|
qhat posted:I mean that's kinda just normal negotiation. The leverage the seller held was to walk away, the selling agent hosed up by basically telling you outright that the seller was being a stickler. But whatever, their loss was your gain so gently caress 'em. What the gently caress is “asking price” then? In any sane negotiation, when the buyer says “I will pay what you are asking for”, you get the thing.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Asking price isn't actually asking price around here. It's set well below what the seller expects to get in order to garner attention and bids to get up to and hopefully higher what the place down the street sold for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Asking price isn't actually asking price around here. It's set well below what the seller expects to get in order to garner attention and bids to get up to and hopefully higher what the place down the street sold for. This. Selling a house in a hot market is closer to an auction than it is an outright purchase. They know once people have something psychologically invested in the house then they are more likely to make or raise a bid, so its in their interest to get as many in the front door as they can. Also in any sane negotiation, the starting offer is never the real offer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
the talent deficit posted:i don't think it's a bubble either. it's just unprecedented access to cheap credit, a lack of viable alternatives for investment and constrained supply. they literally aren't building more houses in places people actually want to work and live so it's only going to get worse from here Pretty much yeah. TINA. "There is no alternative." The government has made it abundantly clear that housing is the preferred asset class, so you're a moron if you don't invest in one. Houses are a sink for excess income. None of this is that new. Same was true in the 90s, but in the 90s we were constantly razing forests in Surrey to build new McMansions. Suddenly that is no longer possible. Welp!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 06:16
|
|
|
Lobok posted:Asking price isn't actually asking price around here. It's set well below what the seller expects to get in order to garner attention and bids to get up to and hopefully higher what the place down the street sold for. Yes we all know this. Did you know it's actually illegal for Realtors to list below value to get offers? Realtors are scum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 12:41
|
|
|
Rental and homeowner vacancy rates in the US were higher from 2005 to 2012 than at any other time since 1956. The US rental vacancy rate was 10% at the peak of the bubble, and the highest it's been in Canada in the last 20 years is 3.7%, but mostly between 2% and 3%. From the early to late 90's it was closer to 5%. All that suggests to me that this is more a problem of lack of supply than irrational expectations. Prices can keep going up until we've reached a point where most people hit some ridiculously high portion of their lifetime income spent on housing. Even if I imagine a scenario where everyone thinks the bubble popped and prices drop 30% overnight, they'd be bid up again pretty quickly because there must be a lot of households like mine for whom the cost of ownership has been juuuust out of reach for several years, and there isn't a lot of spare housing stock to go around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
There's actually one other reason to pursue the "list low" strategy for realtors - contract when selling basically always had a clause guaranteeing them a commission if an offer at list is received and rejected. Probably this is negotiable if you're savvy enough to do so (by at least putting the "real" price there / using a realtor who will let you do so) but dunno for sure as I've not been on the selling end of an obviously below market listing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2021 18:09
|
|
|
I think I got a deal on the house I bought because the sellers put that they weren't paying the buyer's real estate agent into their contract, so nobody wanted to show their buyers the house.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/katcin/status/1384708486949339142?s=19 Parent tweet, but linking the reply for snark
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 04:31
|
|
|
Sassafras posted:https://twitter.com/katcin/status/1384708486949339142?s=19 Yeah, there's something wrong when 1% income families are living in a half duplex. This place is so royally screwed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 06:07
|
|
|
McGavin posted:I think I got a deal on the house I bought because the sellers put that they weren't paying the buyer's real estate agent into their contract, so nobody wanted to show their buyers the house. Holy poo poo, I'm assuming they did FSBO and didn't have their own agent?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 12:14
|
|
|
No, they paid their agent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Yeah, there's something wrong when 1% income families are living in a half duplex. didn't somebody itt just say Vancouver is the new Manhattan/London, makes sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 16:56
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Yeah, there's something wrong when 1% income families are living in a half duplex. The lots are too big. What's the difference between a half duplex vs just a full on row-house?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
McGavin posted:No, they paid their agent. ok then they're nuts and their agent is an idiot for going along with it. FSBO private sale is one thing, but that's just dumb. lucky for you though lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Has anyone ever used one of those 1% agencies? Is it worth it? I've heard that you don't get all the bells and whistles of a full service agent like staging and professional photography etc, but considering a 2~2.5% discount of a house is in the tens of thousands, it seems like something that could be cut if you've got a little patience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 18:46
|
|
|
qhat posted:Has anyone ever used one of those 1% agencies? Is it worth it? I've heard that you don't get all the bells and whistles of a full service agent like staging and professional photography etc, but considering a 2~2.5% discount of a house is in the tens of thousands, it seems like something that could be cut if you've got a little patience. When my friend sold his house in Burnaby ~10 years ago it wasn't really getting any offers, he switched to that 1% realty and they must have had some good contacts or something because it sold in like a week after he switched.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
In a hot selling market (like now), a discount brokerage isn't a problem because a sale will happen no matter what. In a cold market, the lack of (normal) commission to the buyer's agent means less people checking out the house, and less chance of a sale. I can't find it now, but there was an article about a guy trying to sell his condo for months in Calgary when the market was dead last year - multiple places in his building, etc. Rather than reduce the price, he upped the buyer's commission to 4%, and immediately had like 30 visits and sold the place in like a week for his asking price. Agents really don't give a poo poo about their clients, just the money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
In the US the agreement between buyer and their agent lists the percentage the agent will get, making what the seller offers kind of irrelevant. If it's less the buyer needs to make up the difference, but I've never seen that happen in practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
unknown posted:In a hot selling market (like now), a discount brokerage isn't a problem because a sale will happen no matter what. We're not talking about the buyer's agent, we're talking about the seller's agent. The seller needs to pay both commissions, but if the selling agent has already accepted a small commission outset from the beginning, then you're getting a discount regardless of what you list the buyer's commission at. You're only (theoretically) sacrificing value by maybe not marketing it as effectively? But that kind of assumes most buyers gaf about the Shiny HDR Photos or whatever, it's obvious the buyer agent only cares about commission and you have to pay that regardless. qhat fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Apr 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
It's becoming common for selling agents to give discounts or rebates now so those 1% places aren't even a great deal anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Cold on a Cob posted:It's becoming common for selling agents to give discounts or rebates now so those 1% places aren't even a great deal anymore. How much of a discount are we talking about here? Even 1% more than a 1% shop is many thousands of extra negotiating room you have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
qhat posted:How much of a discount are we talking about here? Even 1% more than a 1% shop is many thousands of extra negotiating room you have. 1% off. So it's still more, but you also still get more for your money (in theory).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 19:43
|
|
|
It would be really interesting if someone did some analysis on whether the fees charged by agencies at all predicted whether the sale would outperform some relative benchmark, such as the BC Assessment, and do that over rolling time periods for say the past X decades to capture both bull and bear markets.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Sassafras posted:https://twitter.com/katcin/status/1384708486949339142?s=19 oof yeah that math doesn't add up at all. I mean, sometimes the duplex hating supply side skeptics are way off base with these comparisons, but not this one. The first house is a post war bungalow with the actual building worth $30k (says bc assessment), probably full of asbestos and foundation issues and in dire need of a full gut renovation. Have fun paying for all that in an environment with spiking construction costs. So of course it's a teardown. The underlying land price dominates but even though you're only getting half the land, you're still gonna end up paying a ton for a new duplex because uh a house costs $600k+ easy to build these days? Even still though you add that up and you do not end up at 1.7M. Maybe something around 1.1-1.2M would be reasonable... Maybe a new duplex is that much more expensive than simply a new single house? I don't think so.... Listing says that the new duplex is 1706sqft, and construction costs are way up but still. https://www.rew.ca/properties/3274796/1-2976-e-42-avenue-vancouver-bc
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
large hands posted:didn't somebody itt just say Vancouver is the new Manhattan/London, makes sense Sure, incomes are the same here. Oh wait
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
qhat posted:We're not talking about the buyer's agent, we're talking about the seller's agent. The seller needs to pay both commissions, but if the selling agent has already accepted a small commission outset from the beginning, then you're getting a discount regardless of what you list the buyer's commission at. You're only (theoretically) sacrificing value by maybe not marketing it as effectively? But that kind of assumes most buyers gaf about the Shiny HDR Photos or whatever, it's obvious the buyer agent only cares about commission and you have to pay that regardless. So some quick calculations, a 2% difference on a $1mm house nets $20k. Roughly put, $10k of that is going to staging/painting/pictures/ads/etc because the realtor has got the contacts and volume (the first 1%/10k goes to more generic fees/MLS/etc). You'll probably pay $15k for the equivalent (include your own time costs to arrange/do it) - so you'll probably net ~$5k against the stress of doing the legwork yourself. The last point - surprisingly, most buyers do give a gently caress about shiny HDR photos/360 views and whatever (you might not). People generally are stupid - if they weren't, advertising and sales people wouldn't exist/be effective. It's not entirely about getting people in the door (which is not hard in a seller's market), it's about getting the stupid people with money excited about your place so they open their wallets extra wide and outbid a smart person. Smart people generally see through the advertising bullshit and bid $1mm on a $1mm house - and stupid people pay more. And this is where having a greasy conman/sales guy on your side is good, they know how to exploit stupid people. As long as the stupid pay like $6k or more than the smart person on a $1mm house - it's bonus money in your pocket, because that's something you probably don't know how to do. And in this market, they'll pay waaaay more than that. So my advice is get someone who knows how to find and exploit those stupid people if you don't know how to do it. (Which you probably don't otherwise you'd be in real estate). My point about the buyers side is that you (the seller) set the commissions on their side as well. Most discount places do matching levels of like 1%:1%. In a seller's market that means poo poo (buyers will visit/view every possible place), but in the buyers market that could mean the difference between selling and not as the buyer's agent filters the properties out (unless someone was stupid enough to sign a BRA with a fixed fee clause). My personal story is when we recently sold, our agent netted us around $50k more knowing how to play various buyers against each other versus where we would have pulled the trigger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 21:25
|
|
|
Mandibular Fiasco posted:Sure, incomes are the same here. Oh wait money isn't important when you're talking about The Best Place on Earth
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 22:22
|
|
|
unknown posted:So some quick calculations, a 2% difference on a $1mm house nets $20k. Roughly put, $10k of that is going to staging/painting/pictures/ads/etc because the realtor has got the contacts and volume (the first 1%/10k goes to more generic fees/MLS/etc). You'll probably pay $15k for the equivalent (include your own time costs to arrange/do it) - so you'll probably net ~$5k against the stress of doing the legwork yourself. This might all be true, I can get on board with the idea that there is currently no shortage of stupid people buying homes. I guess my only complaint is that the data behind all of this that would allow a seller to make a judgement on how much of a difference that extra 1-2% fee actually makes is all neatly hidden away by the real estate brokerage firms, so really you just have to take their word for it that you need to pay specifically that amount, otherwise you're leaving money on the table. I would obviously have no issue if that extra 20k netted me 10k more after fees, I just have no way of verifying that it actually did. qhat fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Apr 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
qhat posted:. I would obviously have no issue if that extra 20k netted me 10k more after fees, I just have no way of verifying that it actually did. And that's what everyone hates about sales and marketing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
Québec's minister in charge of housing today told La Presse that sale prices "must remain confidential", clearly having no idea that access to this in the land register has long been available for 1$ a pop via the provincial website. https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/20...x_xx8i9xvB8Eebs
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2021 13:57
|
|
|
Money can only GROW
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
I love how everything is getting ridiculously expensive but today the recruiter I spoke with told me asking for ~10% more money than I'm making now is a non-starter. More anecdata for me that CPI is such bullshit. Usually I don't tell a recruiter what I want up front but in this case I had no interest in the company so I was curious how it would go if I did. Answer: I was off the phone within 2 minutes of telling the recruiter what I wanted.  All this after we spoke at length about how tough the market is to hire sw developers, how expensive things have gotten, etc etc.It's no goddamn wonder so many Canadians go the USA for work, or take remote jobs where they can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
Well, you definitely saved some time there, never going to price yourself out that easily anywhere that isn't cheap as heck. Probably more than half the people in my org are up >25% from pre-Covid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Truth. I'm also underpaid as it is, but the difference is where I am now I get to define my role 100%, have a lot of freedom, and the workload is light. Going to be hard to poach me to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
As always, any company insisting on playing hardball on comp before they've even spoken to the candidate let alone interviewed them has no high paying job to offer either now or in the future, and should obviously be discarded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 21:02
|
|
|
Exactly. Not to be arrogant but I'm not unemployed and desperate to get hired. If you're trying to poach people you have to be prepared to offer a bump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Canadian Debt Thread: Not to be arrogant but I'm not unemployed
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
qhat posted:As always, any company insisting on playing hardball on comp before they've even spoken to the candidate let alone interviewed them has no high paying job to offer either now or in the future, and should obviously be discarded. I suppose it's possible enough that even a good company briefly employs a complete idiot recruiter who gets it into their head that, despite what they've been told, the recruiter is the sole arbitrar of who is worth what and nobody figures that out until someone's job referral gone awry results in things getting escalated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2021 23:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Sassafras posted:I suppose it's possible enough that even a good company briefly employs a complete idiot recruiter who gets it into their head that, despite what they've been told, the recruiter is the sole arbitrar of who is worth what and nobody figures that out until someone's job referral gone awry results in things getting escalated. Yes this is possible, and is something I’ve personally experienced, but it’s still no reason to discuss compensation at the beginning stages of the process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2021 12:20
|
|