Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just tried to confirm what he was saying and asked him if he will take the buyers commission, and he said "Oh yeah, absolutely". Well, they both work in the same office (listing agent and the agent who showed the house).... I thought something was wrong there, I mean what if I had a buyers agent, then what will he say ? Looks like he can just wait for someone like me to come along and jump on the commission. If this is wrong then I really pity the seller.
What's wrong here is the (mis)representation. There is nothing wrong for this agent to work with you; representing that this agent is a "Buyer Agent" is what could be wrong, unless you're being asked to sign a Buyer Agent Agreement (= contract with you!) and that would still require the owner/broker/manager to get involved in the negotiations because of the potential conflict...
I've learned that I'm less likely to waste time and money with buyers when I work with a contract = they hire me.
What's wrong here is the (mis)representation. There is nothing wrong for this agent to work with you; representing that this agent is a "Buyer Agent" is what could be wrong, unless you're being asked to sign a Buyer Agent Agreement (= contract with you!) and that would still require the owner/broker/manager to get involved in the negotiations because of the potential conflict...
I've learned that I'm less likely to waste time and money with buyers when I work with a contract = they hire me.
With a contract, you make sure, NO ONE is "muscling in" on your...um...action...and the commission, right ?
With a contract, you make sure, NO ONE is "muscling in" on your...um...action...and the commission, right ?
Speaking as a buyer who has used buyer agency for almost 3 years (even before it started to take hold here on LI), I view the contract as making sure my agent is going to view the seller's agent as more of an adversary than a partner.
My nephew used our buyer agent to find his house which he's buying next month. This agent has worked with my nephew tirelessly since May; that's 9 months even though many of the houses he wanted to see were not even in her immediate area. She has gone to bat for him with the sellers' agent many times in what became a complicated transaction. For her efforts she will be getting about $5000 in commission as her share in-pocket after all the splits of the 4%. That works out to $555/month, or $139/week. Now, some people may begrudge an agent "that much money" (ha) but we certainly don't!
Speaking as a buyer who has used buyer agency for almost 3 years (even before it started to take hold here on LI), I view the contract as making sure my agent is going to view the seller's agent as more of an adversary than a partner.
My nephew used our buyer agent to find his house which he's buying next month. This agent has worked with my nephew tirelessly since May; that's 9 months even though many of the houses he wanted to see were not even in her immediate area. She has gone to bat for him with the sellers' agent many times in what became a complicated transaction. For her efforts she will be getting about $5000 in commission as her share in-pocket after all the splits of the 4%. That works out to $555/month, or $139/week. Now, some people may begrudge an agent "that much money" (ha) but we certainly don't!
I'm sure she worked hard in a TIGHT market, like it is "out there", now.
But they have to WORK that hard, in this kind of market.
The OBAMA entitlements, will help them out, a little....and we ALL will right back, in the same shape, we are in now...THANKS, to putting people into homes, they can't afford to pay for, personally.
JUST wait, if Today is any indicator...those with incomes over $250K, will be getting taxed out of their homes, out of places like LI, and to, probably the Death Valley Flats ! Say, "If" they are 2 income households, is it worth it for one of them to quit, because their Mortgage tax credit, TOO, is raised, along with their income tax ? Why should ANYONE work harder ? There's NO incentive to it. BUT the bill has to be paid by SOMEONE !
Look at what the proposed tax changes will be for this income group. You say, "I don't make that much." Well, do you know what this income group contributes to the Economy ?
Feel yourself getting DIZZY, yet ?
Last edited by longislandmike; 02-26-2009 at 07:19 AM..
The OBAMA entitlements, will help them out, a little....and we ALL will right back, in the same shape, we are in now...THANKS, to putting people into homes, they can't afford to pay for, personally.
I'm curious as to what "Obama entitlements" you mean. Do you mean the $8000 first-time homebuyer credit?
If so I honestly don't understand what your objection is to it. My nephew falls into that category and he would also have qualified for the previous $7500 must-be-repaid credit (and is very happy now since he will be getting $500 more and will not have to pay any of it back.... as I'm sure you would also be if you were in his shoes). But he would have bought the house regardless of whether there was any tax incentive at all; and he is not financing any more than he otherwise planned to (which is less than 50% of the purchase price). I'm sure there are many other first-time buyers who will be using the $8000 credit/refund as a "windfall" rather than as an "enabler to buy". After all, let 's face it: on LI, $8000 doesn't go very far in the home purchasing game. Maybe in Upper Podunk, Nebraska it helps a ton, but not here. Around here, $8000 won't even cover closing costs in most cases... probably barely half?
The reason I'm curious as to whether you're objecting to the Homebuyer Credit (rather than to the separate Foreclosure Plan) is because you said "...putting people INTO homes they cannot afford" rather than saying "....allowing people to STAY in homes that they cannot afford".
Well, do you know what this income group contributes to the Economy ?
Remember this does not mean $250,000 GROSS, but after all the deductions are taken. I have seen first hand how this income group, both individuals and companies, set up their balance sheets so that it shows "little or no income" ergo "little or no taxes to be paid." US GAAP has so many ways to weasel around actually showing income it leaves severe "gaps" in the actual payment of the fair share of taxes and guess who makes it up? The rest of us who do not have access to the write-offs. Most middle class individuals pay more income tax per year than entire corporations due to their access to write-offs and scores of accountants whose whole purpose in life is to make sure they don't pay their fair share of taxes.
I'm curious as to what "Obama entitlements" you mean. Do you mean the $8000 first-time homebuyer credit?
If so I honestly don't understand what your objection is to it. My nephew falls into that category and he would also have qualified for the previous $7500 must-be-repaid credit (and is very happy now since he will be getting $500 more and will not have to pay any of it back.... as I'm sure you would also be if you were in his shoes). But he would have bought the house regardless of whether there was any tax incentive at all; and he is not financing any more than he otherwise planned to (which is less than 50% of the purchase price). I'm sure there are many other first-time buyers who will be using the $8000 credit/refund as a "windfall" rather than as an "enabler to buy". After all, let 's face it: on LI, $8000 doesn't go very far in the home purchasing game. Maybe in Upper Podunk, Nebraska it helps a ton, but not here.
The majority of people pay their mortgage on time.
It's estimated that, "The number of borrowers at least 90 days late on their home loans rose to 3.6 percent at the end of December, the highest in at least five years".
The majority of people pay their mortgage on time.
It's estimated that, "The number of borrowers at least 90 days late on their home loans rose to 3.6 percent at the end of December, the highest in at least five years".
I'm with you on this one. Yes, having shelter is a necessity and nobody should be without a roof over their head. However, owning the shelter you live in is not a necessity that the rest of the taxpayers have to foot the bill for, especially when many of these mortgages were taken out by people who knew very well they could not afford them once the interest rates reset and by people who falsified their income in order to get the loans. If there is going to be a mortgage bailout, I think people who were unrealistic from the start and people who were DISHONEST on their "stated income" applications should be disqualified.
I'm with you on this one. Yes, having shelter is a necessity and nobody should be without a roof over their head. However, owning the shelter you live in is not a necessity that the rest of the taxpayers have to foot the bill for, especially when many of these mortgages were taken out by people who knew very well they could not afford them once the interest rates reset and by people who falsified their income in order to get the loans. If there is going to be a mortgage bailout, I think people who were unrealistic from the start and people who were DISHONEST on their "stated income" applications should be disqualified.
The Federal Governments "HIPPIE COMMUNE" philosophy, is going to break ALL of us, and solve NOTHING.
They did the same thing with the Digital Conversion issue...ONLY 6 MILLION people had a problem...but the tail wags the Dog !
ONLY 5 states, have this problem, but we ALL have to pay for them !
How does it feel as a NYS and federal taxpayer, paying for ARNOLD's problems ?
"WHY" should the majority pay for first time home owners, who don't intend to pay, even when they get the tax incentive ?
I still feel like I'm missing something in your logic. There have ALWAYS been a certain percentage of first-time homebuyers who (either through original intention, bad financial planning, or just plain Circumstances of Life) go into default. I worked for a foreclosure attorney for years and so I saw more than my share of them! It's not something that's new, or that's going to increase in number, as a DIRECT result of the New Homebuyer Credit of 2009.
According to the terms of the Credit, if anyone receiving this credit does not continue as the house's owner for at least three years, then they must pay the credit back, in full. It will become, in effect, a "lien" against the house. Whether that lien is repaid as part of a foreclosure sale or by being taking out of the person's taxes for the next howevermany years, doesn't matter because then it no longer is a "giveaway", it is now a loan that will be repaid. And I seem to recall that the IRS is pretty darn unforgiving when it comes to getting money that is due them.
If you were okay with the previous $7500 First Time Homebuyer Interest Free Loan, then you should be equally okay with the current $8000 tax credit because if the homebuyer defaults within 3 years, it then becomes no different than the "Interest Free Loan" was. And anyone who buys a home "intending not to pay", as you describe it, isn't likely to want to keep shelling out all that upfront mortgage interest for a full 36 months before going into deliberate default; that makes no sense whatsoever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Around here, $8000 won't even cover closing costs in most cases... probably barely half?
