I don’t ‘go for ‘ any buyer. Although, theoretically if you have two purchasers wanting the same property, offering the same amount with the same terms, and neither will go up in their offer, I would gently suggest that the vendor accepts the one who is more likely to go through with the deal, simply for the Vendor’s sake, and piece of mind. But you can never really tell.Originally posted by geoffw
In your above example- are you more likely to go for a buyer who is waiting to spend money, especially an investor who is more likely to come back- and especially one who is buying more properties?
Obviously, it’s a matter of time management for me, and more importantly, security of knowing the property is sold, for the vendor. But I would never use this as any kind of sway as to whether or not to put a property to a vendor. The decision to accept or reject an offer is not mine to make, it’s the vendor’s.Is it of advantage to you not to have to go to open inspections at a property every Saturday for three weeks?
It is never an advantage to me, not to advertise a property. Advertising a property gives my company exposure, and turnover in my ad means I am selling properties, so this is not an advantage to me, but it certainly is to the vendor, who is paying for the advertising.And not to advertise the property?
Not necessarily, and yes, in that order.Would that advantage translate into a lower price- or the likelihood that you will call up that investor again ahead of other potential buyers?
what’s a bof?I understand now that another real estate agent is now at the top of the queue for anymore local bof's. What would put him in front? Easy dealings? Quick settlements (mine took a while). Mateship? Kickbacks even? (my kickback was just a dozen bottles of rather nice wine... what's the usual?)
Why do agents have to be the ‘other side’, Geoff, can’t we work together?Thanks for your thoughts, it's always good to hear the viewpoint from "the other side".
So it's better for you to advertise something (lead time several weeks) than to sell it directly to an eager buyer? Many people in the forum have said that they build a relationship with the agent, and that the agent calls them before the property is advertised. What is the advantage to the agent in this case? Does this mean that if the agent rings me, I am at the bottom of the food chain?It is never an advantage to me, not to advertise a property
No, it's always better for the vendor and the agent to sew a deal up as soon as possible, as long as the price and terms are acceptable to the vendor. A bird in the hand, and all that...Originally posted by geoffw
So it's better for you to advertise something (lead time several weeks) than to sell it directly to an eager buyer?
The advantage to the agent is that the property gets sold, quickly. Remembering that the sooner it sells, the sooner the agent gets paid and it also negates the risk of losing the listing.Many people in the forum have said that they build a relationship with the agent, and that the agent calls them before the property is advertised. What is the advantage to the agent in this case?
I would think that if the agent rang you, you were at the top of the food chain!!!Does this mean that if the agent rings me, I am at the bottom of the food chain?
not sure that I understand the question, could you rephrase pleaseAnd does this mean that advertising space matters more than real sales? I have had the impression that this does matter a bit more in larger agencies.
BAILEYS...Well, kickback was a too strong of a word. A "thank you" gift. A box of wine was insignificant compared to the cost of the property- or even the commsission. But it was something just to say that I appreciated the deal.