Note to poster TyCubby about bidding war
Your post was removed because it was potentially libelous. It’s fine to post on this topic as long as you do not misrepresent allegations as proven facts. Please read our community guidelines and follow them when posting.
cate
in General Discussion 6 years and 3 months ago
12
Please log in, in order to post replies!
12 replies
louisahml | 6 years and 3 months ago
@tycubby money talks may be considered anti….nevermind.
Guest User | 6 years and 3 months ago
So True brokelin! and yes MO-NAY TALKS! The NY RE market needs some cleaning which has be true in any industry but here it’s easiest and fastest just to DELETE AND BAN any of us folk who are trying to be vigilant!! I best get me own blog!!!!!!
brokelin | 6 years and 3 months ago
This website makes a lot of money from brokers – it lists apartments for sale, so that’s a given – but that’s beside the point here. This site often removes posts where one person claims another – a contractor, for example – wronged them, as it doesn’t want to be responsible for spreading word of claims that aren’t proven. This is kind of common on websites.
That Channel 11 was libelous in reporting the story is ludicrous. They reported a claim someone made that a broker created a phony bidding war. Whether the government agency the claim was reported to, or court if a lawsuit is filed, will find wrongdoing is not known yet. If merely reporting that a claim was made was libelous, then we would never see any reporting of civil or criminal cases prior to a finding of culpability or guilt – and that isn’t the way news works.
Whether the broker involved will actually be found to have done something wrong, or whether the proof – the emails shown in the new report – were worded vaguely enough such that no wrongdoing will be found – and I suspect it will be the latter – is also beside the point. (What was said verbally may be a different matter, but If not recorded, is usually not considered hard proof.)
The point buyers need to understand is the in this bidding system, when a broker says there is another bid (or bids), is that a buyer can never be certain that there actually is another bid. An unscrupulous broker has an interest in leading a bidder to believe there are other bids because the buyer in this bidding system has no way of knowing whether another bid actually exists or not. I am not saying most brokers are by any means not scrupulous about bids, just that the incentives to misrepresent are there, for those few brokers that are not scrupulous, to create or imply a phony bidding war.
Furthermore, in a bidding system where but where no earnest money or downpayment is made with a bid, even where there are other bids, a buyer has no way of knowing if the other bids, if shown a bid sheet, are real, or if they are real, if the potential other bidder(s) has any real interest or means or even intent to complete the purchase.
In such a system, the buyer in a bidding war is at a distinct disadvantage – different from a system where there is proof that there are other bids – and where the other bidders have put up money they will lose if their bid is chosen and they don’t complete the purchase. I’m not saying that the system here is worse than a system where downpayments or earnest money are put in with bids – there are some advantages, even to buyers, with the system we have here in New York – just that one needs to be aware of the risks in the system.
When I bought my Brooklyn coop, as it was obvious to me that I had no way of knowing another bid was made, or if made, was serious, I refused to participate in bidding wars – since it was clear to me that in this system, if a broker wanted to be unscrupulous, they could easily have me bidding against only myself. I just don’t think the that the system we have here lends itself well to a bidding war situation. They can’t hold phony bidding wars if buyers refuse to engage in bidding wars, so I decided I wasn’t participating in any.
I found the whole incentive to have phony bidding wars so distasteful that I also refused to have a bidding war when I sold my coop as well – I considered each bid separately on its own merits as it came in, and refused to pit my bidders against each other. Granted, this was easier to do in a coop situation, as I was concerned about finding a buyer my coop board would accept – the highest price is not necessarily the best offer due to the need to obtain board approval when selling a coop. But even when a coop board is not an issue, there are always differences in bids where other factors count more the price – such as the ability to close quickly, no contingency on a mortgage, or the risk of a mortgage bank’s appraisal coming in at less than the sales price, etc.
It is clear that buyers should take everything brokers tell them with the knowledge that the statements might not be true, or might not be the entire set of relevant facts. It is frustrating with such a big purchase to have to consider that someone could be lying or misrepresenting facts to you. It is much like when buying a used car. Most buyers don’t do business deals of this nature often, and aren’t aware of the risks inherent in the system, but this is the way we do sales of large $ purchases in this country – individual consumers often can’t avail themselves of the same protections and remedies against fraud that commercial buyers usually get in their business dealings. This is true in many consumer transactions – and one reason behind consumer protection laws – but they are difficult and expensive for consumers to enforce. Having a third party agent in the middle who represents the seller just makes enforcing honest business dealing harder, but that is also the way we do things here.
There’s a reason for the phrase “buyer beware” – as the buyer stands to lose a lot, and can be easily defrauded by unscrupulous parties. It shouldn’t be the case, but for some reason we as a society don’t really believe that laws should protect consumers fully. Perhaps that’s the nature of a system where buying consumers are all individuals, and sellers (or their agents in the case of individual sellers of real estate) are aggregated into corporations – the power dynamic between the two sides in inherently unequal.
Guest User | 6 years and 3 months ago
Aaaaaah Just restated the facts, but still predictably deleted right on cue!!! Delete away. Ban away.
cate | 6 years and 3 months ago
Tycubby, your comment has been deleted because it is potentially libelous and could get you sued as well as us. If you persist in posting potentially libelous comments and personal attacks or anything else against our commenting policies, your comments will be deleted and you will be banned.
Guest User | 6 years and 3 months ago
I am most interested to see how the courts rule on this one.
slopefarm | 6 years and 3 months ago
My opinion is totally not that of no-permitz here. If the broker did what the story says the broker did, my OPINION is that it is troubling and unethical. But I know nothing of the actual facts.
cate | 6 years and 3 months ago
@nopermitz you mean you THINK the broker did nothing wrong, legally. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. If you misrepresent your opinion as a fact, that can be libelous. I don’t want to have to delete this thread again. Thank you!
yudashasom | 6 years and 3 months ago
I get your position Cate.. you’ve made a good point.
I think the news channel made a bad decision to air/report this.. and they will probably be sued. It’s not a typical good guy/bad guy story like a roofer running away with a deposit.
There’s another side to this story, and because it’s “being investigated” by the DOS, it doesn’t mean there’s any wrongdoing. This is just how it works.. allegations are investigated.
Where was Ms. Chan’s buyers broker? Did she have one?
Why did she voluntarily offer $50k more? Highest and best doesn’t mean you need to raise your offer.
Who’s to say there was not another buyer who showed interest, or made an offer and backed out?
I bet if she had offered ask, the seller would have accepted. She rolled the dice, and lost. When you lowball, or come in with an offer less than the seller wants, you can end up overpaying.
I have a lot to say on this topic.. but the fact is, the broker did nothing wrong.. legally.
cate | 6 years and 3 months ago
Tycubby, if a newspaper writes that Mrs. Smith said she saw Mr. Jones steal five apples, and she’s filed suit, and the case is winding through the courts, it’s fine to post about it and the ethics of stealing apples as long as in your post you don’t say Mr. Jones stole five apples. We don’t know if he did or didn’t. We only know what Mrs. Smith says she saw. The court will decide. Please google “libel” and “libel law” if you would like more information. Also, no-permitz, the other commenters did not post anything libelous in their comments, and it was a good discussion. But when we delete the original post, it deletes the whole thread.
Guest User | 6 years and 3 months ago
Well that is rather interesting because there was zero mispresetnation or libelous commentary in the repost, and only had the facts that were reported in the article that was surely carefully researched by the reporter I think we can safely say. Maybe this site really has a special interest to suppress unsavory stories of certain big companies! Who knows who pays who these days. Which is really too bad because I thought consumers here should be entitled to share scary mistakes about the bad apples out there to learn how to protect themselves but this forum isn’t pro that idea! Oh well!!!! Let them win again! Cannot wait fort his to be deleted too even though your guidelines say ‘sarcasm and snark’ are still allowed!
yudashasom | 6 years and 3 months ago
Booo