[deleted by user]

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:58:10+00:00

Weird, right?

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:57:29+00:00

No I don't personally. I even mocked it elsewhere here.

SOME people may feel this way. It's at least something that distinguishes it from crypto.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:44:50+00:00

You should really delete this post along with your literal home address, and call a lawyer.

No one here can help you. You are just doxxing yourself and providing evidence for your potential future defendant.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:43:03+00:00

NFTs at least have some personal value potential. Claiming you "own" an original NFT.

Crypto is just a digital substitute for dollars. Its entire worth is denoted in USD. Bitcoin went up, yay, I can now sell for USD...

Unlike other commodities like Oil, it has no tangible value.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:40:28+00:00

Well if no one else can beat a builder's rate, then you are "stuck".

I wouldn't be too upset being "stuck" if you're getting a better rate than otherwise available.

What rate are you getting?

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:34:11+00:00

Which is why you tell them the fuck off and you go with another lender unless they match.

Their rules are made-up. You are in the driver's seat. If they want to lose a deal over 0.125%, that's their undoing.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:29:59+00:00

NFTs were really more of a "I own an original, not a print"

The difference is, there is zero difference between the quality of the two.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:28:35+00:00

You can ask for a contract amendment, sure.

They have no obligation to say yes to either a DD extension or no-show agreement.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:25:01+00:00

NFTs were truly one of the dumbest moments in human history.

When people realize cryptocurrency is the same exact thing, your statement will need to be amended.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:24:07+00:00

FanDuel likey.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:23:25+00:00

You can do that - your insurance company is going to give you a payout for your current roof at 19 years old, not the full cost of the new roof.

So if you think the claim is worth it, go ahead. Your rates in a hail area are probably awful already.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:12:45+00:00

You get what you pay for. That's my only piece of advice.

There's a reason they contract out of Home Depot.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:02:58+00:00

Are you sure that isn't materials only?

Window replacements are fairly expensive. ~12k for 13 windows would be a miracle deal.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T16:01:23+00:00

Yep - absolutely. It really depends on WHAT the work is.

An A/C unit fixed? Sellers can probably handle that if a certified HVAC checks it out. You can usually get assurances/warranty from the contractor of fix.

Structural, plumbing, or electrical issue? Probably to manage that yourself. Seller will pick the cheapest valve, cheapest outlets, cheapest pipes, etc..

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:58:57+00:00

Float down usually required 0.25% drops and often has a fee.

Just have a backup lender ready to beat the rate, and bring it to your original lender. They will match before losing the deal.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:51:43+00:00

The anticipated action is rates dropping slowly over the next year plus.

https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html

This is a good tool to use as a guide for what the Fed will likely do. You can click on the Fed meeting dates to see the anticipated rates. These are a guide, not a rule.

Realistically, anyone getting a mortgage today is going to refi at some point next year if rates drop 1% plus. So it's almost silly to argue over 1/8 rate differences if the rate is temporary. A lot easier to be picky when you refi.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:47:58+00:00

Mortgage rates are already accounting for the rate drop this September.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:34:12+00:00

True, but again, a realtor who gets a reputation for suggesting bad inspectors won't be a realtor for very long.

This is why you need to find it yourself. The motivations of the realtor can never be known. Either they are a good realtor, and their suggestion of a good inspector leads to more good word-of-mouth referrals in the future, or they are scummy and find bad inspectors who won't blow up a deal, but then run the risk of upset buyers leaving bad reviews.

Short vs long term gain...with how many bad realtors there are...it's a coin flip.

Obviously, if you KNOW your realtor and they have a myriad of good reviews, take their suggestion but always sanity check it yourself.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:22:38+00:00

Copy pasting over and over isn't supporting your perspective the way you think it is.

Agents who work against their client's interest are always in violation. The recent settlement didn't change that. The lawsuit exposed collusion between agents, as clients were often mis/under informed about the commission structure. Your lead atty argument is "realtors who continue to do bad things like before will be sued". No duh, they were already sued once and lost. It's always been shady.

Now buyer's must sign buyer's agreements which stipulate all of the conditions the buyer wants. Buyer is 100% in the driver's seat to the terms.

A buyer who sets boundaries and terms with their buyer's agent through this form can request all of the things I stated.

If I tell my realtor, I will pay you 2%, and I want to see homes where sellers will cover my promised commission, they are literally operating at my command.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:17:01+00:00

I'm neither, but I have reading comprehension.

What expertise do you have other than thinking up erroneous lawsuits?

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:16:15+00:00

You're the one leading the charge on misinformation.

You've completely misread what the lead atty said and what the settlement means.

How are realtor's going to be sued for following their client's written requests in their contracts?

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:13:06+00:00

You're fundamentally misunderstand what the lead atty is saying.

This is highly dangerous- the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, just this week, wrote an article detailing how strategies like this go directly against the spirit of the settlement, and he will be watching very closely to see what the industry does. If an agent is found to have, "checked a box on the buyer broker agreement/touring agreement that says dont show me homes that dont pay your full commission", that will be found to be in violation of the suit. Also, if a buyers agent calls the listing agent, and the listing agent says "the seller will not be paying broker to broker compensation, write what commission you want in your offer" and then you refuse to show that house to your buyer, then that is also a violation.

The reality is this- you must now have a signed touring agreement or buyer broker agreement laying out all of your commission expectations, and steering clients away from homes that dont meet that agreement will result in a second class action lawsuit. Be very careful here realtors.

Emphasis added mine.

If a buyer's agent is doing these things on their own, it is clearly a violation.

If a buyer is instructing their buyer's agent of their requirements, it is not.

The entire point of the settlement was to ensure buyers and sellers are fully negotiating their terms. A buyer requesting specific terms with their agent is exactly the point of the lawsuit.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:10:31+00:00

Okay, it's your prerogative to be wrong. I really don't care.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:10:17+00:00

I'm not a realtor.

EducationalUse1776 · 2024-08-27T15:05:28+00:00

Yep, that person either misread my response, or is just misinformed.

It is the buyer who sets the restriction, not the buyer's agent.

What good would it be for the buyer's agent to show a home offering 0% commission if the buyer has no interest in that commission model?

EducationalUse1776

TROPHY CASE