Would you raise the asking price if your house is on the market 90 days+ ? (Wheatley Heights: fit in, foreclosure)

[Elke Mariotti]

Originally Posted by Quick Commenter

The prevailing view in my area is that 1/2 acre is about half the work and considerably lower taxes than a full acre. .

Lower taxes to be sure; considerably - I doubt it. If you ever have the opportunity to compare assessments for the land vs. the improvements on your (or someone elses) tax bill, you will see that the land portion is a small part of your assessment; double the land would not add "considerably" to the assessment.

Less work - DEFINITELY I downsized from 2 acres to 1/2 acre and while I miss the privacy, taking care of 1/2 acre is enough for me at this point!!

[Elke Mariotti]

Originally Posted by ObserverNY

Hi Elke,

So my friend taking the $125,000 hit had the appraisal come in at $40,000 over the final sales price. He even told the buyers they "'stole" the house. She is also a licensed RE salesperson. But she had to get out. The realtor she listed with didn't do anything for her.

I feel bad for the position your friend was in. $40,000 is a lot of money!

You didn't specify if this was a short sale or just a "need to sell". As you probably know, with a short sale, she wouldn't get any $$ anyway (now, sometimes the lender gives $2K-$3K or so "moving money"). If she did indeed end up with some of the sales proceeds, knowing that she "left money on the table" surely must have hurt; I don't know what advice her agent provided in the negotiating process. However, if that was the only qualified buyer, did she have the option to wait for another offer?

Do you know if the agent for the buyers was a "Buyer's Agent"? If so, s/he may have done his/her research and discovered the (financial) need of your friend to sell and used it to benefit his/her clients--to the detriment of your friend.

[Quick Commenter]

Originally Posted by Elke Mariotti

Lower taxes to be sure; considerably - I doubt it. If you ever have the opportunity to compare assessments for the land vs. the improvements on your (or someone elses) tax bill, you will see that the land portion is a small part of your assessment; double the land would not add "considerably" to the assessment.

Less work - DEFINITELY I downsized from 2 acres to 1/2 acre and while I miss the privacy, taking care of 1/2 acre is enough for me at this point!!

Lower taxes 'for sure' as you say. Year to year, as a percentage, there is quite a difference in the land assessments. 'Considerably' as in , own the house for twenty years, add up the tax bill difference for each of those twenty years. I believe the word 'considerably' applies.

[Elke Mariotti]

Originally Posted by Quick Commenter

Lower taxes 'for sure' as you say. Year to year, as a percentage, there is quite a difference in the land assessments. 'Considerably' as in , own the house for twenty years, add up the tax bill difference for each of those twenty years. I believe the word 'considerably' applies.

LOL I was looking at it in terms of compared to the "improved" portion of your tax bill.
For example:
assessment for land................... 300
assessment for improvements... 4,250

double the land COULD be 600, but is often less, depending on the location, and therefore I considered that to be less than considerable... All a matter of what and how you're looking at it

[ObserverNY]

Originally Posted by Elke Mariotti

I feel bad for the position your friend was in. $40,000 is a lot of money!

You didn't specify if this was a short sale or just a "need to sell". As you probably know, with a short sale, she wouldn't get any $$ anyway (now, sometimes the lender gives $2K-$3K or so "moving money"). If she did indeed end up with some of the sales proceeds, knowing that she "left money on the table" surely must have hurt; I don't know what advice her agent provided in the negotiating process. However, if that was the only qualified buyer, did she have the option to wait for another offer?

Do you know if the agent for the buyers was a "Buyer's Agent"? If so, s/he may have done his/her research and discovered the (financial) need of your friend to sell and used it to benefit his/her clients--to the detriment of your friend.

It was not a short sale, she had a mortgage from CountryWide that she got them to agree not to foreclose as long as the house was on the market. The buyer's real estate agent, to the best of my knowledge, was a seller's agent. Elke, you know that being a buyer's agent in NY is next to impossible. Ever had an in-house exclusive and have other brokers come to your open house claiming to be "buyer's brokers", when in reality, they are simply operating as regular seller's agents? I have.

[TomMoser]

Originally Posted by ObserverNY

Elke, you know that being a buyer's agent in NY is next to impossible. Ever had an in-house exclusive and have other brokers come to your open house claiming to be "buyer's brokers", when in reality, they are simply operating as regular seller's agents? I have.

This was the case several years ago when it was a hot sellers market. Many agents took "office exclusive" listings which meant that the property was not listed on the MLS. Under NYS law, however, a buyer's broker must be treated exactly the same way that a buyer would be treated, so many agents acted as "buyer brokers" in order to gain access to these listings even though they were not trained in or fully understood buyer brokerage.

However, today, buyer brokerage has become much more accepted. Especially now that it is a "buyer's market", good buyers have become more valuable, so it is in the agents interest to try to get them to work exclusively with them.

I don't have any hard statistics on it, but from my observation, I would say that in least half of the cases today, the selling agent is acting as a "buyer broker".

[Elke Mariotti]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

This was the case several years ago when it was a hot sellers market. Many agents took "office exclusive" listings which meant that the property was not listed on the MLS. Under NYS law, however, a buyer's broker must be treated exactly the same way that a buyer would be treated, so many agents acted as "buyer brokers" in order to gain access to these listings even though they were not trained in or fully understood buyer brokerage.

However, today, buyer brokerage has become much more accepted. Especially now that it is a "buyer's market", good buyers have become more valuable, so it is in the agents interest to try to get them to work exclusively with them.

I don't have any hard statistics on it, but from my observation, I would say that in least half of the cases today, the selling agent is acting as a "buyer broker".

Office exclusives in this market don't do the seller any favor! (Except maybe a few days while they're getting the house ready and the in-house agents can preview in the meantime).

Unfortunately, Buyer Agency is still not fully understood by a large percentage of RE agents on Long Island.

And a selling agent acting as buyer broker (representing both the seller and the buyer on the same listing) is a Dual Agent, which limits (according to NYS law) what the agent can disclose to BOTH parties.
Interesting Tom, from my observation, dual agency is a lot lower than 50%. From what I have seen, most listing agents prefer to act as broker agent (still only representing the seller) for the buyers.

Apologies to everybody for the digression...

[TomMoser]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that most agents on the sell side of the transaction, if they are not also the listing agent, are now working as buyer brokers as opposed to several years ago, when most would typically act as seller's agents.

Most of the others work as "broker's agents" which is a topic that we have not discussed on this board yet. Very few agents who are not affiliated with the listing agency act as a "Seller's Agent" mainly because there is no SBC offerred. (There, that should totally confuse people!)

I agree that most agents don't understand buyer brokerage. In fact, I think that most agents don't understand agency law at all. That's the problem!

[Elke Mariotti]

Originally Posted by TomMoser

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that most agents on the sell side of the transaction, if they are not also the listing agent, are now working as buyer brokers as opposed to several years ago, when most would typically act as seller's agents.

Most of the others work as "broker's agents" which is a topic that we have not discussed on this board yet. Very few agents who are not affiliated with the listing agency act as a "Seller's Agent" mainly because there is no SBC offerred. (There, that should totally confuse people!) Indeed! :-)

I agree that most agents don't understand buyer brokerage. In fact, I think that most agents don't understand agency law at all. That's the problem!

LIBOR offers a 3-hr class which IMHO should be mandatory for every agent, even those that are "grandfathered" and no longer need to participate in continuing ed!

[Amisi]

Originally Posted by Titus Pullo

This listing has been on the market for more than 90 days. I know this because I made an offer but the seller rejected. Now the listing price has gone up $10K. I guess the seller is not motivated

4 York Dr, Wheatley Heights NY 11798, MLS #2489094, Weichert.com

They rose the price by 10K in the hopes someone will put in an offer at the original price or close to it. Screw them.... let them sit on their North Wyandanch Palace until they have no choice but to drop their price by 50K