
Hres a question for you-what is the % of auctions that sell over the upper limit of their quoted price? I bet it would be close to 80%?
Also I should add-my time, like most others is valuable, both personally and financially. By mis quoting they are wasting my time, time spent researching inspecting and contemplating.
diggerdigzit wrote:who is the stupid idiot here, if the agent ends up with the extra money in the vendors pocket then by hook or by crook he has done the right thing. it seems the only person who could complain is the prospective buyer who misses out and really that is just too bad. if it was your property i bet you wouldn't be complaining. As long as it is all legal, which i am assuming is the case here, then good luck to him. You want to bargain the vendor down, so what is so wrong with him bargaining upwards.I was actively involved in selling for quite some time and i get really sick of people whinging about agents. Vendors are a very fickle bunch and they do change their minds. Agents have to do as they are directed, that's the law folks. Sure there are dodgy ones out there, but i bet there are more politicians, solicitors, doctors and sports heroes in jail than real estate agents.s#@t happens, and any agent worth his salt that does what he can -ethically and for the vendor – to get the best price is deserving of his coin. sour grapes just don't count I'm afraid.
Thanks, you have just confirmed what I have always known about land rats-they are glorified used car salesman with no morales, no scruples who excuse any behaviour as being trying to get the best price for the vendor. Ethics and morals have a place in society…just not in realestate it would seem.
I have many many opportunites in my daily dealings where by 'though hook or by crook' I could rip people off. Sure I would be getting the best 'coin' for those who really matter-my family…..but ……
I thought bait and switch was outlawed…?
I just got back from two open inspections-absolutley packed!!!! Things definately havent slowed-what recession???
diggerdigzit wrote:blogs wrote:Have been interested in a house not far from where I live, been emailing the agent trying to arrange inspection. Was priced between $580-$620. Now I see they have changed the price to $685 lol what the?? What this tells me is either they are so incompetant that they cant value a property to within $100k (would hate to be the vendor….) or they knowing listed it $100k less initially to get interest.
or maybe they are acting on the vendors new instructions, some agents will do that!!
I highly doubt it. It has been listed ofr a few weeks-what the vendor all of a sudden becomes a expert and declares his property worth $100k more than the 'professional' agent….hmmm
Ah well, whatever the case at the end of the day the market will decide its true worth
Scott No Mates wrote:You never know, the agent may be fielding interest then go to auction. If too many are interested at the lower price, then they are entitled to raise it. Would you complain more if you owned it and they sold it for $615k when the market would have been $700k?I would have thought he would list it at the price it should be listed at. Listing a property at $100k less to 'field interest' is extremly dodgy. Hell why not initially advertise it for $200k less and get even more interest?? Ethics, professionals… bwahahahaha yeah right
Would I complain if they sold it for $615k when the market would have paid $700k-to right I would, I would be complaining why or earth a 'professional' agent couldnt qoute a property to within $100k of what it is worth!!!!!
Scott that is one of the silliest rebuttals I have ever read, hopefully you are being sarcastic/tongue in cheek?
Obviously if you are an intelligent person well informed in the ways of the world you would realise that low sell price items such as coffees, newspapers, screws at Bunnings etc all attract very high margins due to the fact that the contribute little in the way of covering overheads, and there associated overheads on a per item basis are quite high. Sure a coffee might cost $0.40 cents to make plus overheads, and it gets sold for $2.50, but gee to make $120,000 a year you have to sell around 92,300 coffees lol basically one every single minute of every single day. Crazy…
But the poor ole B.A/R.A only have to sell a few properties a year and they are set. A dead set bunch of crooks-I see plenty of land rats driving around in Masseratis, Lambos, Beemers and Ferraris (my heart bleads for them) but cant say I see the corner shop owner or hardware guy rocking up in one….funny that eh?
No matter which way you look at it what we are getting charged is far in excess of the associated costs and associated skills required. Its not even as if they have to go to uni for years, be highly trained, highly skilled or even highly stressed-THEY ARE IN A WIN WIN SITUATION if the property doesnt sell easily its becaus the market is slow or the vendor wants to much, if it does sell its becasue they have done such a great job lol, so how do they justify the high fees??
Con of the millenium…
Scott, I also believe R.E A gents are grossly overpaid-just couldnt be bothered posting it. Largely the property sells itself, if you think the agent sells it you are dreaming…..
Hell, lets presume my property sells in two months, a fair time on market. I could hire some one full time on a pro rata wage of around $120k for what they charge. For what-a used car salesman…? Dreamin….
What a joke buyers agents are-charging a % of purchase price, what-for every dollar more expensive the house is do they spend a proportional amount of time on researching it? And for $10k I would want them working full time soley for me..dreamers….
devo76 wrote:Fair point. But picking the bottom to buy is a hard thing to do. If the numbers stack up then it shoudnt matter. If my parents bought there home many years ago for $35,000. Do you think it matters now if they could have waited for another year and got it for $32,000. Its value today makes these figures redundant. To say investors only buy in a rising market seems very strange to me. Im sure many would disagree with this. Oh and thanks for the comment on my brain power.Not sure which of your 6 posts I was to reply to, but here goes…
Mate, you could use your logic just as easily in the stock market-who cares if you buys at the top just before the crash-as in 10 years time the value will make the bu yprice redundant….
I think its silly to buy just for the sake of buying, especially when EVERYTHING is indicating the prices will only get cheaper. If you have enough money that you dont mind blowing 5-10% (which could easily be $20-$40k average) then good for you. Im not that rich yet so those numbers matter to me..
And as for brain power-ummm you are the one who had the first swipe saying poster like me should find something better to do with their time….? Just returning the favour buddy
devo76 wrote:Fair point. But picking the bottom to buy is a hard thing to do. If the numbers stack up then it shoudnt matter. If my parents bought there home many years ago for $35,000. Do you think it matters now if they could have waited for another year and got it for $32,000. Its value today makes these figures redundant. To say investors only buy in a rising market seems very strange to me. Im sure many would disagree with this. Oh and thanks for the comment on my brain power.Not sure which of your 6 posts I was to reply to, but here goes…
Mate, you could use your logic just as easily in the stock market-who cares if you buys at the top just before the crash-as in 10 years time the value will make the bu yprice redundant….
I think its silly to buy just for the sake of buying, especially when EVERYTHING is indicating the prices will only get cheaper. If you have enough money that you dont mind blowing 5-10% (which could easily be $20-$40k average) then good for you. Im not that rich yet so those numbers matter to me..
And as for brain power-ummm you are the one who had the first swipe saying poster like me should find something better to do with their time….? Just returning the favour buddy
devo76 wrote:I love it when these for and against property investing post pop up over and over and over both on here and somersoft. The for posters are here for the right reason. The against really need to find something better to do with there spare time.I love it when people arent bright enough to realise comments such as mine are discussing investing, and part of investing is analysing when to buy and sell. If you are happy to buy in a falling market you arent a investor, so perhaps its you who needs to find something better to do with your time…..
well…that article sums it up nicely….
No doubt…but I dont see it as being either all for or all against. More just being smart and not buying at the top of the market when it was obvious financial gloom and doom was just arounf the corner. Ive been saving and will start buying in around 12 months time I reckon…collecting data now on areas Im interested in so I have a base line..
elkam wrote:I love it when the figures used to support huge house price falls are all for properties in the $ 2 / 3 / 4 M bracket.
Even in the suburbs mentioned there are properties for more "normal" people. What has happened to those?I love it when property bulls are more than happy to use figures when they were indicating prices going up, but when it shows they are going down they dont want to know about them…..
if you are talking $400-$500k properties, they are being propped up by the grant. Once thats been removed whhooooo boy….
Sorry-Bardon-my comment wasnt necessarily directed at you, it was supposed to be a general comment to the 'property bulls' only realised later (but cant edit) that it would sound that way…
rayd wrote:Remember house prices are down 19% and 17% in the US and UK respectively so far (not 40%) – and both of these countries have failed banking systems. So to say a 40% collapse in Australian property prices is ahead is a very pessimistic call.Remember we still have a lot of this recession to flow through. Deloittes are predicting a further 33% fall in U.K property prices by 2010. They are very respectoible and dont have vested interests….
Not sure where you are getting you figures from either-the USA is currently 30% down..
http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/03/31/us-home-prices-drop-record-19-in-january/
"Average home prices across the U. S. are now at levels not seen since late 2003. As of January 2009, the 20-city composite is down 29.1%, from its peak in the second quarter of 2006. A measure of the 10 largest cities is down 30.2%."
Either way, sure it may not drop 40%, but it sure as heck aint going to be going up….
bardon wrote:The last I looked it was back on or very near its long term average.The last you looked what was back on its long term average?
Sooo you are saying you dont think property prices will fall any further?
Im not going to argue with anyone-you can all think what you like. Obviously the people who bought and lost 33% in Toorak for example thought prices were going to keep going up, and so do you. Seems simple to me-things are only going to get worse before they get better. With this in mind if you beleive despite all this property will some how miraculously fight the tide and actualy go up in value you have rocks in your head….
maree_bradross wrote:Mentone? I struggle to believe Mentone……. not from what I have seenWhy's that? The facts and figures speak for themselves….
Ummmm becasue this 'recession' is unlike any we have ever had before and the property price bubble is far far bigger than anytime before. Property has increased (inflated) at a faster rate than ever before, and will equally deflate or pop by more than ever before.
Why is it that people can accept gains far outside the realms of 'normal' but cant accept coenciding losses…..?
Tell me-why do you think 40% is rediculous? What have you based this 'educated' opinion on? Toorak is already 33% down-you think once the full recession hits, interest rates go up, unemployment up inflation up they couldnt possibly drop another 7%?
