Anybody really think most realtors aren't full of BS??????

I'm going to continue this from the last thread. I don't understand these posts. Of course your are right. You are writing this to the same people that were on the last thread. I don't think I scolded you.

Its a bad time to buy. I agree, most of the people who will respond to this post will agree.

I don't understand where the frustration comes from.

1) you are right. the market is bad.
2) the majority of people on this site agree with you.

What more can you want?



You have a lot of knowledge that you pass on, but yet you choose to get in

You have a lot of knowledge that you pass on, but yet you choose to get in

this line was supposed to be deleted it was from a previous thought.

Alright, rob, let me give you my 0.02.  Those realtor blurbs are background noise.  Like elevator music.  The NY Times could send their music critic to visit the elevators of New York and he could trash the music everywhich way but loose, and for 347 valid reasons.  But what would be the point?  The music would still play and no one pays it any attention.

Maybe I'm a very wierd person.  I've bought 3 houses in my lifetime.  Not one did I buy because a realtor told me to.  In fact, in every case, I approached the realtor because I had already decided, for whatever reason, that I wanted to buy a house.  All I wanted from them was to show me what was on the market and leave the decision to me.  More or less, that's what they did.  Nor did any of them try to get me to buy more house-I gave them a price range and they showed me houses within that range.  Whether to buy at the top end or bottom end of the range or not buy at all was my call.  In my very limited social circle, the people I know have had the same experiences.

By the way, as much as they are loathed, I've found the same with car salesmen.  I bought my last car because my old one died, not because a salesman told me it was a good time to buy a car.  Actually, for me, it was a good time to buy a car, because I needed one!  The salesman didn't even influence which make and model I bought.  If I go to a Toyota dealer rather than a Hummer dealer, it's because I've already decided that a Toyota meets my needs better than a Hummer, not because I like the Toyota salesman.  All the salesman did, after I walked away from his "best" offer, was call me back and accept my final price.

De-constructing advertising fluff and making personal attacks may not be the best use of your knowledge.  But that's just my opinion.

I am not looking to comment upon another poster's choice of words.  Rob had mentioned feeling frustrated by the actions of many of the other agents that have posted here....

I have observed that many within the RE industry - a service industry - really could not care less about their clients at all.  They spew those inaccurate and misleading NAR talking points motivated by pure greed without regard to any detrimental financial impact to their clients.  Some do it intentionally to dupe buyers into going through with the deal.  But even worse, many are not intelligent or astute enough to even understand what a wagon of sh!t they are peddling.

Rob has proven himself to be a guy that really understands the economic workings of the RE market (obviously way beyond simple inventory numbers and checking email for MLS listings), and one who truly cares about his clients and the impact of the results of his work.  Every time another agent pops on here and tries to dispense NAR bullsh!t as if it is sage advice, or admits to shady behavior, it casts a (further) pall on the industry.  I can understand being frustrated by that.  Without getting into methodology, I am glad that there are still agents, like Rob, that are willing to call out other agents on this crap.

Not all agents are good (tell the truth), but I found a good one in CFL.  If anyone would like her contact info, feel free to PM me.

i would hope that a person that after seeing all the for sale signs and news articles on the falling market and news shows on how bad the market is they wouldn't come on Zillow and see a post by a NAR kool-aid drinking realtor that says it's a great time to buy so they go " hey, a realtor here on Zillow says it's  a good time to buy so everything I've been hearing and seeing up until now must not be true because this person says so"

And if they they think the media is the one responsible for all the doom and gloom hype then let them buy their stupid-way-over- priced-house. At that point you just want to say do it. And if some unforeseen event happens that you have to sell in the next 5 years then don't expect anyone to feel sorry for the loss you are taking on your "investment"

We used to have fun with the drive by realtors on here but I feel your frustration Rob after 2 years of watching the market decline and fighting about if house prices are going down or up you want to pull your hair out. Notice that most of the cheerleaders are gone. They have nothing to back up their statements anymore.

azrob, i am not sure whether you still think it is not a good time to buy. i honestly think

those who can afford now where rent vs buy makes sense,

Debt to Income ratio is < 40% of income,

who are willing to stay in the house for 7-10 years,

where rental market is good and foreclosures are not happening in BIG numbers, it makes sense to buy now.

prices are dropping but we may be getting closer to bottom. you know why? i see investors coming down with full cash offers and competing with buyers in +ve cashflow markets. they are not interested in buying in the foreclosure areas because it is too risky. the market might hit the absolute bottom in 2013 but i don't wait till that time. i think (again it is my opinion based my on my own analysis) we may be getting closer to a bottom in some markets.

i know many here think rates should not be a reason to buy but guess what it makes some impact on what you can purchase, how much your payments will be... and i personally felt it. i am not supporting the realtors by any means and i agree with you many are BS but some are not.

--- in the SF Bay area ... 50% from peak...then it will be time to buy...

We are close to 30% and upto 50% in many parts of SF Bay.

Yes east bay! not yet down in south bay ...

I was listening to some yesterday who still think we will bounce back...

  yet total cluless regarding the credit crunch.  I asked a few questions

  and was struck they never heard of Bear Sterns... Oh crap was i speechless...

That makes sense Space. A house that was worth 400K in 2002, sold for 900K in 2006 and now is on the market for 450K. But what parts of SF Bay are at 50%????

webster-If someone believed anything on a message board that contradicted the evidence of their own eyes, then there's no helping them.  How many advertising messages are you exposed to every day?  Hundreds, if not thousands?  We get 5 or 6 catalogues a day.  Unfortunately they make lousy toilet paper, so they go in the recycling bin.

i am not supporting the realtors by any means and i agree with you many are BS but some are not

I could say the same about my profession because of Enron WorldCom Tyco etc etc... however

after the blow up it did effect all members in the accounting profession via goverment regulation.

So for some that are saying its only a few, be warned if you dont clean up you will get hit with some very nasty regulations.  It wont be fun and will get very nasty in the workplace.

[Public] Accounting as a profession was greatly strengthened as a result of Enron/Worldcom, et. al.  While some regs have gone too far, there is very little credibility gap left in public filings.

The difference is that public accounting and public companies always had to follow GAAP, as determined by the FASB, which itself is subordinate and empowered by the SEC, which itself is empowered and directed by the US Congress.  So accountants _always_ had to follow the rules.  And when those rules were broken, people were investigated, prosecuted, and imprisoned.  Regs were revisited.  The world's largest public accountancy was dissolved and many of its partners lost their life's fortunes.  Congress legislated more mandates.  The SEC increased srutiny of implementation of those rules.  Auditors were given a clearer set of rules which they were mandated to follow.

Compare that to anything in the real estate industry.  Seriously.  There is no comparison.  Real estate gets away with everything but murder, and I wouldn't put that itself past consideration for the NAR.

Want to be serious, then the entire industry needs to either fall under the SEC or have a newly created body empowered by Congress with oversight and enforcement over its behavior.  Clearly, left to its own devices, this industry will just continue to pump & dump to all of our detriment.

Spacer, a few select Marin listings have gone for 30% of asking, let alone peak.  I'm not sure the 50% of peak is easy to apply.  It depends upon how out of control the peak wishing-prices became.  In the best parts of Southern Marin in Spring of 2006, a huge number of listings popped up with prices that make the stupid Zillow "make me move" fiction look almost reasonable.

It's not on MLS anymore, but anyone interested in a specific data point:  4 Laverne: 

This home listed for $2.1mm first in 2006. 

When we finally found our decent Marin realtor in early 2008 we walked through again:  $1.795mm.

Went into escrow in May for $1.189mm, but fell out.  Apparently the entire little realtor network was all abuz trying to get everyone to get a client in to "pick up this steal".  (Problem is, the house was a knock down despite the owners having tried to have it rehabed in the worst job I've every seen).

SOLD!  This month.  $780K.

I leave the percent-of-peak calculation to the reader.  Start with the number 2,100,000 then compute the percentage 780,000 is of that number.  lol.

Sadly, I might have considered buying it for $780K.  My loss, I guess.  I didn't need a knock-down permit headache problem anyway; so maybe the better.

My second agent cut the BS, adjusted her marketing to the market and got the house sold.  That is what I call a true professional.

Aylucy: buying a depreciating asset like a car and trying to compare the purchase to a house is way off.   I don't have to buy a house to live in a house,  and I don't have to buy a car to drive a car, I can lease one.   The main points to both options are PRICE and COST to BUY and OWNERSHIP COSTS.   I buy my cars and pay them off as fast as possible so I pay less in interest and I have years of ownership without a payment.   For me to buy a house now would double my housing payment monthly, for me personally it would be stupidity at its worse.   But I have read talking points from REAs and there were moments when I first became a renter where I felt we needed to buy and felt emotionally compelled to do so, after all prices were lower and rates were too and REAs were still screaming "don't be priced out forever"......but then found Zillow and reading from posters like Randy and Azrob are reminders to me that BUYING A HOME IS NOT ALWAYS THE BEST THING TO DO, especially when the market is still nose diving. 

3girls- Way to totally miss my point! I'm not comparing cars and houses, I'm saying when you strip away the professional veneer of realtors, they are salespersons, like car salesmen.  If you want advice as to whether buying makes sense for your situation then see a financial planner who will look at your entire situation.  Don't see a salesperson.  I never asked a realtor whether I should buy; the fact that I went to a realtor was because I had already decided to buy. 

Once we had already decided to buy the realtor was very useful to show us neighbourhoods and give us information about school districts, since we were moving to a new town.  This was back in the very early days of the internet when it was a big job to pull all that info together on your own.  As for cars, I look at Consumer Reports and talk to people I respect and then go to the dealer to buy.

Hmmm.  I'm still not buying that logic aylucy.  Of course, one should not trust anyone in a sales function to dispense either valid financial advice or execute any type of fiduciary responsibility.  But I think you're missing the point, not 3girls.  Real Estate Agents by and large do, and have for many years even before the bubble, masqueraded as fiduciaries and financial advisors.  This week I think I must have read probably 25+ times on Zillow, just browsing these forums, REAs giving specific, individual, forward looking advice to what are ostensibly future clients. 

So, are they sales persons or are they fiduciary professionals.  If you ask them they are always the latter.  But their industry is set up to incent and support the former.  And many to most behave as salespeople.

And if anyone dare challenge this status quo we are simply dismissed from the conversation, even today, in any major outlet or forum.  Zillow is probably the only place where REAs come that our critical skepticism is not banned.  So what happens?  We are viciously attacked, slandered, libeled, taunted, and sent random hate mails.  My upbringing is to call bs when it's smelled, else one be doomed to step in it and track it back into the house.  Sorry, there is no moral equivalence here whatsoever.  During the boom there was no converse of the current situation.  None.  It's simply just a bunch of people pissed off that they might not get away with their shenanigans anymore.  Too bad. 

Besides, if a car salesman were to try to tell Mr. Average Howumchamonth Joe that his "investment" would double every 10 years (as the NAR does), even Joe would wrinkle his nose in disgust.  Same with every other sorta salesman.  Even insurance peddlers were driven out of their sheeps clothes a couple decades ago.  But real estate agents still get away with it under some half assed, un-enforced set of non-binding "codes of ethics" and afternoon course "certifications".

When no one believes realtors when they try to dispense financial advice and knows they're just sales reps, or when they finally regulate them and certify them as financial advisors, then I'll cede this argument.  But not until that time.  I won't hold my breath.

A good part of what I do in my financial advisory practice is try to calm people down and offset the exaggerations and distortions of the real estate industry. 

Space-Acer, I am always amazed at the combination of high confidence and low preparation of many real estate "investors" (as you mention, those opining on the housing market who hadn't heard of Bear Stearns).   I was speaking to my wife's friend's husband the other day (who fashions himself a real estate investor) and I dropped the Case-Shiller index into the conversation, and he didn't know what I was talking about.   To me, that is like a stock investor having never heard of the Dow Jones averages.   But this guy has extreme confidence in his abilities!

I'd say it's more like a day trader having no idea what a margin call is.  (a) he's a stupid trader and investor; (b) he'll learn about margin calls soon enough, whether he likes it or not.  Your wife's friend will be able to recite Shiller's thesis from rote in good time.

I am not as financially smart as some of the other people here, so please don't attack me.  But please help me understand this:  if you say this is a bad time to buy, then presumably no one should be buying a house now.  Which means no one is selling either.  So the housing market grinds to a halt.  Prices would no longer go down because the only prices that count are for what houses sold, not what houses should sell for.  It seems to me the only reason prices have come down is because all along the way there were people willing to buy houses, if only the sellers reduced the price.  I think making a blanket generalization such as "this is a bad time to buy a house" is just as wrong as the generalization "this is a great time to buy a house."  (Although one could argue that the height of the housing bubble was a bad time to buy.)  Everyone's situation is different and for some people this may well be a good time to buy.  I certainly hope so because I plan to sell my house in the near future and will depend on someone being willing to buy it.  If not, oh well, it will come off the market.   As far as realtors are concerned, there are good ones and there are bad ones.  After working with a good one, I'll never work with a bad one again.  And my decision to sell or buy has nothing to do with them (or people at Zillow for that matter).

3GirlsVA, I definitely respect the social pressure people are under to buy rather than rent, even if it is not in their financial interest to do so.  Somehow people think it is a sign of maturity or something to own rather than rent, even if you end up far further ahead financially be renting in many cases (and in the last few years, in nearly all cases).  

I would rather have my clients have more money in the bank and risk social disapproval, than be poorer but feel more grown-up because they own a home (or, rather, the bank owns a home that they live in). 

You nearly always end up better off if you can resist the pressure of the crowd, in investing and otherwise.

Yes, Randy, I can picture it now:  "you mean there is an index that gives this information, and I bought up here, at the top of this mountain-looking drawing?"

scecy

Of course everyone's unique experiences will vary depending upon their circumstances.  That is _always_ assumed.  Financial Planners like Kevin will tell you that.  In fact, he's legally obligated to.  Mutual funds in your retirement plan will tell you that.  It's legally required.

But realtors don't tell you that.  The NAR ___right now___ is running ads saying, blanketly, "home prices are historically low" and "it's a great time to buy".  Where are their disclaimers?  Where do they warn people that their own specific circumstances might override that marketing prattle?  Is it a good time to buy in Phoenix?  in San Francisco?  In Cincinnati or Detroit?  Even if prices are "historically low", is that all that matters?  Don't other criteria matter?

As far as no-one buying and sales grinding to a halt:  (a) that never happens, even in real estate.  There are always transactions, even if no one willingly sells many are forced to through foreclosure or other pressures.  (b) In economics if there are no transactions yet there is supply and demand, then it is called a market failure.  In that case the price is undefined by definition. 

Or more simply:  there is always a price.  Always.  Everyone will sell at a price.  Someone will buy at a price.  It's always about price first, other features second.

randy- If what you're saying is that the state regulators who pass out real estate licences should regulate what type of advice they can give, I'm with you 100%.  A big problem is that their fiduciary duty is to the seller.  If I listed my house with an agent and I found out he told a prospective buyer "This is a bad time to buy", I'd sue his butt every which way but loose. 

So what type of advice should a realtor be able to give?  Simply this-what is a fair price for this house relative to similar houses in this market at this point in time?  That should be within their competency.  If asked what the house is likely be worth in 10 years, a simple I don't know is both accurate and legally sound.  If asked should I buy it, that's up to you should suffice.  As for the NRA, what do guns have to with this?

I find it amusing when I read about regulations, suing, legally binding etal.  Read a real-estate contract or any contract for that matter and tell me exactly what rights you have, and how much they will cost to enforce. Most people don't have 5% down let alone the ability to sue anyone.
Too funny.

NAR

as in National Association of Realtors.

I hope you're being humorous.  I'd hate to think your previous comment was a Pollyannish as it sounded.

Fine, you are using your listing agent as a sales agent.  Their responsibility is to sell it for the highest price possible.  Thus, the need for oversight and regulation.  Certain financial deal-broker's jobs are to sell you their client's stock (or other financial instruments) for the best price possible.  They are *heavily* regulated in what they can and cannot do towards that end.  Including being forced to disclose some things which may not be directly in the unmitigated "interests" of their client.  Would you condone your listing agent blackmailing or extorting a potential seller to get your highest price?  Of course not.  Neither should you expect they be allowed to fix the game in your favor as a matter of practical implementation.  Remember, this whole thing errupted because so many agents LIE about having other offers among other relevant facts.  Are you sure passively defending that status quo is wise?

I meant "broker-dealer"  not "deal-broker".