|
Arsenic Lupin posted:On the way to the closing on our first house, we had to stop the car so my husband could barf. Then he got back in and we drove off and signed. Ha well the fact that it was 3x higher than the last house we bought probably had something to do with it. Anyway. Doesn't matter. We lost it to some mystery site-unseen internet bidder. We went $40k over asking too. Edit: also the whole process is always just so shady. "Oh hey the listing agent says they have higher bids if you want to increase yours... Oh but they can't provide any proof and probably wouldn't if they legally could anyway." I just don't trust any of the gatekeepers. BonoMan fucked around with this message at 13:55 on May 7, 2022 |
#
?
May 7, 2022 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
BonoMan posted:Ha well the fact that it was 3x higher than the last house we bought probably had something to do with it. Yeah this is exactly why an escalation clause is supposed to require proof like was explained a few pages ago. "Oh we can't prove it and wouldn't even if we could" lol gently caress you, if this is really how the law works then those rules need to be thrown straight into the trash. The offer should be the offer
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Oh no, I just learned I was the winning offer on a house. Offered $20K over, but appraisal gap of $10K because my realtor and I thought it was worth listing only listing + 5K. Apparently the seller took interest in us when he heard I am a hospital pharmacist. He was also one back in the day. Yay for small connections?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah this is exactly why an escalation clause is supposed to require proof like was explained a few pages ago. "Oh we can't prove it and wouldn't even if we could" lol gently caress you, if this is really how the law works then those rules need to be thrown straight into the trash. I believe the OP wasn't referring to an escalation clause in this case but just the realtors talk pre your offer or once it is in. Just saying the have higher offers do you want another shot at it? but the have no obligation to not be lying.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 20:18
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:I believe the OP wasn't referring to an escalation clause in this case but just the realtors talk pre your offer or once it is in. Just saying the have higher offers do you want another shot at it? but the have no obligation to not be lying. Yeah that’s what it was. They were just offering us the chance to counter. Which, I guess I appreciate it but I just hate the entire “we can’t tell you what price you’re trying to best so just take a wild stab and if you’re 20k over then teehee more money for everyone else!” Like just say “the highest offer is [X]” and I’ll tell you if I can beat it. But I’m not going to take a wild loving guess. Edit: We’re about to put an offer on another home. I noticed that both this one and the *last* one I bid on both had “no escalation clauses” in the terms.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 20:24
|
|
|
spwrozek posted:I believe the OP wasn't referring to an escalation clause in this case but just the realtors talk pre your offer or once it is in. Just saying the have higher offers do you want another shot at it? but the have no obligation to not be lying. Yeah I know. The "no obligation to not lie" part is what outrages me; an escalation clause would cut off that possibility by requiring proof "Hey everyone a ~~mystery offer~~ came in that beat all of you. No I can't show it to you or tell you what the amount is, just submit a higher offer now, thanks" E: tell the seller's realtor that you already submitted your best offer but because they seem so swell you'll let them clean your rear end in a top hat with their tongue as a bonus QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 20:43 on May 7, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah I know. The "no obligation to not lie" part is what outrages me; an escalation clause would cut off that possibility by requiring proof Yeah now I'm wondering if the "no escalation clause" in the terms was to intentionally get around having to show any proof of claims. I don't know... it's all very tin hat but it's hard to not feel that way when everything is so intentionally opaque.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Yeah this is exactly why an escalation clause is supposed to require proof like was explained a few pages ago. "Oh we can't prove it and wouldn't even if we could" lol gently caress you, if this is really how the law works then those rules need to be thrown straight into the trash. Our buyers' agent in CA specifically turned us away from escalation clauses. She said that if an offer didn't already exist at just below our escalation max, one would magically appear out of thin air from the selling agent's company anyway in response to our escalation [aka, they'd bid to buy the house from the seller for just enough to make your escalation clause the biggest offer]. Just make the offer we want to make, and move on if it fails.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:Yeah that’s what it was. They were just offering us the chance to counter. Which, I guess I appreciate it but I just hate the entire “we can’t tell you what price you’re trying to best so just take a wild stab and if you’re 20k over then teehee more money for everyone else!” It's not that they can't tell you what you're trying to beat, necessarily, it's that they don't want to tell you what the other offers are so you'll potentially go way over, rather than just a little over. It's stupid.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Sundae posted:Our buyers' agent in CA specifically turned us away from escalation clauses. She said that if an offer didn't already exist at just below our escalation max, one would magically appear out of thin air from the selling agent's company anyway in response to our escalation [aka, they'd bid to buy the house from the seller for just enough to make your escalation clause the biggest offer]. Just make the offer we want to make, and move on if it fails. That's not a good reason to discourage you from offering an escalation clause, the agent just wanted to maximize their 3%
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
Chiming in as a buyer in IL, escalation clause worked for me. There were 5 offers around. I would've disliked making the top end of the escalation my original offer though was prepared to pay it of course, ended up using up about half the runway between original amount and escalation max. 3% over list.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
The agent and seller don't want to tell you an exact amount that you'll beat by $1k, and then the other buyer goes up by $1k, and then you go up by $1k more, all conducted over the course of days by phone with no deadline. They need you to significantly beat the other offer so that the other buyer will drop out, or will significantly beat yours with you having no opportunity to submit another counter offer. Basically, in a live auction you'd handle this with a minimum increment of bid, but we don't have that in a fake, not controlled by escalation clauses, game of telephone "auction" between two blind bidders. I'm not sympathetic to the seller, of course, but they're really just responding to the situation they find themselves in: realtors have figured out that in this sellers' market, the best way to get the most for a house is to get buyers caught up in a high-stakes blind bid auction scenario and then play them off against each other, especially as people lose out on house after house and become increasingly desperate.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 01:25
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Would you guys buy a house that was close to a high-voltage transmission line? Last weekend I saw a very nice house with 230kV lines running directly over the (quite large) back yard. This weekend we're going to look at another place which happens to also have 230kV lines running over the property. In this latter case, it's an 11 acre plot and the lines cross over a pretty large portion of the area, and the house is about 50m from the path of the power lines. I went and looked at this place today. It's got some stuff I liked, some stuff that sucked. Stream-of-consciousness:
Our agent was all excited about this nice flat spot elsewhere on the property as a perfect spot to build a new house... of course, after making the down payment on this place, it would be a while before we'd be in a position to do anything like that, so we'd need to be able to live in the existing house. The existing house is... fine. Overall I liked the place, but god drat I'm pretty concerned about the foundation. They're sending over all their inspection reports and such soon, but at the end of the day I'm not really capable of judging how hosed a foundation is. I'd have to get my own inspection done and hope the guy is conscientious. At just under a million, it's cheaper than just about any livable house around here, but goddamn it's a commute for my wife (1hr20 each way, although she should only have to go in twice a week) and who knows what repairs it might actually need.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:but goddamn it's a commute for my wife (1hr20 each way 
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Once you add your wife's commute to her hours at work, how much time will you be spending together in your new house?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 16:54
|
|
|
Eagerly awaiting losing out on our second offer for a house. Exact same listing price/offer as the last house. A complete gut and renovation. On a little culdesac of cluster homes but it was a super cute and modern reno. Super busy open house though so I'm not feeling optimistic.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Yeah that's dogshit, would be an immediate deal killer for me. I would either find a different house closer to wife's work or see if she could find another job that's equal or better in her view, if you need to buy this house.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:07
|
|
|
Inner Light posted:Yeah that's dogshit, would be an immediate deal killer for me. I would either find a different house closer to wife's work or see if she could find another job that's equal or better in her view, if you need to buy this house. There's work that's closer to the place, but of course you have to get the job. The commute is a big issue for us, because yeah even going in twice a week means six hours in the car and that's no way to live.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
The house I'm about to under contract has a commute that varies between 40 minutes and 75 minutes depending on traffic. I'm just glad that I can take mass transit instead and not pay attention for 40-50 minutes instead. My MIL tried to convince me to take another house in a different area and the same distance, but it would have meant traveling on I-90 in Chicago going towards the city and I would do a lot of things to avoid commuting in that mess.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:There's work that's closer to the place, but of course you have to get the job. The commute is a big issue for us, because yeah even going in twice a week means six hours in the car and that's no way to live. People seem to mostly be skipping over the twice a week thing, that's not nearly as bad. 80 minutes each way twice a week is the same as 32 minutes each way five times a week. It's still not great and more than I would personally do, but not as grossly unreasonable as commuting 13 hours a week if it was 80 minutes each way 5 days a week.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:People seem to mostly be skipping over the twice a week thing, that's not nearly as bad. 80 minutes each way twice a week is the same as 32 minutes each way five times a week. It's still not great and more than I would personally do, but not as grossly unreasonable as commuting 13 hours a week if it was 80 minutes each way 5 days a week. The difference is that it’s a hell commute for those days. That can lead to a lot of stress and just kinda be lovely. I did something similar when I taught three days a week at a rural AF community college and goddamn it just drains you. Way worse than an equal number of commuting hours spread out over the whole week.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:People seem to mostly be skipping over the twice a week thing, that's not nearly as bad. 80 minutes each way twice a week is the same as 32 minutes each way five times a week. It's still not great and more than I would personally do, but not as grossly unreasonable as commuting 13 hours a week if it was 80 minutes each way 5 days a week. No need to "skip over it" to still disagree. Those are two super lovely very long days. Everyone has their own limits and preferences, but that's a quality of life killer to me.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 17:54
|
|
|
Yeah time isn’t fungible like that, it’s not like that day with almost 3 hours in the car doesn’t feel long as gently caress just because you didn’t do it yesterday. It helps but it doesn’t all average out.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:People seem to mostly be skipping over the twice a week thing, that's not nearly as bad. 80 minutes each way twice a week is the same as 32 minutes each way five times a week. It's still not great and more than I would personally do, but not as grossly unreasonable as commuting 13 hours a week if it was 80 minutes each way 5 days a week. Even once a week would be a deal killer imo, commuting that much time once weekly would suck. That block of time is way worse than having the same number of minutes be split up over the week
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
To put things in perspective, a 3 hour commute twice a week is effectively like working an 11 hour shift twice a week if you lived next door to your job.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
At what point, if any, do ARMs make sense?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 19:32
|
|
|
laxbro posted:At what point, if any, do ARMs make sense? When you're buying a house for 5 years in a market in which you're positive will continue increasing in price at an astonishing rate and also have the financial ability to deal with the possibility that it may not. They have been very popular in the bay area for those types of reasons, but most times it's just people who are buying more house than they can afford. Which is also why they have been so popular in that same area.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 19:44
|
|
|
Offer on the second house got accepted! Oh God. So much money. I hate this market. Took $40k over asking and $30k in die diligence.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
DTaeKim posted:Oh no, I just learned I was the winning offer on a house. Offered $20K over, but appraisal gap of $10K because my realtor and I thought it was worth listing only listing + 5K. i mean i got my place because the owner's dog liked me. so basically if you wanna own a house you need to eat a lot of beef jerky
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2022 23:17
|
|
|
Deviant posted:i mean i got my place because the owner's dog liked me. When we sold, we sold to the seller with kids. We lived in a place with a 10/10 public elementary and middle school so it was super desirable and knew that's why they wanted it. It technically wasn't the highest offer (but was close of course.. we weren't gonna lose out on tons of money).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 01:28
|
|
|
BonoMan posted:When we sold, we sold to the seller with kids. We lived in a place with a 10/10 public elementary and middle school so it was super desirable and knew that's why they wanted it. It technically wasn't the highest offer (but was close of course.. we weren't gonna lose out on tons of money).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 01:45
|
|
|
Nah
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 01:48
|
|
|
Deviant posted:i mean i got my place because the owner's dog liked me. Louisgod???
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:This should be illegal, if it’s not already. The seller getting to decide what offer to take? Why should that be illegal?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 01:56
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:This should be illegal, if it’s not already. Nah it's fine. It's also fine to not sell to people who hate dogs
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
And to be clear it was a competitive offer... Obviously. It just technically wasn't the highest. They offered better terms to potentially cover an appraisal gap and the highest offer didn't. We assumed the highest offer was banking on the appraisal coming in too low (this was the beginning of the craze) so they offered a price they knew they wouldn't have to pay. Then it would have locked us into an actual lower price.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 02:01
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:This should be illegal, if it’s not already. If it was a commercial landlord or seller, it would violate the FHA: quote:The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing because of: But, quote:The Fair Housing Act covers most housing. In very limited circumstances, the Act exempts owner-occupied buildings with no more than four units, single-family houses sold or rented by the owner without the use of an agent, and housing operated by religious organizations and private clubs that limit occupancy to members.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
I also didn't take the highest offer on my condo. It was about $500 between them, and the lesser offer was a 4wk close (I had already cleared out of the place).
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
Dik Hz posted:This should be illegal, if it’s not already. BonoMan posted:The seller getting to decide what offer to take? Why should that be illegal?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 02:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
Slugworth posted:I'm super confused because I thought it *was* illegal, and yet it appears everyone in this thread has done it. We sold to my girlfriend's nephew, and were warned we weren't allowed to know which offer was his. Yeah of course that makes sense. It's odd because it *was* the best offer (again technically not the highest ) in terms... So we likely would have taken it no matter what. But we even said "I like that they have kids and will go to a great school" and our agent didn't even blink. I think they even agreed with us. Which now obviously seems like they should have said "uh that can't matter." But maybe since it was the best offer they decided to just not mention it to us. Oof. Either way, old agent and different state. Not dealing with that anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 02:11
|
|