What a crazy housing market this is! My #1 son and his GF just
found out that their offer has been accepted.

Here is how houses are being bought these days…

First, I should note that the submission period for offers was the 48
hours after the house hit the market. This was one of those listings
where all offers would be reviewed at the same time and the sellers
would choose the one that they liked the best.

Since my son and his GF are relocating to a different state, they
haven’t even seen the house in person. Just pictures, a video tour
and their agent’s assurance that the house was listed at a great
price, way under what she expected it to sell for. (She was right)
They submitted their offer within a few hours of the house being
listed. There was a total of 12 offers submitted in that 48 hour period.

They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
submitted, but not to exceed $410K. They also included an "appraisal
clause" which stated that they would give the sellers up to $15K above
the appraised value, not to exceed $425K.

Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
$13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
close!

So they may pay as much as $425K, but they may pay less than the
$410K if the appraisal is low – assuming it’s not so low that the seller
backs out. Their agent is sure that the appraised value won’t be low
enough for that to happen. The seller is moving out of town and needs
to get the house sold, thus the comparatively low asking price.

One other clause was a 15 day due-diligence clause, which was
accepted. Even though the offer was “as-is” and not contingent on an
inspection, they are still going to have one done and can use that to
negotiate repairs or get out of the contract if the seller’s disclosure form
is not accurate. They are hoping that at least one of them can be present
for the inspection.

If the house appraises at the $410K level, they will end up paying $55K
(15%) over the listing price. Holy crap!

On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> What a crazy housing market this is! My #1 son and his GF just
> found out that their offer has been accepted.
>
> Here is how houses are being bought these days…
>
> First, I should note that the submission period for offers was the 48
> hours after the house hit the market. This was one of those listings
> where all offers would be reviewed at the same time and the sellers
> would choose the one that they liked the best.
>
> Since my son and his GF are relocating to a different state, they
> haven’t even seen the house in person. Just pictures, a video tour
> and their agent’s assurance that the house was listed at a great
> price, way under what she expected it to sell for. (She was right)
> They submitted their offer within a few hours of the house being
> listed. There was a total of 12 offers submitted in that 48 hour period.
>
> They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
> The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
> automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
> submitted, but not to exceed $410K. They also included an "appraisal
> clause" which stated that they would give the sellers up to $15K above
> the appraised value, not to exceed $425K.
>
> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
> close!
>
> So they may pay as much as $425K, but they may pay less than the
> $410K if the appraisal is low – assuming it’s not so low that the seller
> backs out. Their agent is sure that the appraised value won’t be low
> enough for that to happen. The seller is moving out of town and needs
> to get the house sold, thus the comparatively low asking price.
>
> One other clause was a 15 day due-diligence clause, which was
> accepted. Even though the offer was “as-is” and not contingent on an
> inspection, they are still going to have one done and can use that to
> negotiate repairs or get out of the contract if the seller’s disclosure form
> is not accurate. They are hoping that at least one of them can be present
> for the inspection.
>
> If the house appraises at the $410K level, they will end up paying $55K
> (15%) over the listing price. Holy crap!
>
>

Crazy! My neighbor that sold his house the day after listing bought a
house unseen too.
The escalation clauses were unheard of when I was buying but seems to
have been good for them.

I bought here 2 1/2 years ago. If I bought today my old house would
have sold for more but this house would be another 5k above the
difference.

On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

> They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
> The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
> automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
> submitted, but not to exceed $410K.

That sounds like a system ready to be "gamed" --much like the people who
bid on their own stuff on ebay. Both the buyer's and the seller's
agents have an incentive to sell at a higher price. I'm not saying
anything shady might happen, but I don't like it! : ) If they want to
auction the house then (IMO, they should) auction it in the "light of day"!

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
> close!

I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
I have to say is "what a coincidence!". That said, I congratulate the
buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>> close!
>
> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>

I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
investment when interest rates are back up.

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:37:40 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
> > The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
> > automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
> > submitted, but not to exceed $410K.
> That sounds like a system ready to be "gamed" --much like the people who
> bid on their own stuff on ebay. Both the buyer's and the seller's
> agents have an incentive to sell at a higher price. I'm not saying
> anything shady might happen, but I don't like it! : ) If they want to
> auction the house then (IMO, they should) auction it in the "light of day"!
>

Yes, it could be shady, but part of the process is that the seller has to
show them the offer (or at least a picture thereof) that triggered the
escalation clause.

Of course, as I joked to my son "Oh, you mean the offer that the
seller's sister submitted right after they had read yours?" ;-)

The California Association of Realtors says this in a FAQ:

"Should the buyer include a provision that allows for verification
of the next highest competing offer?

Yes. Since the buyer is making an offer dependent upon the
offers of other buyers, it makes sense that the buyer should be
able to verify that those other offers were in fact bona fide offers.
The buyer may include language such as: "Seller shall, upon
acceptance, provide buyer with a copy of the highest offer received.
Buyer has a right to contact that prospective purchaser making
that offer, or his or her agent, to verify the validity of that offer and
that the other offer is in fact a bona fide offer."

While still ripe for gaming, once you start getting third parties
(especially licensed agents) involved in the scheme things can
get trickier for the schemers.

This was for a house in Indiana. My #2 son is an RE agent in
Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:42:22 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
> > based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
> > clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
> > $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
> > close!
> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
> I have to say is "what a coincidence!". That said, I congratulate the
> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)

Yes, it could be shady, but part of the process is that the seller has to
show them the offer (or at least a picture thereof) that triggered the
escalation clause.

Of course, as I joked to my son "Oh, you mean the offer that the
seller's sister submitted right after they had read yours?" ;-)

The California Association of Realtors says this in a FAQ:

"Should the buyer include a provision that allows for verification
of the next highest competing offer?

Yes. Since the buyer is making an offer dependent upon the
offers of other buyers, it makes sense that the buyer should be
able to verify that those other offers were in fact bona fide offers.
The buyer may include language such as: "Seller shall, upon
acceptance, provide buyer with a copy of the highest offer received.
Buyer has a right to contact that prospective purchaser making
that offer, or his or her agent, to verify the validity of that offer and
that the other offer is in fact a bona fide offer."

While still ripe for gaming, once you start getting third parties
(especially licensed agents) involved in the scheme things can
get trickier for the schemers.

This was for a house in Indiana. My #2 son is an RE agent in
Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.

On 5/2/2021 5:44 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
> investment when interest rates are back up.

I think it will likely, at the very least, hold its value appreciably
better than dollars in CDs. It has to be true that prices can't rise
above what people are able to pay, but in view of that it's remarkable
how housing prices skyrocketed in places like California....location,
location, location! : )

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I'm top-posting.

Thank you for providing the additional details. It is an interesting
matter. I would like to see exactly what is at stake for a "shady" real
estate agent. With an "escalating clause", the buyer is saying that
they are willing to pay a certain price, and the real estate agents
facilitate the transaction. It could be very difficult to pin down the
crime, and ironically, even to draw much interest in it by those who
could enforce the rules. It appears that "escalating clauses" are good
for the industry in that they generate higher commissions. Anyhow,
thanks again DerbyDad for sharing the story!

On 5/2/2021 6:11 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:42:22 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>> close!
>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!". That said, I congratulate the
>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>
> Yes, it could be shady, but part of the process is that the seller has to
> show them the offer (or at least a picture thereof) that triggered the
> escalation clause.
>
> Of course, as I joked to my son "Oh, you mean the offer that the
> seller's sister submitted right after they had read yours?" ;-)
>
> The California Association of Realtors says this in a FAQ:
>
> "Should the buyer include a provision that allows for verification
> of the next highest competing offer?
>
> Yes. Since the buyer is making an offer dependent upon the
> offers of other buyers, it makes sense that the buyer should be
> able to verify that those other offers were in fact bona fide offers.
> The buyer may include language such as: "Seller shall, upon
> acceptance, provide buyer with a copy of the highest offer received.
> Buyer has a right to contact that prospective purchaser making
> that offer, or his or her agent, to verify the validity of that offer and
> that the other offer is in fact a bona fide offer."
>
> While still ripe for gaming, once you start getting third parties
> (especially licensed agents) involved in the scheme things can
> get trickier for the schemers.
>
> This was for a house in Indiana. My #2 son is an RE agent in
> Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
> of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
> some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
> offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.
>

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 5/2/2021 5:59 PM, Dave Marulli wrote:
>
> My #2 son is an RE agent in
> Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
> of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
> some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
> offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.
>

In other words, they came to the conclusion, probably through
experience, that it was too easy to generate a spurious offer if one was
needed. I like the quote: "Pop always said, Trust everyone, but always
count your change!". My dad didn't say that, but I live as though he did.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 7:21:01 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> On 5/2/2021 5:59 PM, somebody wrote:
> >
> > My #2 son is an RE agent in
> > Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
> > of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
> > some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
> > offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.
> >
> In other words, they came to the conclusion, probably through
> experience, that it was too easy to generate a spurious offer if one was
> needed. I like the quote: "Pop always said, Trust everyone, but always
> count your change!". My dad didn't say that, but I live as though he did.

Actually, they are legal in Nevada, at least as of July 2020.
However, some agents, specifically REALTORS, are strongly
warned against employing the practice, including a threat of
a $10K fine.

However, the "prohibition" is not for the reason you state. It's
actually about some buyers ability to use the clause vs. those
that can't, making it "unfair" to those that can't. I'm not sure I
agree with the reason. Just because I am willing to pay more
than you, why should I be forced to offer the higher amount at
the outset? Why can't I try to get the house for a lower amount?

https://nevadarealtors.org/docs/librariesprovider2/legal/acceleration-clause-in-contract.pdf?sfvrsn=3bd7307f_2

On Sun, 2 May 2021 14:59:22 -0700 (PDT), Dave Marulli
<dave.marulli@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 4:37:40 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> > They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
>> > The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
>> > automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
>> > submitted, but not to exceed $410K.
>> That sounds like a system ready to be "gamed" --much like the people who
>> bid on their own stuff on ebay. Both the buyer's and the seller's
>> agents have an incentive to sell at a higher price. I'm not saying
>> anything shady might happen, but I don't like it! : ) If they want to
>> auction the house then (IMO, they should) auction it in the "light of day"!
>>
>
>Yes, it could be shady, but part of the process is that the seller has to
>show them the offer (or at least a picture thereof) that triggered the
>escalation clause.
>
>Of course, as I joked to my son "Oh, you mean the offer that the
>seller's sister submitted right after they had read yours?" ;-)
>
>The California Association of Realtors says this in a FAQ:
>
>"Should the buyer include a provision that allows for verification
>of the next highest competing offer?
>
>Yes. Since the buyer is making an offer dependent upon the
>offers of other buyers, it makes sense that the buyer should be
>able to verify that those other offers were in fact bona fide offers.
>The buyer may include language such as: "Seller shall, upon
>acceptance, provide buyer with a copy of the highest offer received.
>Buyer has a right to contact that prospective purchaser making
>that offer, or his or her agent, to verify the validity of that offer and
>that the other offer is in fact a bona fide offer."
>
>While still ripe for gaming, once you start getting third parties
>(especially licensed agents) involved in the scheme things can
>get trickier for the schemers.
>
>This was for a house in Indiana. My #2 son is an RE agent in
>Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
>of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
>some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
>offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.
Never heard of them up here either.You need to decide how badly you
want the house and bif accordingly. If a house goes on the market at
$450000 and coparables are selling at $480000 and up you KNOW there
will be competing bids so you decide how much over asking the others
will go and bid higher.
You might end up paying $100 over the next guy to get it, or
$100000. Here in Kitchener Waterloo $300000 over asking is not unheard
of. Nor is 45 offers on a property.

It's strange - a house might be listed at $700000 and be on the
market for 3 weeks before they get an offer that meets asking price -
but list the house at $500,000 and in 3 days you have 20 or more
offers and end up getting $800000. It's pretty much a given that if a
price looks too good to be true it IS - and the listing price has
little relationship to what the selling price will be.

We bought 39 years ago for $67700. We looked at moving about 4 years
ago and $300000 was optimistic - to be charitable. Two years ago we
asked a realtor for a market appraisal and they said it was really
difficult but they wouldn't recommend accepting under $500000. Today
comparables are listing at $650,000 and selling for $700,000 and up
!!!!!.

Problem with selling is where do you go for less???

On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:44:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>
>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>> close!
>>
>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>>
>
>I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
>investment when interest rates are back up.
I'm betting there will be a lot of people with upside down mortgages
in 5 to 10 years in several areas of the country. Our area is less
likely to see it than many others due to our resiliant economy - but
%7 would definitely be painfull for MANY buyers - even here.

On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:32:45 -0400, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:44:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>>On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>>> close!
>>>
>>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
>>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>>>
>>
>>I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
>>investment when interest rates are back up.
>
> I'm betting there will be a lot of people with upside down mortgages
>in 5 to 10 years in several areas of the country. Our area is less
>likely to see it than many others due to our resiliant economy - but
>%7 would definitely be painfull for MANY buyers - even here.
>

.... move to Milverton ! :-)

https://www.remax.ca/on/milverton-real-estate/58-main-street-n-wp_id292973981-lst

John T.

On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:59:01 -0400, hubops@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

>On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:32:45 -0400, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:44:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>>>> close!
>>>>
>>>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>>>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
>>>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>>>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
>>>investment when interest rates are back up.
>>
>> I'm betting there will be a lot of people with upside down mortgages
>>in 5 to 10 years in several areas of the country. Our area is less
>>likely to see it than many others due to our resiliant economy - but
>>%7 would definitely be painfull for MANY buyers - even here.
>>
>
>
>... move to Milverton ! :-)
>
>https://www.remax.ca/on/milverton-real-estate/58-main-street-n-wp_id292973981-lst
>
> John T.
Left there in '54.
You remember Whitney Farms?? Dairy and chicken operation out on Perth
road 61 I believe? 3rd farm up from the old railroad tracks? Dad was
herd manager there.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>What a crazy housing market this is! My #1 son and his GF just
>found out that their offer has been accepted.
>
>Here is how houses are being bought these days…
>
>First, I should note that the submission period for offers was the 48
>hours after the house hit the market. This was one of those listings
>where all offers would be reviewed at the same time and the sellers
>would choose the one that they liked the best.
>
>Since my son and his GF are relocating to a different state, they
>haven’t even seen the house in person. Just pictures, a video tour
>and their agent’s assurance that the house was listed at a great
>price, way under what she expected it to sell for. (She was right)
>They submitted their offer within a few hours of the house being
>listed. There was a total of 12 offers submitted in that 48 hour period.
>
>They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
>The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
>automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
>submitted, but not to exceed $410K. They also included an "appraisal
>clause" which stated that they would give the sellers up to $15K above
>the appraised value, not to exceed $425K.
>
>Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>$13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>close!
>
>So they may pay as much as $425K, but they may pay less than the
>$410K if the appraisal is low – assuming it’s not so low that the seller
>backs out. Their agent is sure that the appraised value won’t be low
>enough for that to happen. The seller is moving out of town and needs
>to get the house sold, thus the comparatively low asking price.
>
>One other clause was a 15 day due-diligence clause, which was
>accepted. Even though the offer was “as-is” and not contingent on an
>inspection, they are still going to have one done and can use that to
>negotiate repairs or get out of the contract if the seller’s disclosure form
>is not accurate. They are hoping that at least one of them can be present
>for the inspection.

The last two houses we've bought didn't allow us to be present at
inspection. One was new, so I wasn't worried but this one concerned
me a bit (foreclosure).
>
>If the house appraises at the $410K level, they will end up paying $55K
>(15%) over the listing price. Holy crap!

I'm told that this is a common strategy in a hot market (are there any
that aren't now?). List low to get as much interest as possible and
wait for the bidding war. It's more of an auction with a reserve than
a normal sale.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:18:44 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 7:21:01 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 5:59 PM, somebody wrote:
>> >
>> > My #2 son is an RE agent in
>> > Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
>> > of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
>> > some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
>> > offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.
>> >
>> In other words, they came to the conclusion, probably through
>> experience, that it was too easy to generate a spurious offer if one was
>> needed. I like the quote: "Pop always said, Trust everyone, but always
>> count your change!". My dad didn't say that, but I live as though he did.
>
>Actually, they are legal in Nevada, at least as of July 2020.
>However, some agents, specifically REALTORS, are strongly
>warned against employing the practice, including a threat of
>a $10K fine.

The penalty should be loss of license.
>
>However, the "prohibition" is not for the reason you state. It's
>actually about some buyers ability to use the clause vs. those
>that can't, making it "unfair" to those that can't. I'm not sure I
>agree with the reason. Just because I am willing to pay more
>than you, why should I be forced to offer the higher amount at
>the outset? Why can't I try to get the house for a lower amount?
>
>https://nevadarealtors.org/docs/librariesprovider2/legal/acceleration-clause-in-contract.pdf?sfvrsn=3bd7307f_2

I just love today's "unfair" BS. Is it "fair" for the seller to get
less than he possibly can? Do they give out participation trophies
too? Maybe the loser would get Section-8 housing.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:44:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>
>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>> close!
>>
>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>>
>
>I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
>investment when interest rates are back up.

Bubbles happen. The only difference between now and 2007 is a few
interest points. At 2% interest _maybe_ there will be fewer
foreclosures. ...but it'll be a good time to have cash.

On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:59:01 -0400, hubops@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

>On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:32:45 -0400, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:44:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>>>> close!
>>>>
>>>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>>>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
>>>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>>>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
>>>investment when interest rates are back up.
>>
>> I'm betting there will be a lot of people with upside down mortgages
>>in 5 to 10 years in several areas of the country. Our area is less
>>likely to see it than many others due to our resiliant economy - but
>>%7 would definitely be painfull for MANY buyers - even here.
>>
>
>
>... move to Milverton ! :-)
>
>https://www.remax.ca/on/milverton-real-estate/58-main-street-n-wp_id292973981-lst

Is that good or bad? That would be very expensive here but that money
wouldn't buy an outhouse in SF. What's with the N/A for the property
taxes?

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:43:40 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:18:44 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 7:21:01 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2021 5:59 PM, somebody wrote:
> >> >
> >> > My #2 son is an RE agent in
> >> > Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
> >> > of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
> >> > some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
> >> > offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.
> >> >
> >> In other words, they came to the conclusion, probably through
> >> experience, that it was too easy to generate a spurious offer if one was
> >> needed. I like the quote: "Pop always said, Trust everyone, but always
> >> count your change!". My dad didn't say that, but I live as though he did.
> >
> >Actually, they are legal in Nevada, at least as of July 2020.
> >However, some agents, specifically REALTORS, are strongly
> >warned against employing the practice, including a threat of
> >a $10K fine.
> The penalty should be loss of license.

For what? For using a practice that is legal in the state that they
are licensed?

This is a licensing organization fining it's own members for using a
legal practice because the organization feels it's "unfair" to some
buyers.

> >
> >However, the "prohibition" is not for the reason you state. It's
> >actually about some buyers ability to use the clause vs. those
> >that can't, making it "unfair" to those that can't. I'm not sure I
> >agree with the reason. Just because I am willing to pay more
> >than you, why should I be forced to offer the higher amount at
> >the outset? Why can't I try to get the house for a lower amount?
> >
> >https://nevadarealtors.org/docs/librariesprovider2/legal/acceleration-clause-in-contract.pdf?sfvrsn=3bd7307f_2
> I just love today's "unfair" BS. Is it "fair" for the seller to get
> less than he possibly can? Do they give out participation trophies
> too? Maybe the loser would get Section-8 housing.

Huh? Isn't that the exact opposite of what you said above? You feel
that a REALTOR should lose their licence for using the escalation
clause, which is a clause that may get the seller a higher price.

I say again, huh?

On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:35:40 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sun, 2 May 2021 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>
> >What a crazy housing market this is! My #1 son and his GF just
> >found out that their offer has been accepted.
> >
> >Here is how houses are being bought these days…
> >
> >First, I should note that the submission period for offers was the 48
> >hours after the house hit the market. This was one of those listings
> >where all offers would be reviewed at the same time and the sellers
> >would choose the one that they liked the best.
> >
> >Since my son and his GF are relocating to a different state, they
> >haven’t even seen the house in person. Just pictures, a video tour
> >and their agent’s assurance that the house was listed at a great
> >price, way under what she expected it to sell for. (She was right)
> >They submitted their offer within a few hours of the house being
> >listed. There was a total of 12 offers submitted in that 48 hour period.
> >
> >They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
> >The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
> >automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
> >submitted, but not to exceed $410K. They also included an "appraisal
> >clause" which stated that they would give the sellers up to $15K above
> >the appraised value, not to exceed $425K.
> >
> >Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
> >based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
> >clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
> >$13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
> >close!
> >
> >So they may pay as much as $425K, but they may pay less than the
> >$410K if the appraisal is low – assuming it’s not so low that the seller
> >backs out. Their agent is sure that the appraised value won’t be low
> >enough for that to happen. The seller is moving out of town and needs
> >to get the house sold, thus the comparatively low asking price.
> >
> >One other clause was a 15 day due-diligence clause, which was
> >accepted. Even though the offer was “as-is” and not contingent on an
> >inspection, they are still going to have one done and can use that to
> >negotiate repairs or get out of the contract if the seller’s disclosure form
> >is not accurate. They are hoping that at least one of them can be present
> >for the inspection.
> The last two houses we've bought didn't allow us to be present at
> inspection. One was new, so I wasn't worried but this one concerned
> me a bit (foreclosure)

Who said that you weren't allowed? Wasn't he working on your dime?

For the 2 houses that my daughter put offers in on, both inspectors let her,
me and SWMBO be present at the inspection. They answered every question
I had as I followed them around taking notes. Real nice guys. The inspectors
worked for my daughter and we made sure we got her money's worth.

Good thing too. She was infatuated with the first house but it needed way too
many repairs. It was the inspection that allowed her to get out of the contract.
If Mom and I hadn't been there I don't think she would have heard a thing that
the inspector said.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 19:49:44 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:43:40 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:18:44 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 7:21:01 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>> >> On 5/2/2021 5:59 PM, somebody wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > My #2 son is an RE agent in
>> >> > Nevada. Escalation clauses are not legal there. I'm not sure
>> >> > of Nevada's exact reason, but from my reading it appears that
>> >> > some jurisdictions don't allow escalation clauses in a real estate
>> >> > offer because there is no firm dollar offer being made.
>> >> >
>> >> In other words, they came to the conclusion, probably through
>> >> experience, that it was too easy to generate a spurious offer if one was
>> >> needed. I like the quote: "Pop always said, Trust everyone, but always
>> >> count your change!". My dad didn't say that, but I live as though he did.
>> >
>> >Actually, they are legal in Nevada, at least as of July 2020.
>> >However, some agents, specifically REALTORS, are strongly
>> >warned against employing the practice, including a threat of
>> >a $10K fine.
>> The penalty should be loss of license.
>
>For what? For using a practice that is legal in the state that they
>are licensed?

>This is a licensing organization fining it's own members for using a
>legal practice because the organization feels it's "unfair" to some
>buyers.

If they ignore the rule, yes, lose the license. $10K is too easy.
>> >
>> >However, the "prohibition" is not for the reason you state. It's
>> >actually about some buyers ability to use the clause vs. those
>> >that can't, making it "unfair" to those that can't. I'm not sure I
>> >agree with the reason. Just because I am willing to pay more
>> >than you, why should I be forced to offer the higher amount at
>> >the outset? Why can't I try to get the house for a lower amount?
>> >
>> >https://nevadarealtors.org/docs/librariesprovider2/legal/acceleration-clause-in-contract.pdf?sfvrsn=3bd7307f_2
>> I just love today's "unfair" BS. Is it "fair" for the seller to get
>> less than he possibly can? Do they give out participation trophies
>> too? Maybe the loser would get Section-8 housing.
>
>Huh? Isn't that the exact opposite of what you said above? You feel
>that a REALTOR should lose their licence for using the escalation
>clause, which is a clause that may get the seller a higher price.
>
>I say again, huh?

What's against the rules one place isn't necessarily against the rules
elsewhere. I think the rule is pretty dumb, IMO, but I didn't make
the NV rules. If they think it's so bad, jerk their license. There
will be no temptation.

On Sun, 2 May 2021 20:07:29 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 2, 2021 at 9:35:40 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 May 2021 12:43:35 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
>> <teama...@eznet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >What a crazy housing market this is! My #1 son and his GF just
>> >found out that their offer has been accepted.
>> >
>> >Here is how houses are being bought these days…
>> >
>> >First, I should note that the submission period for offers was the 48
>> >hours after the house hit the market. This was one of those listings
>> >where all offers would be reviewed at the same time and the sellers
>> >would choose the one that they liked the best.
>> >
>> >Since my son and his GF are relocating to a different state, they
>> >haven’t even seen the house in person. Just pictures, a video tour
>> >and their agent’s assurance that the house was listed at a great
>> >price, way under what she expected it to sell for. (She was right)
>> >They submitted their offer within a few hours of the house being
>> >listed. There was a total of 12 offers submitted in that 48 hour period.
>> >
>> >They submitted an offer at full asking price ($370K), no contingencies.
>> >The offer included an escalation clause. The escalation clause would
>> >automatically increase their offer to $1000 more than the highest offer
>> >submitted, but not to exceed $410K. They also included an "appraisal
>> >clause" which stated that they would give the sellers up to $15K above
>> >the appraised value, not to exceed $425K.
>> >
>> >Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>> >based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>> >clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>> >$13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>> >close!
>> >
>> >So they may pay as much as $425K, but they may pay less than the
>> >$410K if the appraisal is low – assuming it’s not so low that the seller
>> >backs out. Their agent is sure that the appraised value won’t be low
>> >enough for that to happen. The seller is moving out of town and needs
>> >to get the house sold, thus the comparatively low asking price.
>> >
>> >One other clause was a 15 day due-diligence clause, which was
>> >accepted. Even though the offer was “as-is” and not contingent on an
>> >inspection, they are still going to have one done and can use that to
>> >negotiate repairs or get out of the contract if the seller’s disclosure form
>> >is not accurate. They are hoping that at least one of them can be present
>> >for the inspection.
>> The last two houses we've bought didn't allow us to be present at
>> inspection. One was new, so I wasn't worried but this one concerned
>> me a bit (foreclosure)
>
>Who said that you weren't allowed? Wasn't he working on your dime?

Agent and inspector.

>For the 2 houses that my daughter put offers in on, both inspectors let her,
>me and SWMBO be present at the inspection. They answered every question
>I had as I followed them around taking notes. Real nice guys. The inspectors
>worked for my daughter and we made sure we got her money's worth.

Mine did in NY and VT, too.

>Good thing too. She was infatuated with the first house but it needed way too
>many repairs. It was the inspection that allowed her to get out of the contract.
>If Mom and I hadn't been there I don't think she would have heard a thing that
>the inspector said.

I didn't say they couldn't be inspected, just that I couldn't be
there. I did get the inspection reports.

On Sun, 02 May 2021 21:59:41 -0400, hubops@ccanoemail.ca wrote:

>On Sun, 02 May 2021 21:15:32 -0400, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:59:01 -0400, hubops@ccanoemail.ca wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:32:45 -0400, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:44:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>>>>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>>>>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>>>>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>>>>>> close!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>>>>>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
>>>>>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>>>>>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
>>>>>investment when interest rates are back up.
>>>>
>>>> I'm betting there will be a lot of people with upside down mortgages
>>>>in 5 to 10 years in several areas of the country. Our area is less
>>>>likely to see it than many others due to our resiliant economy - but
>>>>%7 would definitely be painfull for MANY buyers - even here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>... move to Milverton ! :-)
>>>
>>>https://www.remax.ca/on/milverton-real-estate/58-main-street-n-wp_id292973981-lst
>>>
>>> John T.
>>Left there in '54.
>>You remember Whitney Farms?? Dairy and chicken operation out on Perth
>>road 61 I believe? 3rd farm up from the old railroad tracks? Dad was
>>herd manager there.
>
>Before my time. I was raised near Galt.
>My Dad - Hespeler - his parents Macton & Linwood.
> John T.
My uncle farms across from the Macton Catholic Church on he corner of
the Linwood road

On Sun, 02 May 2021 22:11:48 -0400, krw@notreal.com wrote:

>On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:59:01 -0400, hubops@ccanoemail.ca wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 02 May 2021 20:32:45 -0400, Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 2 May 2021 17:44:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 5/2/2021 4:42 PM, Bill wrote:
>>>>> On 5/2/2021 3:43 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Their offer was accepted, not just based on the offer price, but also
>>>>>> based on the appraisal clause. Another offer also had an escalation
>>>>>> clause that maxed out at $410K, but the appraisal clause was only
>>>>>> $13K above the appraisal value, $2K less than their offer. That was
>>>>>> close!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll assume my previous message has been read. Color my cynical but all
>>>>> I have to say is "what a coincidence!".   That said, I congratulate the
>>>>> buyers on their new home. The way property is appreciating, it will
>>>>> surely be a great investment in the long run, and you can live in it! :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I wonder in 3 to 5 years if the house price today will still be a good
>>>>investment when interest rates are back up.
>>>
>>> I'm betting there will be a lot of people with upside down mortgages
>>>in 5 to 10 years in several areas of the country. Our area is less
>>>likely to see it than many others due to our resiliant economy - but
>>>%7 would definitely be painfull for MANY buyers - even here.
>>>
>>
>>
>>... move to Milverton ! :-)
>>
>>https://www.remax.ca/on/milverton-real-estate/58-main-street-n-wp_id292973981-lst
>
>Is that good or bad? That would be very expensive here but that money
>wouldn't buy an outhouse in SF. What's with the N/A for the property
>taxes?

.. . . " .. eye of the beholder "
You'd need to visit Milverton and decide for yourself -
.. watch out for horse & buggy traffic.
John T.