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.
Just went through this last week. Put one of our rental properties back on the market. Had it listed two years ago & received nothing but low ball offers. When I say low ball I mean $50-$75K below asking price. Within 3 days of it back on the MLS last week, we had 4 offers.
1st offer was cash with a 30 day closing & $25K below asking. 2nd was (get this) $5K OVER asking but with a mortgage. The other two were close to asking & with mortgages. Our realtor told all 4 that there were multiple offers and to submit their best & final. The cash offer came up to $5K over asking. Yes, that made me raise an eyebrow given how these folks are also his clients.
We went with the cash offer after their financials were vetted & in day three of attorney review, this past Monday, we were informed that the "cash" buyers now want to take out a mortgage, "To keep their cash free so they can invest in multiple properties".
Sure, Jan.
Now that's playing a game.
you were shown that they truly COULD pay cash.
Beyond that, it depends upon the contract that you've signed
You run a risk of it not appraising. Apparently, people pay stupid prices for things when they are putting so little skin into it. Student loan mills come to mind. Still plenty of appraisers gaming the system.
You don't "owe" a buyer anything, and you aren't required to be fair to them all.
Buyers run the risk of losing the house whenever they don't present their best and highest offer. So many times I hear....."well, I would have paid 5k more!" Well, then that should have been your offer.
You are only required to not discriminate based on protected class.
Perhaps not, but, IMO, one should have the right to expect ethical behavior from a realtor and seller. Even though that often does not happen, it doesn't make it right. For example, when a realtor or seller infers they have another offer ... for the sole purpose of driving the price up.
OTOH, suppose a buyer makes several lowball offers at one time, with the objective of accepting the one that is accepted first, and cancelling the others? Many would say, that's a contractual matter, which it may be, since a signed offer is essentially completed by the seller's acceptance, but, it's also unethical.
If one has three, closely spaced, equal, full price offers, one can accept one and reject the other two, without bothering to ask one of the three is willing to pay more to break the tie. However, doing so, essentially discriminates against the good faith offer of the other two, ... and could come back to bite one, if they consider themselves a 'protected class.'
In too many situations today, it seems like people only ask, "Is it legal?" or "Can I get away with it?" -- when they should be asking, "Is it right or ethical?" This type of morality has led to the decline of personal integrity in our society.
Perhaps not, but, IMO, one should have the right to expect ethical behavior from a realtor and seller. Even though that often does not happen, it doesn't make it right. For example, when a realtor or seller infers they have another offer ... for the sole purpose of driving the price up.
OTOH, suppose a buyer makes several lowball offers at one time, with the objective of accepting the one that is accepted first, and cancelling the others? Many would say, that's a contractual matter, which it may be, since a signed offer is essentially completed by the seller's acceptance, but, it's also unethical.
If one has three, closely spaced, equal, full price offers, one can accept one and reject the other two, without bothering to ask one of the three is willing to pay more to break the tie. However, doing so, essentially discriminates against the good faith offer of the other two, ... and could come back to bite one, if they consider themselves a 'protected class.'
In too many situations today, it seems like people only ask, "Is it legal?" or "Can I get away with it?" -- when they should be asking, "Is it right or ethical?" This type of morality has led to the decline of personal integrity in our society.
Buyers should ALWAYS assume that a seller will interpret every offer as "Highest and Best."
And, buyers should always assume that the seller does not owe them a second chance.
At that, expectations are met if the seller accepts a better offer without a response or solicitation for a second chance.
Either as a consumer or an agent, I owe no one a second chance just because they didn't step up to the plate and offer their best the first time.
You don't "owe" a buyer anything, and you aren't required to be fair to them all.
Buyers run the risk of losing the house whenever they don't present their best and highest offer. So many times I hear....."well, I would have paid 5k more!" Well, then that should have been your offer.
You are only required to not discriminate based on protected class.
Real estate agents cannot discriminate. Sellers can refuse to sell there house to anyone they want to discriminate against.
Perhaps not, but, IMO, one should have the right to expect ethical behavior from a realtor and seller. Even though that often does not happen, it doesn't make it right. For example, when a realtor or seller infers they have another offer ... for the sole purpose of driving the price up.
OTOH, suppose a buyer makes several lowball offers at one time, with the objective of accepting the one that is accepted first, and cancelling the others? Many would say, that's a contractual matter, which it may be, since a signed offer is essentially completed by the seller's acceptance, but, it's also unethical.
If one has three, closely spaced, equal, full price offers, one can accept one and reject the other two, without bothering to ask one of the three is willing to pay more to break the tie. However, doing so, essentially discriminates against the good faith offer of the other two, ... and could come back to bite one, if they consider themselves a 'protected class.'
In too many situations today, it seems like people only ask, "Is it legal?" or "Can I get away with it?" -- when they should be asking, "Is it right or ethical?" This type of morality has led to the decline of personal integrity in our society.
Not true. The seller can refuse to sell. It is agents that can't discriminate.
Highest and best can be somewhat useless if there is an appraisal contingency. In a seller's market a buyer can offer the moon knowing that the appraisal will bring the price back down to earth.
Buyers should ALWAYS assume that a seller will interpret every offer as "Highest and Best."
And, buyers should always assume that the seller does not owe them a second chance.
At that, expectations are met if the seller accepts a better offer without a response or solicitation for a second chance.
Either as a consumer or an agent, I owe no one a second chance just because they didn't step up to the plate and offer their best the first time.
Nobody should assume anything when putting in an offer. It's a chess game and while there are good strategies and bad strategies for any given situation, immediately putting in your highest and best is hardly the best strategy in every situation. In many situations, it's a bad strategy.
You're at risk of losing the house even when you put in your 'highest and best'. A good offering/buying strategy balances the risk of overpaying vs. the risk of losing the home.
I don't understand "stepping up to the plate". Why wouldn't we say that the seller should "step up to the plate" and give his "lowest and best" price immediately, rather than playing around trying to get a higher price?
Last edited by just_because; 02-03-2018 at 07:42 AM..
Nobody should assume anything when putting in an offer. It's a chess game and while there are good strategies and bad strategies for any given situation, immediately putting in your highest and best is hardly the best strategy in every situation. In many situations, it's a bad strategy.
You're at risk of losing the house even when you put in your 'highest and best'. A good offering/buying strategy balances the risk of overpaying vs. the risk of losing the home.
I don't understand "stepping up to the plate". Why wouldn't we say that the seller should "step up to the plate" and give his "lowest and best" price immediately, rather than playing around trying to get a higher price?
You're Really nitpicking over semantics...To use your language, nobody should assume that they will have an opportunity to make another offer. The point is that the seller doesn't owe you another opportunity to bid, and that when placing a low(er) offer you may not get another bite at the apple.
If you don't think the house is worth more than your initial offer, you can stand by your original offer, and if no one else thinks it is, than you've effectively called the seller's position.
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.
