|
Baronjutter posted:Every single co-op I've ever heard of has always fell into horrible drama, the more hippie-ish the more likely. All this cooperation and democracy and communal labour sounds nice but all it takes is a single disagreement and suddenly the entire building is a hostile environment and nothing gets done and poo poo is falling apart. A dude I knew bought into one somewhere in central BC that was a group of "like minded" arty hippie types and within a few months it was basically survivor with factions and plots and people forming alliances to kick other people out or make life miserable for them. And these aren't idiot 20-somethings these are fully grown adults. Then again co-ops tend to attract a few "types". The people I've known who lived in co-ops tended to really enjoy and value the experience and it helped instil, or at least reinforce, more communitarian values. I would be cautious about over generalizing your own experiences too much here.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
Lexicon posted:For sure - it makes perfect sense that realtors exist. It's a classic case of a market that requires a broker. I particularly dislike how they push the message that everybody should buy a home NOW NOW NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, plus the NAR's vehement opposition to ending or modifying the mortgage interest deduction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:I particularly dislike how they push the message that everybody should buy a home NOW NOW NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, plus the NAR's vehement opposition to ending or modifying the mortgage interest deduction. While I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, the NAR and mortgage interest deductions are American concerns, and of limited usefulness in the Canadian housing bubble thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:While I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly, the NAR and mortgage interest deductions are American concerns, and of limited usefulness in the Canadian housing bubble thread. You're completely right, and I now feel dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:You're completely right, and I now feel dumb. I only point that out for the sake of limiting confusion. Your point is otherwise well taken - the realtor cartel engages in equally disingenuous bullshit here also. Oddly, in both cases it seems, people actually listen to them. The same respect is not afforded to car salesmen - a functionally similar profession.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:I only point that out for the sake of limiting confusion. Your point is otherwise well taken - the realtor cartel engages in equally disingenuous bullshit here also. Oddly, in both cases it seems, people actually listen to them. The same respect is not afforded to car salesmen - a functionally similar profession. It's not really the same thing - in the case of a used car salesman, he likely has a direct interest in the sale of the specific car he's sitting on, while a realtor is incented to transact on any property. Thus, the realtor should be incented to show you the properties you're most likely to transact on so that he gets paid. This isn't to say that there aren't disingenuous shills out there, but to blight the whole profession is a bit unfair. I've personally had an excellent experience with the realtor that I've used for years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:It's not really the same thing - in the case of a used car salesman, he likely has a direct interest in the sale of the specific car he's sitting on, while a realtor is incented to transact on any property. Thus, the realtor should be incented to show you the properties you're most likely to transact on so that he gets paid. This is a very fair point to make. I guess I was thinking in terms of the incentives - for both sets of 'professions' - if you ask them "Is now a good time to buy $THING_YOU_TRANSACT_IN?", the answer always seems to be an unequivocal yes. The incentive distortion effect is obvious from the car salesman, but not so for most people in the case of the realtor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
That's fair too. Any person in sales has a bias to get you to transact as that's how they get paid. As long as you keep that in mind, and are careful in selecting your broker, you should be fine. One thing to watch out for is a broker that has a lot of sell-side listings. They're going to have a hard-to-ignore incentive to show you their own listings as they essentially get paid twice on them, however, their code of ethics requires that if they are doing this they give you the option to select another broker to act on your behalf, regardless of any timed exclusivity agreement you might sign (this is something many buy-side brokers will ask for to give a clear time window for them to search for you).
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:That's fair too. Any person in sales has a bias to get you to transact as that's how they get paid. As long as you keep that in mind, and are careful in selecting your broker, you should be fine. One thing to watch out for is a broker that has a lot of sell-side listings. They're going to have a hard-to-ignore incentive to show you their own listings as they essentially get paid twice on them, however, their code of ethics requires that if they are doing this they give you the option to select another broker to act on your behalf, regardless of any timed exclusivity agreement you might sign (this is something many buy-side brokers will ask for to give a clear time window for them to search for you). Never sign a buyer representation agreement ever. They are of absolutely no benefit to the buyer. If the buyer agent insists on one, keep looking for a good buyer agent. They typically make you liable for up to the full commission if the vendor decides not to pay it out, they typically make you liable for comission to the buyer agent you have signed with if you buy through someone else, and they make you liable for comission to the buyer agent if the transaction does not go through due to your own default or neglect. They loving suck. Saltin fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Never sign a buyer representation agreement ever. They are of absolutely no benefit to the buyer. If the buyer agent insists on one, keep looking for a good buyer agent. Agree that if you can find a broker who will work hard for you without one then you are better off. That said, I disagree that they're of no benefit, as a broker with a rep agreement will arguably be a lot more incented to do a lot of work for you as he knows you're not going to take a house he found and go to your buddy down the street after he's done all the work. Assuming you're not a deadbeat, being on the hook for your own negligence shouldn't be of concern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Assuming you're not a deadbeat, being on the hook for your own negligence shouldn't be of concern. You're also on the hook for the vendor's (selling agent's) negligence. Maybe you can get a BRA without that clause, I've never seen one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Saltin posted:You're also on the hook for the vendor's (selling agent's) negligence. Maybe you can get a BRA without that clause, I've never seen one. http://www.torontorealestateboard.com/buying/plain_language_forms/pdf/300_2010_PL.pdf That's not actually what it says - you're on the hook for the fee if your negligence causes the transaction to fail, but negligence on the part of the seller causing the transaction to fail is a whole different game and doesn't really seem to be covered. The language in the agreement linked above basically just states that you have to pay your broker a commission if it's not otherwise provided for. Since the vast majority of listings include coverage of buyers' fees then this is a non-issue. You're basically agreeing to pay commish to your broker should you end up buying a private listing that he finds for you, which seems to me to be fair. It's ultimately irrelevant because if a broker went around trying to enforce buyers' fees on blown deals in this manner no-one would ever use that broker again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 23:04
|
|
|
edit: gently caress, wrong thread again!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
When my parents went looking for stuff to buy in Victoria we found a buyer's agent and sat down together. The agent agreed with me that at least in the short term the market was more likely to go down than up, and that it was probably a bad idea overall. He told us we didn't need a Buyer's representative agreement but we insisted on one anyway. They bought through him, it was a fairly painless experience and we are referring him to our friends too.  Of all the things to complain about, real estate agents are pretty low on the list. If you dislike them so much don't use one. Who's making you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Of all the things to complain about, real estate agents are pretty low on the list. If you dislike them so much don't use one. Who's making you? Believing an industry/company's services are useful is not incompatible with criticizing the way that industry/company conducts its affairs, especially when it does so through legally enforced cartels. See also: telecom, banking, dairy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
I guess I'm just not on board with calling them a "cartel' when there are so many actual horrible cartels out there. As far as industry associations go they're pretty harmless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:As far as industry associations go they're pretty harmless. Except for the absurd barriers to entry (I can only sell your house for you at the pleasure of the particular real estate board in the city), the fact that they entirely control the sales data (this one is crazy - forget about Zillow Canada anytime soon), and that they are the ones generating the industry reports and are not above falsifying and/or backdating data once in a while to continually fit their "never been a better time to buy" narrative. They, like virtually every profit-seeking monopoly, are toxic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I guess I'm just not on board with calling them a "cartel' when there are so many actual horrible cartels out there. That has nothing to do with if they are a cartel or not. The word isn't supposed to instantly imply that it's a murderous drug gang. Although I don't think they intentionally lie when they try to push people towards buying housing and the whole "housing only goes up" thing. They are usually just incredibly uninformed and naive, while they think they are experts on the subject because they walk in houses or something- it's a dangerous combination. enbot fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Except for the absurd barriers to entry (I can only sell your house for you at the pleasure of the particular real estate board in the city), the fact that they entirely control the sales data (this one is crazy - forget about Zillow Canada anytime soon), and that they are the ones generating the industry reports and are not above falsifying and/or backdating data once in a while to continually fit their "never been a better time to buy" narrative. Is there really no governmental database of housing transactions and prices in Canada?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Is there really no governmental database of housing transactions and prices in Canada? Nope
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Is there really no governmental database of housing transactions and prices in Canada?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Canada is a glorious regulation-free free market. cowofwar posted:Canada is a glorious regulation-free free market. Well we do have the regulation that says "only a chap blessed by the real estate board may sell your house" so there's that at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Well we do have the regulation that says "only a chap blessed by the real estate board may sell your house" so there's that at least.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I guess I'm just not on board with calling them a "cartel' when there are so many actual horrible cartels out there. As far as industry associations go they're pretty harmless. As a seller, if you don't agree to pay the buying agent a certain %, then buying agents won't show your place (or at least will try their hardest not to) to their clients.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
my god, such an industry ripe for disruption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:my god, such an industry ripe for disruption. I know - it drat well should be, but it's a bit hard when they have so much of the business model locked up with legal protection. Still, the Uber story with taxis gives me hope. "Oh, you won't let us pick up hailing customers on the roadside? Fine, they can just initiate a pickup from their connected, pocket computer." <-- completely unforeseeable a decade prior.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:http://www.torontorealestateboard.com/buying/plain_language_forms/pdf/300_2010_PL.pdf Kalenn we'll have to disagree. I didn't mention anything about the seller being negligent. What I said was that if the Buyer Agent did not receive commission from the selling agent, for whatever reason, you're on the hook for it. You're also on the hook for any deficiency between the actual commission the selling agent is offering the Buyer Agent and what the Buyer Agent talks you into signing on for (god help any prospective buyer who is dumb enough to guarantee a rate to a Buyer Agent). That stuff is stated in section #2 of the document you linked. To be clear I am not saying Buyer Agents are a bad idea. I have used one in the past and it was good. I did not sign an agreement because I do not believe the buyer should have to pay commission given any likelihood. You can bet those clauses are there for good reason, i.e those contingencies can and do happen, and additionally it gives the buyer agent a chance to guarantee their own commission regardless of what the seller is offering. blah_blah posted:As a seller, if you don't agree to pay the buying agent a certain %, then buying agents won't show your place (or at least will try their hardest not to) to their clients. This is what should be (has been) driving fair commission for the buyer agent. It's the genesis of 1% commission selling agents are offering these days trying to attract sellers that is driving the Buyer Agent agreement. The seller doesn't want to go out of pocket so the industry is finding ways to shift cost to the buyer. Saltin fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Lexicon posted:Still, the Uber story with taxis gives me hope. "Oh, you won't let us pick up hailing customers on the roadside? Fine, they can just initiate a pickup from their connected, pocket computer." <-- completely unforeseeable a decade prior. Funny story, the Vancouver cab companies complained Uber right out of the city!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Funny story, the Vancouver cab companies complained Uber right out of the city! Oh. Why am I not surprised. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I didn't mention anything about the seller being negligent. Saltin posted:You're also on the hook for the vendor's (selling agent's) negligence. Maybe you can get a BRA without that clause, I've never seen one. The term vendor generally means the actual seller (with their agent included elsewhere), so that's how I interpreted your comment. While the wording could be interpreted the way you note, any broker that did this wouldn't have clients for very long - they're much more likely to go after the selling broker that failed to pay the fees.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:The term vendor generally means the actual seller (with their agent included elsewhere), so that's how I interpreted your comment. While the wording could be interpreted the way you note, any broker that did this wouldn't have clients for very long - they're much more likely to go after the selling broker that failed to pay the fees. Sure, I'm not in the industry or anything so apologies for the terminology mix up. You sussed I mean vendor= agent, I think. I agree that any broker who did this would not be successful, which is why it doesn't need to be part of a signed agreement. The way the BRA is worded it doesn't matter if the seller decides not to pay comission to the selling agent (who then cannot pass it along to the buyer agent), or the selling agent decides not to pass along the buyer agent's portion of the commission. Either way the buyer who signed the BRA is responsible for the shortfall, after paying for the drat house to boot . The BRA is all protection for the buyer agent, and it would not be a thing if those contingencies did not happen from time to time, plus it's an opportunity for the buyer agent to lock in a set commission regardless of what the selling agent is offering, which is all in the buyer agent's favour too. I think the checks and balances of the industry as you note - reputation, essentially, are good controls without putting buyers on the hook for anything. BRAs are bad. Saltin fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Roncesvalles fixer-upper draws a crowd and a hefty $803,649 sale pricequote:Her dilapidated Roncesvalles home sold Wednesday night for $803,649 — more than $150,000 over the asking price — after a flurry of more than a dozen offers from contractors and families looking to put down roots in one of Toronto’s most up-and-coming neighbourhoods. The seller made a lot of money from the house. The buyer certainly won't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Roncesvalles fixer-upper draws a crowd and a hefty $803,649 sale price The Fed changing the rules for 1mil+ mortgages has really lit the 750-950k market on fire in ok neighbourhoods in the city. Not that the change was a bad thing - no lie I watched a young couple move their futon into a million plus place in Playter Estates (Toronto) before they changed the rules. A loving futon from the back of a U haul.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Maybe they just really like futons. Final comment re: BRA - I don't think they're ideal, but I also don't think they're horrible as long as you're eyes wide open entering into one and don't have a slimy broker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
tagesschau posted:Roncesvalles fixer-upper draws a crowd and a hefty $803,649 sale price Pffft, you say that but you simply don't get it. This guy from the comments knows what's up: quote:propertyInvestor2 hours ago Your tiny mind cannot comprehend the infallible glory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Real estate is all about making up random numbers and hoping you somehow wildly profit from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
my favorite thing is looking at this chart every month and deciding where we are now im thinking somewhere between "new paradigm" and "denial"
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
RBC posted:my favorite thing is looking at this chart every month and deciding where we are now No, we're past that, probably on the downside of the 'Return to "normal"' bump and rounding close to Fear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Pretty clear that the bull trap was in the summer/fall - there was a big uptick in sales then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:55 |
|
|
tagesschau posted:Roncesvalles fixer-upper draws a crowd and a hefty $803,649 sale price I live in this neighbourhood and I think that the buyer got a pretty good deal provided they actually intend to live in the house. I don't see much room to make money by flipping it but I could be wrong, a house two blocks over that is just as big was listed the other day for 1.35 million and it needs a lot of work as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 03:22
|
|
