SoCal_Engr's Q&A

@ Vince...Down in Chula Juana, they were selling a development as a "condo", but they were single-family detached homes mixed in with the "more familiar" townhomes. Turned out that you were buying the house, but not any of the land. Walls and air - even for the detached houses.

@Surbiton,"I don't believe for one minute that there is no connection between these errors and the erroneous zestimate that itsap2 is complaining about."Just call Rachel a liar and have done with it.While I don't agree with your position on Zestimates, I understand it. But, you cross some lines when you let your rhetoric roll uncontrolled.

I am not employed by Zillow, but you are not the first to have this concern. However, the information Zillow posts is already in the public domain, whether the houses are for sale/rent or not. Unfortunately for you, that includes all of the information from your tax assessor, as well as the overhead images. It may not seem "right", but since this information is in the public domain, you no longer have the ability to control it. Zillow does draw the line at posting personal information about the owner, but many assessor sites post this as well.You may want to check your local assessor's site to see what the assessor may have posted. Also, there are other RE/AVM sites that likely have your house shown on their maps.

It will be interesting to hear what the RE pros have to say.The common advice I have always heard is "never buy the most expensive house on the block". Why? Because the value can only be pulled down by those around it.The other cautionary advice has been "be careful not to overbuild" when doing remodels (or, don't improve your house so much that the neighborhood can't support the price needed to get out without a loss).If the above advice is correct (and I see no reason to believe it isn't), then you may be waiting for that-one-special-buyer, or you may be in for some disappointment when it comes to an actual sales price.Just curious. Why is your house worth "much more" than the nearby homes, and can you quantify "much more"? 25%? 50%? 100%?Cheers, and good luck.

Issues I see with a base-plus-incentive approach...1 - As others have noted, what price would drive the incentive? "List" could be anything from "priced to sell", "priced at market", or "priced by an unrealistic seller". On the buy side, a mutually acceptable target would have to be determined for each property. But the EBA should be doing this research already.2 - EBAs don't work listings and don't control listing agreements. Since the listing agreement identifies the commission percentages...2a - If the base-plus-incentive is less than the specified commission, some mechanism needs to be able to rebate the delta to the buyer.2b - If the base-plus-incentive is more than the specified commission, the buyer needs to pony up cash. May be problematic, since buyers are conditioned to having the commission payed within the transaction.3 - Given a choice between a new compensation structure, supported by a small segment of REAs, and a "conventional compensation" structure used by "everyone else" - I think the majority of consumers will choose the latter.Most telling? No one pushing the EBA model has posted an opinion, and all the non-REA input is from "the regulars" - so this topic is not #1 on the consumer-hit-parade.

"Can we really serve are clients best interest while working under the same corp and personally related? Yes; that's why I think the cameras should roll! "I believe she is acknowledging the dual agency, and saying that even in her somewhat unique circumstances it is possible for the REA to effectiely represent the buyer's interest - and it would be nice to have documented proof (i.e., video).

"how's about.................. that's just plain silly!""oh, let me sell you an overpriced listing and take 20% (or some amount) from the "discount" I got for you.""Do you really think that an agent representing a buyer is driven by the commission? And that the agent is trying to get the buyer to pay a higher price so that the agent makes more?"So, what would your solution be? Or, are you saying there is no need for one? I can point out many other issues with the compensation approach I tossed on the table - issues with a bit more meat than "that is just plain silly".I ask this question because one of the perceptions I have seen voiced on these forums has to do with the fact that commissions are directly tied to transaction price - and this causes some to question how a REA representing the buyer is incentivized to work for a lower price. Please note the use of the words "some" and "perceived". It's not necessarily what I personally believe, but it is a perception that is out there.And, for those who are pushing the services of EBAs as being "more committed to the buyer's interests", it seems to be a reasonable topic of discussion. If the EBA business model is based on only representing buyers to avoid the appearance of "conflict of interest", then breaking from the old compensation model also should be addressed.From the perspective of a consumer listening to the EBA spiel, it's a significant oversight. Then again, most consumers really don't care as long as they can't see the money leaving their pocket, so maybe it doesn't matter. As long as I can finance the cost, right?

Periodically, there is discussion on the forum about the benefits of EBAs. Often, at least part of the discussion focuses on the EBA's ability to better represent the buyer's interest - as they don't take on any listings. I'm thinking that, as long as the EBA's compensation is directly proportional to the price, there will always be a perceived conflict of interest.What do other REAs think about a compensation model that effectively aligns the EBA's compensation to the overall end-objective of the buyer - a lower price? As a starting point, how's about a base commission plus an incentive-based commission that is driven by how much below list the house is acquired for?

Just to reset this thread...This thread was started by the OP to promote EBAs over REAs who service both sellers and buyers (not necessarily at the same time, so not necessarily dual agency)..Reading the OP's original post, their premise is that any REA working for a brokerage that serves both buyers and sellers has an inherent conflict of interest. It's not just "dual agency" that the OP is advocating against. The OP is essentially saying that any brokerage that does not exclusively represent buyers is likely to have issues representing buyers honestly.

Back in 2008, we applied for a refi through a local credit union. In the process, it was discovered that one of the credit agencies had mixed a history of several delinquent accounts into my wife's history. I took care of the mix-up and had the records corrected (took about 2-3 days). However, the CU took forever to re-check our credit. While waiting, we found another lender and cancelled our application with the CU.End of story, right? We thought so.We just got a letter from the CU. In it, they reference our 2008 application and say that they are required (by law?) to provide a decision on the credit application - even if it was withdrawn. The letter goes on to state that the reason our application was denied was due to the several delinquent accounts. Of course, since all of this was cleared up in 2008, I no longer have the record of the interactions with the credit reporting agency.The letter from the CU goes on to state that "this notice has no impact on your consumer credit report or your credit score." Is this true? It seems like a credit denial would be reported to the credit reporting agencies, or are denials not reported?Bottom line is...I'm just curious as to how seriously I should treat this notification. I'm at least going to try and clear things up, but the CU is not likely to make things easy (they're already providing an out-of-state POC to mail responses to, vice a human to talk to).