Best and Final

I am assuming this is a co-op?

1.) Is it unethical? One could make an argument, one supposes. But in the end result, the seller's (and their broker's) fiduciary responsibility is to themselves, not you, not another buyer, and not your broker(s). So I really don't see anything truly unethical here.

Frustrating? Yes. Unethical? No.

2.) All things being equal (meaning the money), a seller gets to decide to sell to whomever they feel will have the best chance of being approved by their board and management. Sometimes it's based on Nationality and the complication that might entail. Sometimes it's just a person's finances. Sometimes it's something else. So no, it's not against Fair Housing Laws for a seller to choose whom they feel is the most qualified applicant.

Frustrating? Yes. Against Fair Housing Laws? No.

If the selling broker explicitly said the difference between the other buyer and myself was nationality, isnt that against fair housing? A seller cannot base his decision on anything he/she wants. There are protected classes.

Fair Housing Act
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and disability.

Brokers out there: Are there generally accepted rules associated with Best and Finals? If you were a listing broker, would you try to talk your seller out of entertaining offers after accepting a best and final offer? Or would you tell them to take the money?

Sorry that it didn't work out. I got outbid twice earlier in the year. This market sucks for buyers. I think the only advice I have is be know what you want, be prepared to do all the due diligence you need to do rapidly and act as quickly as you can. We, ultimately, found a seller who was ethical and wouldn't entertain higher, later offers. In hindsight, you may be thankful you saved the additinal $50k.

To your questions...

#1. Unfortunately, when significant money is dangled in front of sellers, it is rare for the seller to be an ethical good citizen when it comes to a verbal handshake of agreed terms. Such poor behavior, can happen all the way through to a signed contract. Ask yourself whether you would really turn down $50k on the basis of a verbal agreement with a different stranger.

#2. They are choosing the buyer based on likelihood of completion. There is a logic to using citizenship as a criteria. Citizenship status is not a protected class.

To give more insight here. Both offers were all cash offers and I have approximately 5x purchase price in assets after purchase. I was told other buyer has significantly more assets than I do. Do these assets even matter? Why would any reasonable person care if I have 5x the purchase price in assets after closing or 10x the purchase price?

Where are you looking to buy? And what is the price... I just got outbid myself and I am getting frustrated with this market as well...

As its been stated, its the likelihood of completion of the deal. Its the brokers responsibility to present all offers to their seller and ultimately the sellers decision. Best and finals are just suggestions and non-binding. If this is a condo and all cash, then the assets should not matter. If its a co-op, citizenship can definitely be a factor depending on the co-op and variety of other factors. This is not to say you are not a terrific co-op candidate, sounds like you are perfect, but if the owner is choosing between two exact buyers to pass a co-op then they will go with someone that has citizenship.

I always explain to buyers that a real estate deal does not exist until both the buyer and the seller have signed the contract. Therefore a "best and final" is only a very strong expectation of a conclusion. A handshake is meaningless; I say save it for the closing table.

This comes from an old concept in US law called the Statute of Frauds. It dates back to England from whence US common law mostly comes. The requirement is that certain transactions, including almost everything in real estate, are not valid contracts unless they are in writing and signed. In New York State it's also true that a contract to sell an item valued at over $500 must also be in writing, although used cars and bought and sold every day between private parties on a handshake alone.

The reason for the Statute of Frauds was to prevent fraudulent claims about who owns what in important transactions. The only exception I know of in real estate is leases for less than 1 year; they do not have to be in writing, they can be oral; I checked this carefully so I know it's true in NYS. Any lease 1 year or more must be in writing and signed.

The broker acted absolutely correctly by reporting the higher offer to the seller (indeed, the broker had a fiduciary obligation to do so) and the seller acted appropriately by accepting the offer. The seller would have been a fool not to take that higher offer.

You matched the offer, you didn't raise it. The fact that you were second would have been a reason to prefer the other offer.

Where the broker erred in my opinion is telling you, the buyer, why the seller accepted the other offer. I would not have done this. It's none of your business how the seller made her or his decision.

If pressed very hard by you, a distraught buyer, if I were the listing broker I would have simply noted that your offer was only a match and that it was second, and I would have left it at that. I'm sorry, too bad there aren't two of this apartments. Have a nice day.

Brokers talk too much. Brokers should be doing more to protect the confidentiality of their clients instead of appeasing their customers, and they should be certain they know the difference.

I agree with oxymoron that citizenship is not a protected class. National origin is, but that is not the same. Still, I would never have given an opening for this kind of discussion.

I suspect the seller simply favored a US citizen over a non citizen. BTW we can all assume this is a condo, not a co-op.

Yup, as ponted out there is difference between national origin and non-citizen. It is the main reason why condos are full of foreigners.

Best and anal? Nice

1. the answer is a question of contract law
2. the terms of a best and final create a contract between seller and bidders

3. if seller or seller's broker state that seller will accept highest best and
final offer, the winning bid should be specifically enforceable as a contract

Rb must have skipped contracts 101, as is 100% wrong. Kharbs has it right. Sort of why people always mention importance of the contract with RE.

Prob thought it wasnt worth risking the theoretically higher chance of problems in reaching contract or getting to a closing with a foreigner who might not be as commited as a us citizen, not to mention the foreigner was not a higher bid.

As non-citizen I can say from experience there are lots of hassles if not a us citizen. Once I looked into it I realized that co-ops were just way too much of a hassle for non-US citizen. Thus the condos... No problem with contract though, exactly the same.

THANK YOU kharby2!!

I just bought into a co-op and I'm not a citizen so I would not suggest giving up and going condo if co-op is otherwise the better choice for you. Whilst, all the above means that citizenship is a factor, I ultimately found a seller who was a) "ethical" and turned away later offers once mine was accepted and b) despite not being a citizen my strong employment history, lengthy tenure in the U.S. and strong financial position was ultimately acceptable to the Board.

Why would any potential buyer participate in a best and final if no one seems to take it seriously (and final)? Why not call up the listing broker after the "best and final" and simply outbid the best bid?

Good point! Behaving this way risks undermining future auctions, and encouraging opportunistic behavior.

people with principles and integrity would honor a "best and final" process.

However, we are talking about money and brokers and manhattan real estate - don't expect too much. People will kneel to the ground and lick a bubblegum-stuck dollar off of the street here, let alone sell their mothers down the river for one.

"Best and final" is only as good as the honor of the seller. Most have a price that "will cause them to lose a few nights sleep" as one seller put it recently. My feeling is that if you call for a "best and final" you honor it.

Keith Burkhardt
The Burkhardt Group

It's not unheard of for a buyer with a better offer to come swooping in and get accepted even after contracts for the original deal are underway. Until the papers are signed and counter-signed there is no deal. If you'd really wanted to stay in the game you should have offered a higher bid rather than simply match the newcomer's. It's possible you could still make a higher offer if you're so inclined.

Agreed the broker was stupid to tell you the reason the other buyer was accepted over you but as others have pointed out you really have no recourse on that count.

I will assume that the unit SBK2011 was bidding on was under $2MM (SBK2011, correct me if I am wrong). So we're talking about an additional 3% - 5% of the purchase price (or more). That's a big enough amount of free extra money, and a big enough percentage of the deal, for me to rethink a 'best and final' scenario as a seller.

If the unit SBK2011 is talking about is $2MM or (substantially) more, it wouldn't be enough to turn my head from a 'best and final'.

Oxy, are you British by chance?

It's seems fraudulent to call for a best and final and then not have to honor the results. I agree that the seller should be able to sell for the highest dollar amount. But calling a best and final becomes like a "going out of business sale" which is illegal to advertise if it is not true.

Just wait a few years until interest rates are higher and new inventory comes on the market. Don't subject yourself to this. Markets can turn within a few short years. Higher interest rates, higher NYC taxes and more inventory...

Ottawanyc:

1. a written agreement to sell an apartment to the highest bidder in a "best abd
final" is a contract and also satisties the Statute of Frauds requirement that
a agreement to sell real property must be in writing

2. everything depends on the terms and conditions attached by the seller or his/her
agent to the highest and best

3. if the terms are to simply submit your best offer, the seller is free to sell to
someone other than the top bidder, but arguably not to a stranger to the bidding

4. if the seller promises to sell to the highest bidder, the winning bidder has a
legal right to buy at that price

My "winning bid" was $1.85 million and one of the losing bidders came back (after losing) with $1.90 million. Once the seller went back on their word, I only matched the offer. I only matched the offer (and didnt come over the top) because I would think that bid being equal, the seller would go with the buyer that they actually promised the apartment to, not the buyer who sneaked their way in after losing the best and final.

I agree, nothing was in contract. I only asked if people viewed this as unethical and if brokers see this happening a lot. Do brokers view this as unethical or is it fair game?

It's an extremely problematic turn in an auction and anyone with opposable thumbs can recognize that. Curious whether listing broker is one of the big three or a smaller firm?

ali r.
DG Neary Realty

Do those who think it's unethical also think it's unethical if there's a "best and final" situation and the BUYER later changes her mind? A friend of mine bid asking price on a place listed for $600k, and then went up to $650k when asked for best and final. The sellers accepted and sent out a contract. A week later, she panicked about the contract and backed out. Well, she didn't exactly back out -- she just stopped responding to anyone (lawyer, brokers, etc.), which I think makes it even worse.

The apartment later closed for $600k. So, from a financial perspective, she clearly did the right thing. But what about from an ethical perspective? If a buyer can walk away from a "best and final," then so should a seller. Contract law and cool down periods in general exist for a reason. This is a sucky situation, but I wouldn't personally go as far as to say it's unethical.

That said, I do agree with kharby2 that brokers talk too much. I would never list my apartment with the broker who sold it to me (the seller's agent who became a dual agent) because the broker gave me way too much information that I used to my advantage in negotiations.

There are no ethics in this. There's a contract, nothing else, and that's black and white.

lad, it's not unethical that the seller chose to go with a bid based on a factor that's not price.

What's unethical is that a playing field was established, the original poster bid, and clearly that bid was "shopped" to the winning bidder (some variant of "hey go up $50K and you'll get it"). That kinda kills the "final" part of B&F, and it's explicitly against the ethics of our industry.

Have I seen it happen before? yes. Does that mean it's cool? no.

There are so many great buys out there, why cry about one in a billions homes ready and able to give you a credit bubble windfall? Don't waste time and call Ali. She's Harvard trained. She's gonna make you money. Come on. Move on. Better yet become an American citizen and borrow $100k more and go over the top.

Over the top on best and anal. Come on.

Damn new ios7. Pos. Droid can do spell chk. Wtf apple ?

I wonder if you'd want to report this to REBNY. It might make a few people squirm. That's probably the only satisaction you're gonna get out of this deal.

I'm not sure the problem is with the seller. From reading this thread, it strikes me that the problem may be the rather artificial and unspecific concept of "best and final."

If there's anything unethical behavior going on, I'd be most likely to say it's from brokers who use the term "best and final," all the while knowing that they are obligated to present offers even after the fact. Seems like it's knowingly misrepresenting something as final that is clearly not.

In my opinion, if ethics require you to present offers received after a "best and final," sellers should not be deemed unethical for accepting those offers. Perhaps everyone should stay away from this term and be continuously reminded that nothing is final until a contract is executed.

>What's unethical is that a playing field was established,

The only playing field is the law. Assuming anything else is ignorance.
Was there a written contract saying that the winner of the best and final was guaranteed the purchase? No

I agree that there was no contract but do you assume that anyone that you encounter in business is lieing to your face? There is good business and bad business, and in my opinion, a seller negotiating with a buyer that lost the best and final is BAD business.

I must agree with Keith and Ali here. While the law permits buyer or seller to walk away without the other party having a legal remedy up until the contract is fully signed, this is an ethical issue. It should be pretty easy to avoid. If the broker/seller wants the ability to keep the bidding going, play bids off each other, etc., then they shouldn't call for best and final bids. They can just call for a round of bids.

I think this type of unethical behavior is more likely to come about in situations where acting in such a way is unlikely to come back to haunt someone. A seller figures that s/he only buys or sells an apt once every 5 or 10 years so what is the likelihood of encountering the disgruntled buyer and his/her broker again? I think the seller's broker is taking a bit more risk because his/her carear is in RE. Word can get out, although at the end of the day, if the unethical broker has an apt that people want to buy, the buyer would likely risk dealing with such broker (and is unlikely to learn of the broker's unethical behavior anyway). Thus, there isn't much to self monitor unethical behavior in these best and final situations.

Sbk: seems there is concurrence: legal but unethical. Only thing to do is perhaps say who agent/firm is. Then people can avoid the unethical firm!

Are brokers unethical or sellers?

Ive thought about this alot, and its clear that listing broker must communicate offer to seller. I do believe that listing broker should express how they believe taking such offer is unethical. Is it possible that listing broker uses best and final strategy, but does not communicate such plan to sellers? In this instance, seller will only be presented offers and may not know what strategy listing broker is using.

Oxymoronic and kharby2, why would you say that citizenship status is not protected? That's just wrong. It is clearly protected by NYC fair housing law:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fhnyc/html/protection/citizenship-status.shtml

Whether there's any sensible recourse is doubtful, probably best to just accept it and move on.

Ok, what if you have 15 offers. So you need to thin them out. You say ok, lets move to best and final and then you are left with two that are close. Is it then unethical to say ok, there are two close offers lets ask them to come back again. What if after best and final you have two identical cash offers? Is the ethical thing to flip a coin?

I agree with Huntersburg.

I sit corrected on the citizenship status, thank you lapak. If that was the real reason for the turn down, and it sounds like it was, that's really bad. Ethics are irrelevant then in this matter; it's against the law.

Regarding the ethics of the seller independent of this factor--which admittedly is now harder to weigh, in light of this clarification, because one wonders if there were other things going on we don't know about--I think it's true that not a single person posting here, in the same situation, would walk away from $50,000 because of an oral acceptance of an offer to buy that has no legal force.

We're not talking a couple of grand here. $50,000 is your kid's college education, your retirement fund, a new Lexus, care for your elderly parents, a year's salary for some professionals I know. I'd like to hear from the person who would leave $50,000 on the table in those circumstances.

We seem to agree buyer is not bound to this oral agreement, the buyer can walk, and yet you would bind the seller? That's clearly not fair.

With two absolutely identical offers, no one will go up, if that's even possible (closing date the same? same things remaining in the apartment?), then flipping a coin would seem to be the ethical thing to do.

Right, the playing field is clear - it's the law, and nothing else. Until the contract is signed, the duty of the seller is to him or herself within the bounds of the law.

Also in the unique world of NYC co-ops there are other important factors that have to be considered, such as qualifications, financial and otherwise. So a best and final is not always just about the highest price. It is a conundrum. As I have thought through this there are just too many unknowns to try and enforce with some legal binding action. Certainly the buyer would have to be bound as well, but what happens if the due diligence turns up deal killing information, who decides if it is worthy of cancelling the deal etc.

The bottom line is that it is a frustrating, inefficient process.

Best and final may not be about the highest price; however, the broker communicated that I had won the best and final. At that point, they weighed all options and thought I was qualified to pass the board. The other offer was accepted because they wanted $50k more. If they thought I wasnt going to pass the board, they wouldnt have accepted my offer in the first place.

SBK: As a broker who exclusively works on the buy-side, I hear you. To answer your earlier question it is both the seller/broker working together regarding taking this path (best and final). The seller accepted your offer and the seller decided to un-accept your offer. The listing agent is merely the conduit from which the information passes.

We have closed over $40mm in deals this year to date, I can share a lot of frustrating, heartbreaking stories with you. More than the money it's highly emotional for the buyer who thinks they have found their new home after a long, agonizing search. Then that all changes with an email or phone call.

Like I said, I am of the opinion that if you as a seller choose to call for a best and final you should be prepared to honor it when you make a decision. Honor being the key word here.

Best of luck to you! Perhaps you will find a better home and this was simply meant to unfold as it has.

Keith Burkhardt
The Burkhardt Group

I agree with Keith. It is from the sellers how this has unfolded. I believe if you are doing a true "best and final" then it should be honored though in a technical sense, sellers can change their mind up until they sign their side of the contract.

I'm still going to disagree here: as I hear how this situation went down, a B and F was run, two offers came in, offer A was accepted, and then offer B "magically" went up. The communication from listing broker to offer B should have been pretty simple: "thank you for your bid, seller went with another offer."

But B comes back again, and with winning terms? I feel that they were probably "tipped off" by listing broker as to what would win it -- and that, at that stage of the auction, is unethical behavior.

Losing bidders throw tantrums all the time (and when I'm repping on the buy side, I certainly help my clients do that too!)

But to give in, and convey that extra piece of information? It creates an informational disadvantage -- an "un-level" playing field. That's not only not fair to bidder A, it's not fair to bidders C and D.

As listing broker, you're not supposed to shop a bid.

ali

^^ Not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but here's http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/RPP/12-A/443

12-A 443, which is part of the license law. Look at 4(a): "In dealings with the buyer, a seller's agent should ... b) deal honestly, fairly and in good faith."

Shopping a bid seems in direct contradiction of that.

ali

The question is what "final offer" means. There is nothing unethical about either party changing their mind about the transaction altogether -- a buyer realizing that s/he had overbid, or a seller deciding that s/he wasn't ready to move after all. "Final offer" means a final offer, not a final contract.

But "best and final" does NOT mean "final unless I can find a better offer in which case not final." "Offer accepted" does NOT mean "accepted unless a better offer comes along." And they certainly don't mean "make your bid so that I can use it to try a get a higher one."

Accepting a deal means giving your word that you have accepted the deal. Breaking your word is unethical even if it would be profitable. Actually, especially if it would be profitable. That's why most people prefer to do business with ethical people: they are less likely to cheat when it looks profitable.

Aside from the ethics, a broker or seller who asks for "best and final offers," accepts a bid and then continues to solicit or accept additional offers has obviously engaged in false advertising. Wouldn't that be grounds for the AG or the REBNY to sanction the broker, eg by license suspension?

"Do brokers view this as unethical or is it fair game?"

This is like asking a lion if it is ethical to eat red meat.

Reading this thread has helped me to understand why Tony Soprano
found it necessary to see a shrink

>12-A 443, which is part of the license law. Look at 4(a): "In dealings with the buyer, a seller's agent should ... b) deal honestly, fairly and in good faith."

>Shopping a bid seems in direct contradiction of that.

Except that you aren't talking about the buyer. You are talking about a third party who isn't the buyer. Might like to be the buyer. But is not the buyer.

The agents first responsibility is to his or her client. And it would be unfair (unethical and illegal) to the seller to suggest he or she take an inferior offer.... who is the seller's broker working for then at this stage?

>Aside from the ethics, a broker or seller who asks for "best and final offers," accepts a bid and then continues to solicit or accept additional offers has obviously engaged in false advertising.

What a joke.
We should arrest police for lying to suspects to get a confession. Oh but wait, the law says they can.
And the law says that a contract determines the provisions of a real estate deal.

lapak - all I can say is wow! I have lived in 9 different apartments and every single time my citizenship status has been raised and additional paperwork or challenges have been put in my way (contrary to these guidelines). I actually thought it was reasonable behavior, to be frank, given the additional risks it put in place for the seller or landlord. I should start taping my conversations with brokers. Is citizenship a protected class for all issues or just NYC housing?

If SBK has a tape of the conversation then I think he has a strong case in this light.

"Citizenship" is not a protected class.

"National origin" is.

There's an enormous difference.

I think people just jumped to certain conclusions when they hear the word 'citizenship'.

Citizenship directly relates to the buyer's ability (and possibly intent) to stay in the country. It is an objective criterion. It should matter to the board when they evaluate a buyer, esp in co-ops, which prefer owners to actually live in the apartment. I think it is fair to pick a citizen over a non-citizen, all other things equal.

> I think it is fair to pick a citizen over a non-citizen, all other things equal.

Also find out who they voted for.

>>If SBK has a tape of the conversation then I think he has a strong case in this light.<<

You can't force someone to sell to you. Yes, the broker was stupid to say anything at all about the citizenship issue. But if push came to shove the seller only needs to claim the other bidder's financials were preferable, which is especially important if this is a co-op. Also, with co-ops it is absolutely true that foreign buyers are generally deemed less desirable than U.S. citizens if for no other reason than co-ops tend not to like pieds-a-terre.

Listing broker said foreign buyers were no problem when asked at first viewing. In her defense she did say that other bidder did have significantly more assets than me. But for example, if an apt goes for $2million, does it matter if Buyer A has $10million post close and Buyer B has $50million. At that point, what is the difference?

NYCMatt -- are you saying that lapak's link to the NY Human Rights Law is wrong? Or that the law means something different from what it says? http://www.nyc.gov/html/fhnyc/html/protection/citizenship-status.shtml

Based on the linked site, it looks to me like this broker violated the law on top of lying.

HB, do you have a link for a statute or case that says false advertising is permitted in RE? If it is permitted, why do RE sellers usually require the buyer to waive claims for misrepresentation in the contract?

>HB, do you have a link for a statute or case that says false advertising is permitted in RE?

Sure, I'll follow up with you on that.

>If it is permitted, why do RE sellers usually require the buyer to waive claims for misrepresentation in the contract?

FG, if "false advertising" (whatever that means in practice) is not "permitted", why does the contract need to specify that the buyer waive claims against misrepresentation?

The contract prevails. It is the agreement recognized by law and enforceable upon both sides of the transaction. In absence of the contract there is no transaction and nothing to bitch about.

SBK, correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you are using a buyer's broker and that your true position and "voice' were not adequately expressed to the seller. What I mean is that if you represented yourself you would be speaking directly to the seller's broker without the filter of the buyer's broker. This approach could have led to a favorable outcome for you.

I was in a similar situation and because I didn't have a buyer's broker I could appeal more directly to the seller and it meant something. This is one of the reasons that Streeteasy exists to provide that knowledge. This is not a popular approach with the posters here that are actually brokers but it works.

and 67, I think that ios7 is really nice and appl back to the road to +700,

NYCMatt
1 day ago
Posts: 7121
Member since: May 2009
ignore this person
report abuse
"Citizenship" is not a protected class.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/us/california-leads-in-expanding-noncitizens-rights.html?hp&_r=0

I would be curios if he/she had a buyer broker, I was assuming there was not one since it was never mentioned. It can help to communicate directly, but sometimes I think it can also hurt. Seller and buyer have differing objectives and direct communication could get emotional.

That said this is one of the biggest complaints I hear from buyers, they are not sure what there broker communicated to the sell side. That is why our clients are copied on all communication, in the loop 100% of the time. This is also why I prefer to work exclusively via email. Of course there are times when a phone call is necessary and it is done with the authorization of the client.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

"curious"

First of all I just want to thank everyone for a fascinating discussion.

I am not a lawyer, I have a paralegal certificate. When reading statute, frontporch, you can't just read it and say, oh, it's got to mean this or that.

The only way to know what that statute language means today--and the law is constantly changing, what was true a year ago may not be true today--is to do the legal research, to look up the current case law, read the decisions by the judges, write a brief and see how the courts have interpreted that specific language in similar cases. You hope to find a case "on point" that is the same as your situation.

This is especially true with interpreting words like "good faith" because these are judgement calls, but I already know there have been interpretations of the term "good faith" in the context of business organization law because I've written briefs about that.

SBK2011 might or might not have a reason to pursue action, but only an attorney can evaluate that.

Fieldschester, California state law does not really apply because we're talking about New York City. New York State has a list of protected classes, and New York City has some extra ones the state does not have--most interestingly, in NYC it's against the law to discriminate against someone for any lawful occupation. I'm told that was passed to protect lawyers from getting turned down by co-ops because boards think lawyers tend to cause trouble!

>Fieldschester, California state law does not really apply because we're talking about New York City. New York State has a list of protected classes, and New York City has some extra ones the state does not have--most interestingly, in NYC it's against the law to discriminate against someone for any lawful occupation. I'm told that was passed to protect lawyers from getting turned down by co-ops because boards think lawyers tend to cause trouble!

I just found the article topical.

The OP is going to be a waste of time suing because s/he thinks s/he's been discriminated against b/c of citizenship status, or anything else for that matter. This is an individual one time seller. It would be hard to prove what was said, there's no pattern b/c this is a one-off seller, and there's really no point in the seller doing anything that would jeopardize the sale or make a choice based on all combined criteria being the strongest for approval.

ieb. Apple is a dead stock. You should own google and Msft. One is gonna let you live forever, but only if you own an iPhone. And the other is gonna get a dynamic orphan tutrleneck wearing hippie CEO to do to apple what apple did to Msft. Payback is a bitch, apple.

W67 has sold his 2.5k shares of apple, 10k call options progressively increasing in strike price to $700 over the next 16 months and 5k short puts at $700 to $435 strikes. Why would w67 wanna make $3mm over the next 16 months. You can make $1mm/month house flipping. Making coin sofa surfing. Great for my 6 pack abs.

W, I’ll continue to trade appl, have made out quite well over past 2-3 years with it. I followed your lead on S and bot it at 4 and sold @ 7. You ain’t never done me wrong, yet. IMO appl has yet to unleash TV or whatever is to come next so this’s not yet played out and look at the comments about goog and msft. msft really looks like a much bigger Blackberry and except for a dwindling enterprise business they are toast.
Do I detect a softer cuddlier 67? Maybe your good fortune has dulled your weapon.
From Forbes, this morning, “Apple made more revenue in one weekend of sales than the entire enterprise value of Nokia.
Apple stuck to its knitting, as it always does, ignoring the critics. It moved cautiously into muted colors at the high end, choosing more vibrant ones at the low end. The 5C was priced lower, but not a lot lower, than the 5S. Everyone was baffled, but the results speak for themselves.
It could have sold more, but who’s counting? Those 9 million units represent a pretty good weekend’s work. Even the Google ecosystem can’t boast of an explosive launch like that.”

Speaking of volatile stocks, how about that FB? A year ago, I was a hero for warning friends and family away; now the friends and family who did not heed my advice are telling me that I get no invitation to the private islands they are buying with their gains, and those who heeded my advice are scowling at me.

Going of topic here, thoughts on Twitter? I am being offered private shares at $33 inclusive of all fees. My inclination is to wait (like I did with GOOGLE :(

:) ieb. Nah. Even the resident SE troll can't argue with my sprint gains. Obtw this morning was a $300k gain day for me. Funny. When you know $390 is bottom you can leverage that knowledge like w67 did by increasing leverage after the idiot sell off prior week.

So many ninnies sold or threw in the towel. Imbeciles. Apple is a cash flowing machine. Pandora is dead. AirPlay is taking off. And this thumbprint is the bomb. Just like docomo, china mobile is gonna cave when it starts bleeding users.

The only thing droidbots can say is 'it can do everything apple does and it's cheaper!' That's like looking at a hot model and saying but 'my wife got boobs and long hair too and I don't need to earn $1mm/yr to keep her!'

Go get your fatties. W67 will keep his hottie wife. Flmoazzz.

And Keith would you EVER put in enough money in any one position to make a difference in your financial life? W67 doubts it. So buy the 100 shares so you can talk the talk with some golfing buddies.

Meh?, well I'm always amazed team RE can take 30 yr 3% mortgages with 100% of their liquid worth as downpayment but can't pull the trigger at apple at $390. And it paid 3% dividends and had $150/share in cash at that price. Wtf? Insane. Btw apple decreased share float by 13%. If Icahn can convince apple to do some 'serious' share buyback, $600 is gonna be the new $390.

But go team RE. W67 gotta sell some condos. The game is get your own. Game on fktards.

Good point.

Its a business deal. What do ethics have to do with anything?

Keith, if you can get in on Twitter IPO you need to. That thing will fly. After initial pop take half off the table. ANything social media is on fire there days. We can't all make millions off of every single trade, but nice when you can make enough for a nice vacation.

TWITTER, FB, LINKED IN, PANDORA, GOOGLE... pretty funny the valuations these AWESOME COMPANIES have.....

AND HERE SITS APPLE with $150B in cash, 37% margins, 9MM iphone sales in 3 days, CHINA MOBILE ABOUT TO drop, $40/yr cash flows... 9x PE if you back out cash....

w67 made 338% in 3 days on apple 9/27 $485strike calls... too bad it was only 50 call options...

What's riskier. apple at $500, twitter at IPO, or NYC RE with 3% mortgages.... YOU KNOW YOU CAN DO IT.... think hard.

OBTW... none of those companies exist w/o an awesome smartphone and it's app ecosystem. Come on someone short apple....

THE HATERS CAN JUMP OFF THE VERRAZANO.

W67, what's NFLX's valuation and its YTD compared to AAPL. I love AAPL, it is my third biggest holding, but to say it is safe ignores how it is traded and fact that it is one of worst performing stocks this year, so while it makes no sense to me, you can't ignore the fact that it remains a short-term risky stock. Give me the twitter any day.

Haven't Ford and Zillow outperformed Apple since the call was made?

who cares?

>who cares?

People who invested in Ford and Zillow.

did you?

you don't even know whether or not they went up or down.

up

that's brilliant.

downright brilliant.

i say down.

C0C0, just for the future, you didn't need the "or not" since you offered the opposite choices of up and down.

thanks so much.

is that new?

>i say down.

Then you are wrong.

no...you are wrong.

no you are

yep....take it there.

looking good.

thank you

but...what about your family?

tell us.

I tried calling several Raleigh commercial real estate brokers but everything just went futile. However, after finding a good agent like raleigh landscape architects I was able to find a good commercial space. Now, I am settled with a good space and all set to launch my business venture, all thanks to raleigh landscape architects.