Getting very tired of resale brokers who feel like ghosting is OK. Marking them off my list one by one.

[thelionqueen]

I read that as they don’t have to necessarily give you feedback..not that you shouldn’t at least get a “We received your offer and will be in touch if the owner chooses to accept or counter”.

Beyond that, I just can’t say that brokers need to do more.

Now, some buyers might be put off by that and go elsewhere..which they are free to do.

But, I just can’t agree that if someone is constantly putting in offers that are always well below asking that they shouldn’t be surprised if a broker begins to perceive them as not a serious buyer.

I’d be totally ok with that acknowledgment, perfectly acceptable imo.

I disagree that consistent low offers, especially in the current environment, indicate offers shouldn’t be taken seriously. If we’re making low offers, it’s to be expected that 90% won’t be accepted, which means making more until we find “the one.” So by that scenario, brokers could begin to expect more offers from a savvy buyer vs a less educated one. More work? Yes. Less commission? Yes. Serious buyer? Yes.

I like the idea a previous poster mentioned. Call a broker, tell them what you’re looking for and your terms and leave it there. If a contract pops up close to those parameters, then try to negotiate a deal. Easy peasy. Maybe then the broker would consider them more serious of a buyer? Food for thought.

 

[crisi]

That is just human nature.

If a person repeatedly wastes your time and makes you angry (in any capacity) it is human nature to start to start to tune them out. I would believe that some brokers are simply starting to ignore some of @thelionqueen's lowball offers.

Now, in anger and retaliation, she is ignoring them.

NEITHER action makes any sense from a business standpoint. Frankly, @thelionqueen, I think you're cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you really wanted the best price for a resale you would not make your broker list smaller. One day an offer to your one of your "blackballed brokers" may get through. You really won't know for sure if you don't try.

The first makes perfect sense from a business standpoint - and more importantly, from a personal standpoint. As a broker, I'm unlikely to ever make commission on one of her offers, and I have other things to do with my time. Even if I don't spend 40 hours a week brokering deals, a better use of my time might be to rewatch Bridgerton or walk on the beach or spend time with my kids rather than dealing with lowball offers. I MIGHT end up losing some money in commissions, but frankly, my time is valuable.

Years ago I semi-retired for my own health. Rather than dealing with the high stress high paying job I had, I moved into a job that pays half of what I made - but I work far fewer hours with less stress. Worth every penny I gave up. When a broker "ghosts" a lowball buyer, they are making a similar decision - potentially less money - but less stress and less time spent.

Also years ago my mother in law decided she wanted a different house. But she really didn't want a different house, she didn't want the work of moving, nor did she want the expense of a bigger house. But that didn't stop her from dragging around a real estate agent for half a dozen weekends "browsing" - the real estate agent was a friend of hers and eventually had to say "stop wasting my time" when she started to realize a sale was not likely.

There are certainly brokers that are hungry and will go after any sale - and present lowball offers. But there are also brokers that are making a completely understandable choice not to engage because they have better things to do with their time than to chase small and unlikely commissions.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

There are certainly brokers that are hungry and will go after any sale - and present lowball offers. But there are also brokers that are making a completely understandable choice not to engage because they have better things to do with their time than to chase small and unlikely commissions.

Isn’t this exactly what prior posters have identified as a violation of the rules for FL brokers? Not sure if they are legal rules or ethical rules.

 

[thelionqueen]

The first makes perfect sense from a business standpoint - and more importantly, from a personal standpoint. As a broker, I'm unlikely to ever make commission on one of her offers, and I have other things to do with my time. Even if I don't spend 40 hours a week brokering deals, a better use of my time might be to rewatch Bridgerton or walk on the beach or spend time with my kids rather than dealing with lowball offers. I MIGHT end up losing some money in commissions, but frankly, my time is valuable.

Years ago I semi-retired for my own health. Rather than dealing with the high stress high paying job I had, I moved into a job that pays half of what I made - but I work far fewer hours with less stress. Worth every penny I gave up. When a broker "ghosts" a lowball buyer, they are making a similar decision - potentially less money - but less stress and less time spent.

Also years ago my mother in law decided she wanted a different house. But she really didn't want a different house, she didn't want the work of moving, nor did she want the expense of a bigger house. But that didn't stop her from dragging around a real estate agent for half a dozen weekends "browsing" - the real estate agent was a friend of hers and eventually had to say "stop wasting my time" when she started to realize a sale was not likely.

There are certainly brokers that are hungry and will go after any sale - and present lowball offers. But there are also brokers that are making a completely understandable choice not to engage because they have better things to do with their time than to chase small and unlikely commissions.

Bravo for making steps to improve your quality of life!! Best decision one can make imo!

However, suggesting it’s ok to ignore your professional obligation because you have better things to do, doesn’t make sense to me. If you indeed have better things to do, by all means do them, just don’t have a job.

Not sure any consumer or business would be ok with an employee ignoring their responsibilities based on their desire to do something more meaningful for themselves. Not to mention they are legally prohibited from doing so.

Different brokers act differently, but that doesn’t mean one is desperate for a sale and one isn’t. One is simply choosing to do their job, the other is choosing to be complacent.

 

[crisi]

Isn’t this exactly what prior posters have identified as a violation of the rules for FL brokers? Not sure if they are legal rules or ethical rules.

That's a simple enough thing to get around if you are a broker who has been burned by chasing lowball offers without closing enough deals to make it worth your time. Ask your sellers for a floor at which they won't accept offers. Then you have no obligation to the "buyer" because they aren't a buyer - they are a tire kicker.

 

[crisi]

Bravo for making steps to improve your quality of life!! Best decision one can make imo!

However, suggesting it’s ok to ignore your professional obligation because you have better things to do, doesn’t make sense to me. If you indeed have better things to do, by all means do them, just don’t have a job.

Not sure any consumer or business would be ok with an employee ignoring their responsibilities based on their desire to do something more meaningful for themselves. Not to mention they are legally prohibited from doing so.

Different brokers act differently, but that doesn’t mean one is desperate for a sale and one isn’t. One is simply choosing to do their job, the other is choosing to be complacent.

LOTS of companies are OK with that - I spent months trying to get a landscaper to come out and do a small job - finally one said "we won't touch that, we don't even look at that sized work, and you'll have a problem finding someone bonded who will - too many bigger more profitable jobs." (I hired my son's buddies - it was pulling out bushes). And there aren't legal prohibitions on it. And their job is to sell contracts -if they don't think low-ball offers will result in sales, then lowball offers aren't part of the job. Their job isn't to cater to people making low-ball offers.

 

[NorCalFanatic]

.

 

[tom1944]

There is a very good market for people who are willing to do these small jobs.

 

[thelionqueen]

LOTS of companies are OK with that - And their job is to sell contracts -if they don't think low-ball offers will result in sales, then lowball offers aren't part of the job. Their job isn't to cater to people making low-ball offers.

I’d love to hear of any who advertise paying someone not to do what they’re hired to do.. please share! I’ll apply yesterday

In contrast, the actual definition of their job is to present offers to sell a contract. What’s not part of their job is to let personal opinion affect their treatment of potential buyers. There’s no debating that, it’s the most simple and basic responsibilities of their role.

As stated previously, there are legal requirements a transactional broker must abide by. So actually yes, ALL offers ARE part of their job and cannot be discriminated or distinguished from any other inquiry, period.

As for the contractor, totally different circumstances than a real estate transaction and laws regarding the brokers obligations therein.

I do agree that a resolution (not way around it) is to have communication and terms laid out when listing the contract. Absolutely acceptable to post “only full price offers are considered, only terms listed will be accepted, etc” which would save everyone lots of time & effort. Problem solved.

However, when you advertise “make an offer” and people do, they’re potential buyers, period. Their offer must be given to the seller unless other instructions are given regardless of an assumed outcome. The term you used to describe someone making a value offer is offensive to say the least. Probably for the best you’re not in that business anymore.

 

[GrumpyInPhilly]

I also think that there's a contextual cap here, too. If an SSR contract is listed at $100/pp and the broker receives an offer for $80, which the seller rejects with no counter, then the seller has conveyed, through practice, they will not accept an offer of $80 or less, nor will they counter on this. I believe this gives the broker the ability to turn down all subsequent offers of $80 or less. Information has been conveyed through practice. I'd say this is what a good broker will do, reject offers without contacting the seller that are identical to or lower than previous rejected offers. An offer of $81 the broker may have a fiduciary responsibility to present to the seller, but not offers at $80 or below, as that has already been established as unacceptable.

Without getting into exact details which would violate board rules, your example is close to what I've been doing when I see a contract I'd like to offer on. My feeling is that prices will be falling into next year and the prices I'm offering now will be where the market is in 2024. If I'm right (and I certainly may not be), do you feel the broker should still not present my offers then or ever?

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Without getting into exact details which would violate board rules, your example is close to what I've been doing when I see a contract I'd like to offer on. My feeling is that prices will be falling into next year and the prices I'm offering now will be where the market is in 2024. If I'm right (and I certainly may not be), do you feel the broker should still not present my offers then or ever?

I too, was wondering how long the contract sits unsold before a diligent broker double checks with the seller that maybe they should at least consider countering.

Lots of contracts are sitting on the market that have seen more than 10% declines since they were listed.

 

[thelionqueen]

I too, was wondering how long the contract sits unsold before a diligent broker double checks with the seller that maybe they should at least consider countering.

Lots of contracts are sitting on the market that have seen more than 10% declines since they were listed.

Interesting side note on an offer made in August (before I bought GFV direct). I made an extreme value offer, seller countered with reasonable terms which I accepted. The next day, got a message from the broker that a higher offer came in, and the seller decided to go with that buyer.. cool, no worries. During this time, I decided buying direct was the way to go, so I did. 2-3 weeks later I got an email from the broker saying that the other buyer fell through, and the seller would be interested in my original offer (not their reasonable counter) if I was still interested. Another example that common courtesy goes a long way. Had I not already decided going direct (much better decision for me) I would've jumped at that offer.

So, a perfect example that a serious buyer has nothing to do with the price at which the contract sells for. The seller in this scenario went with a higher offer but ended up falling through. Had they gone with my accepted counter offer, it would've been better for them. Fate works in mysterious ways sometimes

 

[Sandisw]

I’d love to hear of any who advertise paying someone not to do what they’re hired to do.. please share! I’ll apply yesterday

In contrast, the actual definition of their job is to present offers to sell a contract. What’s not part of their job is to let personal opinion affect their treatment of potential buyers. There’s no debating that, it’s the most simple and basic responsibilities of their role.

As stated previously, there are legal requirements a transactional broker must abide by. So actually yes, ALL offers ARE part of their job and cannot be discriminated or distinguished from any other inquiry, period.

As for the contractor, totally different circumstances than a real estate transaction and laws regarding the brokers obligations therein.

I do agree that a resolution (not way around it) is to have communication and terms laid out when listing the contract. Absolutely acceptable to post “only full price offers are considered, only terms listed will be accepted, etc” which would save everyone lots of time & effort. Problem solved.

However, when you advertise “make an offer” and people do, they’re potential buyers, period. Their offer must be given to the seller unless other instructions are given regardless of an assumed outcome. The term you used to describe someone making a value offer is offensive to say the least. Probably for the best you’re not in that business anymore.

My only comment though is that you seem to be ignoring that they do not have to present all offers as long as the seller has agreed to not getting them.

So, they are doing their job if they have discussed this with the seller…and my guess, as I have said, is that more and more brokers are most likely discussing this with sellers, especially those that offer the instant sale option.

If you are not getting feedback on your offers that are well below asking, then it is very possible and most likely that it was below the threshold of the seller…and why you don’t get an answer.

I know it’s frustrating and you definitely can decide to not work with brokers who you deem to have poor communication practices. But, I think this thread has shown that we all have different ideas of how things should go and what we are willing to accept.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

Interesting side note on an offer made in August (before I bought GFV direct). I made an extreme value offer, seller countered with reasonable terms which I accepted. The next day, got a message from the broker that a higher offer came in, and the seller decided to go with that buyer.. cool, no worries. During this time, I decided buying direct was the way to go, so I did. 2-3 weeks later I got an email from the broker saying that the other buyer fell through, and the seller would be interested in my original offer (not their reasonable counter) if I was still interested. Another example that common courtesy goes a long way. Had I not already decided going direct (much better decision for me) I would've jumped at that offer.

So, a perfect example that a serious buyer has nothing to do with the price at which the contract sells for. The seller in this scenario went with a higher offer but ended up falling through. Had they gone with my accepted counter offer, it would've been better for them. Fate works in mysterious ways sometimes

Yes! I meant to make that point earlier and forgot. A low price, er VALUE offer might be far more “serious” than someone who offers more but then walks away a later for a more attractively priced contract (or who can’t get financing at the higher price promised—honestly not sure if LTV is an issue in the DCV resale market or not but if i was a lender I lend against VGF at $175 a point, even if someone was willing to pay that much).

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

My only comment though is that you are ignoring that they do not have to present all offers as long as the seller has agreed to not getting them.

So, they are doing their job if they have discussed this with the seller…and my guess, as I have said, is that more and more brokers are most likely discussing this with sellers, especially those that offer the instant sale option.

If you are not getting feedback on your offers that are well below asking, then it is very possible and most likely that it was below the threshold of the seller…and why you don’t get an answer.

I know it’s frustrating and you definitely can decide to not work with brokers who you deem to have poor communication practices. But, I think this thread has shown that we all have different ideas of how things go and what we are willing to accept.

I haven’t sold any contracts yet and really valued your advice (shared many times) that you don’t want to hear about any offers below $X/pt. I think we all agree that’s a whole different world than a broker independently deciding that they don’t think someone is serious (or willing to potentially raise their price) below a certain point.

I still think if I wanted to sell VGF at or above $Y, I would tell my broker “if anybody offers $Y-20 or less, please tell them ‘the seller is looking to sell above $Y+5, based on your initial offer, they do not believe that you are likely to reach a deal, if you would like to raise your offer, I am happy to present it to the seller’.” Basically repeating that loop until they got within $10 of $Y or buyer stopped responding.

 

[Sandisw]

I haven’t sold any contracts yet and really valued your advice (shared many times) that you don’t want to hear about any offers below $X/pt. I think we all agree that’s a whole different world than a broker independently deciding that they don’t think someone is serious (or willing to potentially raise their price) below a certain point.

I still think if I wanted to sell VGF at or above $Y, I would tell my broker “if anybody offers $Y-20 or less, please tell them ‘the seller is looking to sell above $Y+5, based on your initial offer, they do not believe that you are likely to reach a deal, if you would like to raise your offer, I am happy to present it to the seller’.” Basically repeating that loop until they got within $10 of $Y or buyer stopped responding.

My comment about serious buyer was simply that someone who is constantly offering well below may be perceived that way…even if they are a serious buyer.

And, I definitely do not agree that a broker should be telling a buyer any information about a threshold based on conversations with the seller. IMO, once an offer is made, it is presented to the seller, assuming the seller has not directed the broker differently, and then either a counter is made. It’s declined, or accepted.

So, no, I don’t think the broker has to go back to a buyer and give them more info like you suggest.

Having said that, I am sure that brokers who appear to be better at negotiating the sales gett better reviews, but I just think that there are risks to what brokers might think for someone that constantly offering low if they don’t have an established relationship.

Now, if I was one of these people, I’d still put in the offers, because I would know I was serious to buy, but I’d also be willing to work harder with the brokers to ensure they knew it. But that’s just me and I get others think differently.

 

[crisi]

My comment about serious buyer was simply that someone who is constantly offering well below may be perceived that way…even if they are a serious buyer.

And, I definitely do not agree that a broker should be telling a buyer any information about a threshold based on conversations with the seller. IMO, once an offer is made, it is presented to the seller, assuming the seller has not directed the broker differently, and then either a counter is made. It’s declined, or accepted.

So, no, I don’t think the broker has to go back to a buyer and give them more info like you suggest.

Having said that, I am sure that brokers who appear to be better at negotiating the sales gett better reviews, but I just think that there are risks to what brokers might think for someone that constantly offering low if they don’t have an established relationship.

Now, if I was one of these people, I’d still put in the offers, because I would know I was serious to buy, but I’d also be willing to work harder with the brokers to ensure they knew it. But that’s just me and I get others think differently.

They absolutely SHOULDN'T be going back to give the potential buyer any more information than "it wasn't accepted" or "they countered with" or "its a deal." That would be a gross conflict of interest.

 

[HyperspaceMountainPilot]

They absolutely SHOULDN'T be going back to give the potential buyer any more information than "it wasn't accepted" or "they countered with" or "its a deal." That would be a gross conflict of interest.

If your sophisticated seller wanted you to go back to a buyer and tell them certain information designed to keep the deal moving and let them know what range would get a deal done, how on earth would following the seller’s instructions be a conflict of interest at all, let alone a gross one?

Maybe providing minimal information is the norm in DVC timeshare world or Florida, but in many efficient markets, including multimillion dollar real estate in California (what I’m most familiar with), providing additional context about what it would take to get a deal closed is the norm.

I respect seller’s rights to do things the way they want, but it completely blows my mind why anyone would think it’s to the seller’s advantage to not return with information designed to move the ball forward, even if it’s just a “best and final price is [price you would be happy with].” What exactly do people think the downside with responding is?

 

[TheDailyMoo]

They absolutely SHOULDN'T be going back to give the potential buyer any more information than "it wasn't accepted" or "they countered with" or "its a deal." That would be a gross conflict of interest.

I don't necessarily disagree with you however I will say agents have been very eager to mention what they think "will get it". This usually exclusively happens when speaking with them on the phone.

Something else to think about, if there were no facebook pages/message boards with ROFR threads and the like then there wouldn't be many if any "value" offers like there are currently. The less low offers the higher the selling prices stay. So in effect can it be said that we, and others like us across the internet are indeed the reason that resale prices keep dropping.

 

[crisi]

I’d love to hear of any who advertise paying someone not to do what they’re hired to do.. please share! I’ll apply yesterday

In contrast, the actual definition of their job is to present offers to sell a contract. What’s not part of their job is to let personal opinion affect their treatment of potential buyers. There’s no debating that, it’s the most simple and basic responsibilities of their role.

As stated previously, there are legal requirements a transactional broker must abide by. So actually yes, ALL offers ARE part of their job and cannot be discriminated or distinguished from any other inquiry, period.

As for the contractor, totally different circumstances than a real estate transaction and laws regarding the brokers obligations therein.

I do agree that a resolution (not way around it) is to have communication and terms laid out when listing the contract. Absolutely acceptable to post “only full price offers are considered, only terms listed will be accepted, etc” which would save everyone lots of time & effort. Problem solved.

However, when you advertise “make an offer” and people do, they’re potential buyers, period. Their offer must be given to the seller unless other instructions are given regardless of an assumed outcome. The term you used to describe someone making a value offer is offensive to say the least. Probably for the best you’re not in that business anymore.

Those are the terms I run my business on. I own a business that places IT consultants. I'll pay you a commission of 50% of the margin on all consultants you place if the consultant and client are both new to my company. You are responsible for negotiating the margin, but I have a floor AFTER your commission that needs to cover our costs (including my time). Don't place any consultants or open clients, don't get paid - its pure commission. We have plenty of "clients" (and developers) we don't even call back because - in the case of the clients they are expecting a $150 an hour developer for $50 an hour or in the case of developers they are expecting to make $120 an hour when they are worth $60. Experience has taught us those people are more trouble then they are worth. Yet we've been very successful working with clients and developers who have realistic expectations.

The legal terms for real estate are 1) civil - you would have to sue to see any resolution or report the misbehavior to the state licensing board, which is understaffed and overworked and isn't likely to do anything about a broker not communicating with you and 2) fuzzy enough. The law doesn't require that every offer be followed up on, just every "reasonable" offer - there is a lot of room in that word "reasonable." The law certainly isn't going to make a broker waste their time on someone offering $15 a point for Rivera - what is "reasonable" is going to involve the brokers professional judgement. So yeah, there's a legal requirement for brokers, but its pretty meaningless when it comes to lowball offers.