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 was just thinking in my own situation if I knew what the other offers were I would possibly have raised my offer to "get" the house. I do know on one house I was putting an offer on my agent put an escalatory clause in which stated that I would bid $1K over an offer up to a certain amount. If the lising agent received higher offers then they would have to supply proof of the other offer.
You can ask for proof, but the listing agent cannot give you proof, without written permission by the seller. Just as your buyers agent, could not reveal the total amount of the top you placed to be $1,000 above.
If two (or more) offers are competing against each other, couldn't it be considered a "war"? Would "offer war" be more appropriate?
No. Neither applies. Smart buyers offer what they are willing to pay. Sometimes they are willing to pay more and improve their offers.
"War is Hell." Real estate is not.
I was just thinking in my own situation if I knew what the other offers were I would possibly have raised my offer to "get" the house. I do know on one house I was putting an offer on my agent put an escalatory clause in which stated that I would bid $1K over an offer up to a certain amount. If the lising agent received higher offers then they would have to supply proof of the other offer.
If the listing agent is sharing the offer prices, the other buyer would have a chance to go above your $X plus $1K. It works both ways. I have a suspicion you wouldn't trust they were telling the truth even if you were provided with the other offer. A blind call for "best and highest" is the fairest way to go about it.
I know there is some rule or law etc. that prevents listing agents from disclosing the offer amounts received. I was just curious of why that was as it seems even if the property is receiving "low" offers then if an interested party if they wanted the property would offer more. The only was I see the secrecy being beneficial is that hopefully someone would come in and offer a significant amount more then all offers not knowing the value the majority are placing. Would this be why? Just curious is all.
It's never final until it's closed. And it hurts their seller: if people know what the floor is on a price, why would they offer more? As a representative of the seller, it would be fiscally irresponsible of me to create a situation where my client was not offered the best possible price. A property is worth what a willing and able buyer is willing to pay for it. We just had a property where the offers varied in a range of almost 35%. The guy with the lowest bid was annoyed, and demanded to know what the "winning bid" was (as if this was an auction). We explained, nicely, that the offer that was accepted was the best combination of net to seller, time of closing, and least amount out of pocket for the seller. Then he demanded to be the backup offer. Alas, we had already offered that spot to the second-best offer.
I've had successful offers write a special stipulation that if they were the accepted offer, they were to be provided with copies of the other offers to determine if it truly was was a multiple offer situation. We redacted the offer price, but they could see the names of the buyers and their agents, if they were determined to check.
I was just thinking in my own situation if I knew what the other offers were I would possibly have raised my offer to "get" the house. I do know on one house I was putting an offer on my agent put an escalatory clause in which stated that I would bid $1K over an offer up to a certain amount. If the lising agent received higher offers then they would have to supply proof of the other offer.
It's a poker game. "And if I knew the other guy was holding a full house, I wouldn't have gone all in . . ."
Presumably, you know what the house is worth to you. If you are in a seller's market with highly limited inventory, you don't have a lot of room to mess around with trying to scrape the bottom of the price barrel if you actually WANT the house. If you're just shopping around and being a bottom feeder, this probably isn't the market for you, unless you're looking at distressed properties.
I have had sellers who refused to consider an offer with an escalation clause, figuring that the seller who offered $300,000 for a $295,000 house right off the bat is probably going to be easier to work with than someone who offered $285,000, with an escalation clause, and the little $1,000 just isn't worth it. First of all, they are already annoyed at being low-balled. And now the low-baller is trying to "line jump" the other offers that were made in good faith.
Of course, the flip side is crossing your fingers and hoping that the property actually appraises for what it went under contract for . . .
No. Neither applies. Smart buyers offer what they are willing to pay. Sometimes they are willing to pay more and improve their offers.
"War is Hell." Real estate is not.
Smart people also would rather not overpay even if it is something they want.
The card game War isn't fatal either, it's still called that.
"This 1st row little loveshack offers an unobstructed view of the Lake of Fire. Watch the beasts and demons cavort on the shore."
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.
