The buyer is the party who decides how much a property is worth not the agent or the vendor.
Correct !!!........
The buyer is the party who decides how much a property is worth not the agent or the vendor.
Interseting how nobody here answered the question I put forward earlier regarding ; would they feel so harsh about it all if they were a vendor - on the receiving end? (as im sure some of you are/were....) Markjbloggs?? what say you !?
Correct !!!........
Interseting how nobody here answered the question I put forward earlier regarding ; would they feel so harsh about it all if they were a vendor - on the receiving end? (as im sure some of you are/were....) Markjbloggs?? what say you !?
Never having been in the position, I can't say for definite but there would certainly be a large measure of guilt on my part that somebody had been cheated by a representative of mine. I certainly would report the EA (or whoever had decieved my buyer), even if it meant a loss of some of my ill-gotten gains.
Fair play to you then, you are in the minority.
However , the answer implies you would go along with it - as you would have no reason to feel guilty otherwise - and loose some of your ill gotten gains ??-
What does the agent do?
Murray, what happens in a buyers market?
[/i]
But their higher bid is based only on deceptive practices by the EA/Auctioneer and has nothing to do with supply and demand, which should be setting the prices. That is distortion.
Fair play to you then, you are in the minority.
However , the answer implies you would go along with it - as you would have no reason to feel guilty otherwise - and loose some of your ill gotten gains ??-
in what way CIK ?
Couldn't agree more it is a distorted market and the application of a simplistic supply and demand model is incorrect.
The fact that a EA acting on behave of a vendor knows what you can pay rather than what you want to pay distorts the true market equilibrium. Its human nature to aim higher even if its unaffordable but as Duplex pointed out the public do need to cop on to themselves. Its also a government's duty to protect the interests of its citizens in such circumstances by way of law, which unfortunately they have failed to do for whatever reason.
You seem to be suggesting that there is no adverse effects, its all market determined, the vendor is happy, the buyer isnt forced to do anything - generally a functioning market
I disagree, you are cashing in on the fact that it is a sellers market and this comes back to bite you in the *ss if/when it becomes a buyers market. What happens then?
To achieve and maintain confidence in the proper functioning of the market you need proper regulation and not just 'let the buyer beware'
Larger established agents wont be bitten on the *ss , exactly the opposite, vendors will pay higher fees because they are more anxious to sell , EA's spend more time with purchasers, many small EA's will go to the wall - basically less houses sold, higher fees.
BTW - it is a buyers market.
So the government should legislate against purchasers ego/human nature to loose the run of themselves?
that is one scenario, another scenario is buyers (who have the power) wont trust EAs and will prefer to deal directly with vendors...
another scenario is vendors will have much less money to pay EA fees as there paper profits might not be what they used to be...
one thing you can take to bank in any future scenario is markets will evolve to remove those that dont add value and EAs only power is the value they add
After seeing that program if I was buying a house or apartment and it was advertised with an EA I would just go up and bang on the door and tell them I will only deal with them directly, I'm sure they wouldn't mind as they too would be saving on the commission.
The government should put legislation in place to make such transactions more transparent which is currently not the case, ie ghost bidders. Until in place there will always be question marks over EA's practices in this country and righfully so.