Offers have to be highest bid...is this the new way to buy?

[GOOFY D]

Fidelity does this now and I think the tactic is a bit questionable. They clearly are representing the seller by using these tactics when they are supposed to represent seller and buyer. It used to be that if you offered full price, the contract was yours. However, I offered full price and was told what the other offers were and if I wanted to bid more. IMO, they should not be disclosing my offer or others to everyone especially after I have already offered what they were asking.

 

[freediverdude]

chicken !!!!

No this was the right thing to do, if it was $5-6 over the market, it's correct to go ahead and let it go, the other person can overpay. It's the eBay syndrome, people get caught up in the bidding "oh it's just one more dollar, let's bid again", and sometimes get adamant that they're going to get it no matter what the price and end up way overpaying. Don't be one of those people.

 

[ffcheff]

I think if you call up and say I would like to buy the contract for the asking price and the broker says that they already received a full price offer they should give you that option. You can say yes or no that simple. I do not see it as deceptive. four years ago when the market was down this thread would not exist. My opinion be prepared to pay for what you want, if it costs more than you want to pay just walk away.

 

[GOOFY D]

I think if you call up and say I would like to buy the contract for the asking price and the broker says that they already received a full price offer they should give you that option. You can say yes or no that simple. I do not see it as deceptive. four years ago when the market was down this thread would not exist. My opinion be prepared to pay for what you want, if it costs more than you want to pay just walk away.

Disagree. The way Fidelity does it is extremely deceptive and manipulative. They do not simply tell you that they have a full price offer. They tell you the offer and the terms and ask you to beat it. Then, at the end of the day, they call back all the non-high bidders and tell them the high bidder's offer and terms and ask for a "best and final." That is extremely deceptive IMO and I do not see how they are meeting their requirement to represent the buyer and seller.

 

[zavandor]

I believe they have to legally present all offers. IMO it's unethical to do so purposefully but I could see it happening on the fly if they got severaly inquiries in a short period. Unless this were something that was difficult to get, I'd rather pay more than deal with a company who operated this way. As I've said before, I think some of the companies actively attempt to control (and with some success) the resale prices including refusing to list for people who actually want to advertise at a price lower they they feel is what it should be.

Unethical?
I guess that anyon willing to sell their contract would want to get the most out of it and they are paying the broker, so it's reasonable that the broker should stand on seller's side. If I owned a VGC, VGF or BCV contract (I don't), I would wait a while for offers to come in before taking a decision, regardless of what the broker would do. It's a strange period for resale and these are sought after resorts. My jaw dropped reading above that a contract sold for 50% more than asking price. But then I realized how much Disney is charging direct. Someone still thinks that these are reasonable prices, why (as a seller) should I wait for an higher offer? I paid my house £20,000 more than asking price and I'm happy with it.

 

[Dean]

Unethical?
I guess that anyon willing to sell their contract would want to get the most out of it and they are paying the broker, so it's reasonable that the broker should stand on seller's side. If I owned a VGC, VGF or BCV contract (I don't), I would wait a while for offers to come in before taking a decision, regardless of what the broker would do. It's a strange period for resale and these are sought after resorts. My jaw dropped reading above that a contract sold for 50% more than asking price. But then I realized how much Disney is charging direct. Someone still thinks that these are reasonable prices, why (as a seller) should I wait for an higher offer? I paid my house £20,000 more than asking price and I'm happy with it.

As I understand it in FL they have to present all offers unless they receive written instructions from the seller ahead of time to the contrary so it should be easy to say that to violate the state law is unethical. In additon, since brokers represent both buyers and sellers for timeshares normally, to purposefully create a bidding war would also be unethical though I could see it happening reasonably if they got multiple offers around the same time. A good broker would know how to price the product up front so as to maximize return for the seller.

 

[jnjhuddle]

Unethical?
I guess that anyon willing to sell their contract would want to get the most out of it and they are paying the broker, so it's reasonable that the broker should stand on seller's side. If I owned a VGC, VGF or BCV contract (I don't), I would wait a while for offers to come in before taking a decision, regardless of what the broker would do. It's a strange period for resale and these are sought after resorts. My jaw dropped reading above that a contract sold for 50% more than asking price. But then I realized how much Disney is charging direct. Someone still thinks that these are reasonable prices, why (as a seller) should I wait for an higher offer? I paid my house £20,000 more than asking price and I'm happy with it.

I do believe you are incorrect on this one. The broker is a transaction broker and is a neutral party for both the buyer and the seller regardless of the fact that the seller pays the commission. As a transaction broker, to side with the seller would not only be unethical, it would be unlawful.

 

[ffcheff]

So I do not see an issue. The seller says to the broker I want you to get me X amount per point, do not call me with any offer lower than X. So buyer offers less than X, Broker tells buyer Seller not interested in an offer less than asking price. This is America a semi free market. Try to make the best deal you can. If you can not get what you want dirt cheap don't cry, move on.

 

[ffcheff]

When I bought a resale contract 4 years ago when the market was down I found what I wanted at a fair price. I paid the sellers asking price because it was reasonably priced for the market and the use year I wanted. I could have tried to low ball the person but I waned the points and the use year. They accepted I was happy. Now that the market has turned and people can make a little profit, I say good for the Sellers.

 

[Dean]

So I do not see an issue. The seller says to the broker I want you to get me X amount per point, do not call me with any offer lower than X. So buyer offers less than X, Broker tells buyer Seller not interested in an offer less than asking price. This is America a semi free market. Try to make the best deal you can. If you can not get what you want dirt cheap don't cry, move on.

That process you described is illegal in FL unless the seller gives it to the broker in writing. What we're discussing is where the broker takes it upon themselves to generate a bidding war or where the seller and broker conspire together to do so. One illegal and the other unethical.

 

[disneyfantotheend]

When I studied real estate in Pennsylvania, which obviously different states have different laws, but by PA real estate laws, all offers must be presented to a seller regardless of what the agent thinks of it.

 

[ffcheff]

That process you described is illegal in FL unless the seller gives it to the broker in writing. What we're discussing is where the broker takes it upon themselves to generate a bidding war or where the seller and broker conspire together to do so. One illegal and the other unethical.

I do not think it is unethical of a broker to try to get the best price possible for a contract as long as the contract is being marketed honestly. Would it be unethical of the broker to tell a perspective buyer to under bid a sellers asking price?

 

[Dean]

I do not think it is unethical of a broker to try to get the best price possible for a contract as long as the contract is being marketed honestly. Would it be unethical of the broker to tell a perspective buyer to under bid a sellers asking price?

We'll have to simply disagree. The question is how they try to get the best price. The appropriate way is to list it correctly. Violating state laws is clearly unethical as has been described here no matter the intent.

 

[jnjhuddle]

I do not think it is unethical of a broker to try to get the best price possible for a contract as long as the contract is being marketed honestly. Would it be unethical of the broker to tell a perspective buyer to under bid a sellers asking price?

Yes, that would also be unethical. Not sure if you read the previous posts or don't understand that this is the law? Transaction brokers are neutral.​

 

[ffcheff]

I understand the law. Some of the other posts seemed to suggest to me that they felt it was unethical to try to get more than the sellers asking price for a contract. Or that the way some brokers are trying to represent both parties is crossing lawful and ethical lines. I disagree with others here about it being unethical. As far as against the law that is for lawyers to handle. I will agree to disagree.

 

[supersnoop]

I do not think it is unethical of a broker to try to get the best price possible for a contract as long as the contract is being marketed honestly. Would it be unethical of the broker to tell a perspective buyer to under bid a sellers asking price?

The problem is that the broker has an equal duty to the buyer. So, yes, trying to squeeze out the most money would be unethical. The broker does not (legally) represent the seller.

 

[Dean]

I understand the law. Some of the other posts seemed to suggest to me that they felt it was unethical to try to get more than the sellers asking price for a contract. Or that the way some brokers are trying to represent both parties is crossing lawful and ethical lines. I disagree with others here about it being unethical. As far as against the law that is for lawyers to handle. I will agree to disagree.

It really depends on how it's done but for a broker that represents both to purposefully create a bidding war is clearly unthical. As I stated before, I know it can happen in some situations on the fly without being orchestrated for high demand options. There really is VERy little they can ethically do to try to get more when more is above the listed asking price.

 

[GOOFY D]

It really depends on how it's done but for a broker that represents both to purposefully create a bidding war is clearly unthical. As I stated before, I know it can happen in some situations on the fly without being orchestrated for high demand options. There really is VERy little they can ethically do to try to get more when more is above the listed asking price.

Right, the fact that they are intentionally disclosing other offers and calling bidders back with that "inside info" in order to attempt to drive up their offer is not ethical in the least.

 

[DisBuckMan]

It really depends on how it's done but for a broker that represents both to purposefully create a bidding war is clearly unthical. As I stated before, I know it can happen in some situations on the fly without being orchestrated for high demand options. There really is VERy little they can ethically do to try to get more when more is above the listed asking price.

As a buyer in the market right now, I can't agree more. It may cost me a decent deal at some point in the near future, but I'm more than prepared to walk away from situations like are being discussed here. To me, "asking price" is what the buyer is willing to accept on the spot....not, where the bidding starts.

 

[freediverdude]

I agree that soliciting a higher bid and then calling back and asking for another round of bids at the end of the day is not how real estate transactions are supposed to go. That's essentially auctioning off a property, not listing it for sale. If several offers come in during a short time frame, like the afternoon the listing is placed, then of course take the highest one. And I don't have a problem if the agent tells people when there's lots of activity on a listing that there are other people interested (without specifics), so that the person knows to place their best offer. But no it's not supposed to be an auction, that's not how these agencies represent what the transaction is supposed to be.