brokers are not submitting all offer to seller

PS - Sorry for the typos.

Its not legal. They are required to submit all offers.

ok Fair enough.
As a buyer, what can I do about it?
Both of these brokers admitted to me that they won't submit our offers becuase they claimed they were "insulting".

It could be legal. If seller directed: "I don't even want to hear offers less than 90% of asking price," then broker is following directions. If it is true obstinance then go to the brokers superior at the brokerage house and ask for an explanation of the behavior.You could always leave a note with the doorman for the seller, but that is kind of unusual. Then again, so is the behavior you describe.

I've never owned, so I've never sold.
But if I hired a broker, and we agreed on a sales strategy.
I have no objection to them not showing an offer at 4/5th or even less.
It is insulting, but more importantly, I want a professional representing me that knows it is insulting without having to confirm it with me.
If the broker shows me an offer 30% off, I'd probably quickly end the relationship with the broker ... rather, I'd expect the broker to tell me what the fair pricing is.

Notice it is always the lowballer who expects to cheat the seller who thinks he's being cheated by the seller's broker. You have no case.

I thought brokers were under professional obligation to present all offers (unless, I guess, if they make some agreement prior, as Kyle suggests in his example). I also think calling an offer, any offer, insulting is sort of stupid...it's just business. Why take it personally?

Forget if it is "insulting" - it simply isn't in good faith. A 30% offer is attempting to say that the seller is in distress and to take advantage of distress. That isn't good faith. And then as far as the broker is concerned, if it isn't in good faith, it isn't something that they are obliged to present. The broker would know if the seller needed to be in the position to sell at this 30% off price, in which case they'd be listing it 20% lower.

This has come up on the board before. I think it came down to: were the bids submitted in writing? If not, the brokers aren't obliged to submit the offers. However, I'm no expert.

Maleprop, on a different note, brokers sometimes get commissions by promising pie in the sky prices to sellers, counting on being able to talk them down once they have the deal. In such a case, 30% off might actually be a fair offer. In this market you don't want to be chasing the market down - as West81st put it, if you have to eat sh*t, take big bites.

When I sold my apt, a potential buyer offered 30% below what I was asking. My broker presented me this offer relunctantly. I told him to please not present any further offers that low. I was insulted. And the broker felt bad for giving it to me. It's not just business for me, it was my home.

I'm with the brokers on this. I don't care what the law is, a good broker will know his clients well enough to judge a situation.

In a market like this, I would like to be interpreting what's going on with my broker, sharing all data. I don't need to be "sheltered" from any "hurting" info by any realtor. I sold my home a couple of times, and when I got low offers I just said no.

An offer has to be presented in good faith to be an offer under the law. A 30% offer is stretching the bounds of good faith. So if a broker has no obligation to present something that isn't a legit good faith offer.

Frankly, and again I've never owned so I've never sold ... I think it serves the asshole right who puts in a 70% offer to be frustrated that the "offer" doesn't go anywhere. Not present it is like a well-deserved "fuck you" to the "offeror".

If you're insulted by an offer - any offer - you shouldn't be selling. You're looking at a business transaction in an emotional way. A number has the power to insult you? Really? You do realize it's just a *number*; the people making the offer don't know you, they're simply stating what this property is worth TO THEM. It may be your home, but when you're trying to sell it it's just another piece of property, nothing more. If you feel that strongly about it, don't sell it, because it's only home to you.
As for brokers refusing to submit offers - they're unprofessional and ought to lose their jobs. End of story. Barring prior arrangement, they're legally obliged to present any offer; even one dollar for the whole of Trump Tower.

StF62- I couldn't agree more.

Furthermore, in this market, a lot of 30% off offers are probably at least somewhat reasonable.

If the seller has already rejected an offer of 30% off, I could see why the broker doesn't bother submitting your bid just to get yelled at. I know many buyers are doing this to see if they can find a distressed sale. This tactic doesn't work because the seller can just lower the price to some midpoint and fish for a higher price. That's my personal experience.

maleprop - there seems to be a bit too much emotion in your responses for me to believe that you have never had a vested interest in either side of this kind of transaction? "he doth protest too much..."

also, how are you able to define what a "good faith offer" is if we are not talking about any specific property (or even if we were)? without comps or knowing specifics you cannot decide that an offer is good faith or not based on the percentage that the bid is off asking.

Sellers don't list their bottom line, and buyers don't submit their best offer first. The area between the two numbers is where the brokers are supposed to huddle and EARN their commissions. Unfortunately the last decade has atrophied their deal muscle. If its not an all out bidding war, or full price offer, nobody knows what to do or how to act. Deals are out there waiting to be made but I'm afraid too many people are paralyzed by the thought that someone other than themselves will set the price of their property. A broker who doesn't present all offers is doing a huge disservice to their client. More often than not, that low offer could be negotiated into acceptable territory. Instead, months pass, the listing gets stale, the price drops, then drops again, yawn. Everyone gets sick of looking at it and it becomes another StreetEasy poster child. Examples are everywhere.

> A 30% offer is stretching the bounds of good faith.
> A 30% offer is attempting to say that the seller is in distress and to take advantage of distress.

This is bullshit. Why is there the assumption that the asking price is within the bounds of reasonableness in the first place? I see no hive of brain power in the basement of Corcoran verifying all their represented properties have approved market-reasonable pricing.

What's a selling broker going to do if some Russian mafia comes in, says he has to have this apartment because it's next door to some shop his wife loves, doesn't want to haggle, and bids 30% over ask? Say, "Naw, we're ripping this guy off?"

and what if an ask price implies carrying costs 30% above rent (even using record-low mortgage rates)? There is a thread on this board with many such examples.

Here's a related question...my understanding is that various MLS agreements out in the burbs (LI NJ etc)have provisions that require listing brokers to give cooperating buyer brokers the right to present their offers in person.
Does the REBNY agreement have such a provision?

So let me get this straight. A selling broker can overprice an apartment and lie about the square footage in a building that may have unproven financials(as in new construction) and rising carrying costs, but a buyer can not submit a bid based on his/her reasonable assessment of the situation because they might insult the seller? I suppose the buyer was not at all insulted by the seller's pricing audacity. This reminds me of the Monty Python sketch where they cut off the knight's arms and legs and when he bites the ankle of his opponent, they scream "fight fair!"

No offer should be insulting...every offer is information. If you get 40 offers at 30% off, shouldn't that tell you something? Wouldn't you like to have that information as a seller? Unless you have explicitly told your broker not to enterain such offers, the broker has an obligation to bring it to the seller. My guess is the broker is telling the seller, but just using a negotiation tactic with you here. A smart broker will act insulted with the offerer, but at the same time use the offer to show the owner we need to reduce the price if you really want to move this

call their manager.. its their obligation to submit either way- they do a disservice to their seller otherwise- i almost feel like i know which brokers u are talking about- the broker repping u should be advising u- your numbers are either way off and have no case, or he should be fighting your fight here

It's their legal obligation to submit all offers. Period. Regardless of instructions. You can't instruct your broker to do something illegal (not that that ever stopped a broker before).

My (seller's) broker did submit an offer 30% below. Of course I didn't counter.
OP, maybe that was your story, too. The seller didn't want to talk about your offer.

I know if I were the seller and my broker was not showing me all the bids I would fire them.....since when is it the brokers call which bids to show and which ones to pass on?....I personally bid on a home last March and I know the broker didn't pass it along to the seller guess who still is trying to sell their home and at a reduced price......

Sellers can dream on as inventories rise inexorably. The more who refuse low offers, the lower the market as a whole will go later.

Given that the leader of one of the biggest brokerage firms has just come out and said 30% off is the basic deal getting done these days, I would say that the broker is incompetent for not forwarding the bid. If the seller does not want to know what is actually happening in the market, then good luck to them. Maybe it will sell in 2015.

RBS - this sounds immoral and illegal. I would contact the top name at whatever brokerage firm these people work for and tell them the situation. If that doesn't garner an immediate repsonse, I would call 311 and ask the Mayor's office what next steps you should pursue. I am not sure what agency is repsonsible for such things but one should be out there. The other step to take is to leave a note for the seller - leave it with the sellers doorman and include your story and also your contact details in case they wish to verify the situation with you. I would not let this go ... Good luck.

StF62 is right on.

And - who is anyone on this board to say that 30% below ask is offensive. We don't even know what ask is! Maybe its overpriced, maybe the seller needs to get out ... who the hell knows ... the point is - it is not our job to judge an offer. That is the sole discretion of the seller.

While your offers may have been low, insulting, appropriate for the market or even too high at this point in time , the real question is: Did your offer go in writing directly to the seller's broker, or was a cooperating broker involved? The 6% commission that is reduced to 3% is like dropping the price by 50% just by having cooperation with another broker. Brokers are in business for one purpose and one purpose only - make a sale that goes to settlement (at any price!) and maximize their own commission.

Scoots....the regulator of licensed real estate brokers is the NY Department of State and their office is at 123 William St here in NYC. If the office manager does not give you satisfaction on the question of non-submittal, then I'm sure the NYDOS would be interested in hearing from you.

Since the legal requirement to submit offers is based on the general law of agency, I'm pretty sure that a listing broker who has instructions from his principal not to bother him/her with low balls would not be violating any NYS law or regulation. Of course, you're never sure that those instructions actually exist.

I'm still interested in whether REBNY rules allow a cooperating broker to demand access to the seller for the purpose of presenting an offer....

If you think the offer is fair and you are serious about it, put it in writing with all the supporting paperwork (including salary, net worth, etc.). Also, write a paragraph detailing why you think it is a fair offer given your observations on the market. Then submit a copy of the offer to the realtor cc'ing the officer in charge at the realtor's office and the owners of the property.

At 30% off ask, methinks you may be dreaming unless the property is very poorly priced. To confirm what others have posted, the broker is required by law to submit all offers to the sellers.

based on what occured in the past year, i would submit a letter to the seller providing your guidelines for the offer. showing the seller that in the past 3 months, apartments similar sold for $X and they are asking $X+30%.

it seems that Corcoran and Elliman have been placing apartments on the market for a very high prices. they start lowering as quickly as with-in one week. if this is a brand new listing and it seems overpriced by 20%, the broker should submit it. sometimes the answer will be no and then you'll get a call in a week or a month or a few months.

my friend put a offer last year on a huge house in NJ and it was rejected. 3 months later, he got the house for an additional 1% over his offering price. he offered approx 20% below asking.

Kylewest is right but I will expand on it a bit. In my view, brokers MUST present ALL offers. However, on a number of occasions, low offers are presented to the seller and after a while the seller advises the broker that they will NOT ENTERTAIN OFFERS ABOVE 'X', SO DONT BOTHER SENDING IN - 'go get a higher offer!!', says the seller.

In this situation, I ALWAYS continue to submit any offers received, but I tell the buyer to consider the response a 'no response' unless I get back to them otherwise. To my seller, I say, 'its is my responsibility to submit all offers, even if you will not have a response. Attached is the latest offer'.

usually the seller gets back with a NO RESPONSE tag, or doesnt bother to email back. In which case I know the response because I have been there before.

Buyers in this situation, before they accuse of illegal activities, must understand that if a property is asking $1M, and they want to submit a $700K bid, it is HIGHLY LIKELY somebody already gave an offer that low too (lets be honest here, buyers throw in low ball bids daily in todays market looking for a desperate fish to bite). So to assume that the offer 30% below ask, is the first and best of its kind, is usually wrong. The broker was probably advised not to even present anything below X going forward, because the seller has no intention to trade at a lavel below X.

Asking prices are meaningless, so I would submit a written offer letter, describing your bid and rationale for it, and make it clear you want it forwarded to the seller. The broker should comply if delivered this way. You may get same result, but that is a 'seller' issue at this point. Its their home and you cant force any seller to trade at a level you deem appropriate.

I agree with all above who say terms like "insulting" in the context of a RE transaction are silly. But it reveals the illogical way many approach this type of transaction as a hybrid of business and personal. As a seller, if price adjustment is needed as apt remains unsold, an informed reduction would have to take into account the offers that had been made at the existing price. As someone above stated, if you get 30 offers 25% below asking price, that tells you something. If the broker never communicates those offers or what is being discussed at open houses or during inquiries on the phone, how can the seller ever assess the current market reaction to his/her listing other than to have one piece of info: the apt is or is not selling. When I sold, I wanted to know EVERYTHING. All that was said, what calls were received. The offers and what was said when bidder made the offer. I can't think of why as a seller I'd prefer a lack of 100% transparency between my agent and me. Seems like a pretty dumb way to conduct business.

rbs, Did you submit these offers in writing, with all the financial documentation?

We sold, and priced our apartment where it should sell...we ended up getting full ask. We had people make what we considered low-ball offers...had a good laugh with our broker over it and said "no, thank you". It's not personal...or at least it shouldn't be. It's not your home any more if you are selling....I agree with StF62.

if you were a seller, why wouldnt u want to assimilate all information before making a decision? Ten lowball bids might give some color on the context of the market as opposed to no low ball bids. Brokers/owners whose feelings get hurt are only disservicing themselves. (Seems like those brokers picked the wrong profession.)

Maleprop, why is it cheating a seller to offer 30% off if that's what you think it's worth? Even Pam is suggesting that's what it takes. Your tone suggests you are a broker acting in your self-interest.

I received an offer 15% below ask in Sept 06. From a neighbor. I laughed when my broker told me but he advised me to counter, so I did with 1% below ask. He came back at 13% below. I called him to thank him for his interest but told him that it was too low and I'd rather wait a year renting than accept that kind of haircut. But, if he came back at -8%, we could probably meet in the middle. We went to contract at -5%. Clearly, in retrospect, it was good to unload the property. Why not bring in interested buyers?

On the legal point, I recall from law school that only written contracts in RE are binding. Perhaps if the offer isn't made in writing, there's no legal requirement to pass it along: it is not a legal offer.

In this market pricing is all over the place. For example, this

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/394527-condo-120-riverside-boulevard-lincoln-square-new-york

is one floor up, priced 27% more for the same unit:

http://www.streeteasy.com/nyc/sale/186057-condo-120-riverside-blvd-lincoln-square-new-york

"It is insulting, but more importantly, I want a professional representing me that knows it is insulting without having to confirm it with me. "

How is the truth insulting?

Brokers have no problem listing things at 2008 prices... thats just as ridiculous, but they'll do it.

HarlemNWCP - Your written comment is an interesting one. But is any "offer" legally binding? I thought nothing was binding until the contract was signed. I had an accepted verbal offer on a coop I was trying to buy a few years ago and the seller received a higher offer while we were in attorney review. The seller reneged on our agreement (I had an email from her broker accepting our offer). I just walked away.

Anyway - regardless of any potential legal loophole - unless (as pointed out above) the seller specifially said, "I don't want to hear any offers below X" (which is a stupid thing to request and a stupid thing for a broker to agree to) - that behavior is inappropriate.

"So let me get this straight. A selling broker can overprice an apartment and lie about the square footage in a building that may have unproven financials(as in new construction) and rising carrying costs, but a buyer can not submit a bid based on his/her reasonable assessment of the situation because they might insult the seller?"

If an apt. is truly overpriced or has some other bad features, then don't make an offer! PERIOD.

gotta love this thread. The lowballer tlooking to f*ck the seller is bitching that they got f*cked by the realtor. That's like Bernie Madoff walking down the street with the money he stole and getting mugged by some thug! HA HA

I got a lowball offer on my house in NJ 2 years ago for 20% under ask. My agent never presented it. Instead, he called up the buyer and basically called him every word under the sun. Even after being read the riot act, the buyer's agent called me directly 2 weeks later to raise his offer by $50,000! I stil rejected the offer.

No buyer or seller can "f*ck" the other. Both have to agree to the outcome or there is no deal. Neither can take advantage of the other unless the other is willing, in which case it isn't taking advantage of someone!

As for "legal offers" and "binding offers" these are misnomers. There is no such thing. A contract is an offer, acceptance, and some consideration given. An offer cannot be legal or illegal in the context we're discussing. What I think was being discussed was whether and when an offer triggers a legal obligation on the agent to convey it.

As I said before, there really is no good business reason for a seller to remain ignorant of any offer being made. Agent rationalization aside, a seller armed with the most info possible is in the best position to decide what the agent should be doing for the seller. Remember,the agent works for the seller, not the other way around. It isn't a partnership. It's an agency.

scoots, you could have sued the seller in that situation for the expenses (attorney fees, etc). Once you have the meeting of the minds, the seller cannot undo the deal one-sidedly just because a higher offer was received.

Also, yes, the broker has the obligation to convey all offers to the seller, but s/he also has the privilege to tell you that "I know that offer won't be accepted because the seller has a particular cut off figure." But, if the buyer insists on putting through the offer, the broker CANNOT reject it w/o conveying it to the seller. Even if the seller says s/he doesn't want to hear it, the broker must convey it.

As someone has outlined, those low #s often lead to high sale prices. I, too, have received ridiculously low offers in the past, but I didn't lower my counter--and I ended up getting what I wanted. Sometimes, you need to pretend to play their game, in order to get what you want. It is nonsense to reject an offer without giving yourself an opportunity to negotiate up.

true nyc212. But in many cases, lowballers will present "take it or leave it" offers, which, based on what I have heard, hardly ever result in a sale. Buyers who use take it or leave it offers are obvivoulsy trying to control the seller by putting them on a short leash. And sellers don't like this, so they will show such lowballers the door.

The agent's obligation to convey all offers to the seller extends only to WRITTEN offers.

If you ask an agent, "would the seller take $700,000?" that's not an offer.

If you are serious about submitting, send an email to the agent. It should say "I would like to offer $XX for the property located at XX." The offer should also include a timeframe and how much you are going to put down.

I would also put in a line of some financial information -- I don't think you should have to do a whole REBNY financial statement for a first offer, but a line in the email like "I am a doctor, and my partner is a teacher, and between us we have an income of $XX" will go a long way.

If that offer isn't presented, you then have a valid complaint.

ali r.
{downtown broker}

"But in many cases, lowballers will present "take it or leave it" offers, which, based on what I have heard, hardly ever result in a sale"

Given that right now, almost nothing results in a sale, I don't know if this means very much.

"I got a lowball offer on my house in NJ 2 years ago for 20% under ask. My agent never presented it. Instead, he called up the buyer and basically called him every word under the sun. Even after being read the riot act, the buyer's agent called me directly 2 weeks later to raise his offer by $50,000! I stil rejected the offer."

Is this why you're so adamantly bitter? You know you should have taken it...

I don't regret not taking the offer one bit. Since the potential buyer was Middle Eastern and was not born in the U.S., I even considered anonymously reporting him to immigration just to be an A hole.

alpine292 - Are you trying to make people have contempt for you?

Wow, somebody is bitter...

"So let me get this straight. A selling broker can overprice an apartment and lie about the square footage in a building that may have unproven financials(as in new construction) and rising carrying costs, but a buyer can not submit a bid based on his/her reasonable assessment of the situation because they might insult the seller?"

Yet another in the long line of realtor hypocrisies...

"gotta love this thread. The lowballer tlooking to f*ck the seller is bitching that they got f*cked by the realtor. That's like Bernie Madoff walking down the street with the money he stole and getting mugged by some thug! HA HA"

Talk about delusion.

Offering below what a seller thinks his apartment is worth is stealing?

Wow, thats EXPONENTIAL delusion.

Can't wait until all the sellers start calling the cops.

Actually, the fairer comparison would be somebody who got ripped off for $10 million by Madoff taking his old statement to someone else and trying to get $10 million for it... then claiming he's being screwed by the person who wouldn't pay $10 mil for his worthless paper.

you use the word delusion way too much nyc10022. Exactly how big is your vocabularly?

If the broker does not submit your lowball offer, it means the seller is going to reject it. TAKE THE HINT. The broker is actually doing you a service by not making you waste time waiting for the seller to accept your offer that is DOA.

exactly what were you going to "report" that guy for? trying to buy overpriced real estate?

real estate terrorism

"If the broker does not submit your lowball offer, it means the seller is going to reject it."

not necessarily. it could mean that the purchaser is middle eastern (to some a reportable offense) and that the buyer likes being stuck with overpriced property years later.

and your perfect proof that overpriced RE can be sold sniper. After you close, kiss the backside of your buyer because nobody else would have paid you your price in this market.

be careful of buyers in this market. Today they will make you lowball offers. Tomorrow they will move into your apt. while your on vacation and buy it for pennies on the dollar:

http://curbed.com/archives/2009/05/18/it_happened_one_weekend_hot_over_squat_foreclosures_ground_zero_annual_invasion_arrives_more.php

what do you want? a pissing match? i'm not interested.

you couldn't sell your place 2 years ago (peak) and you are a broker.
i went into contract february of this year after listing in january (armageddon) of this year and i did it FSBO.

is it the salesman? the product? luck? who knows. who cares.

I am not a broker. And as far as your place, if you look back at the thread you started when you originally listed, alomsot everyone here told you it was overpriced. You got lucky. Simple as that. You were at the right place at the right time. Had you listed today, I doubt you would sell for anything near your price.

and I'm not trying to get into a pissing match. I'm just pointing out that timing is very important in RE, perhaps even more so than price. When I lived in co-op village, apts. were selling quickly for top dollar back in 99-01. But I had the unfortunate luck of listing in late August of 01, so right after 9/11, the market completely shut down. Had I listed in the spring, I likely would have sold much sooner. Were the people who sold in the spring/summer smarter than me? No. Just luckier.

i couldn't agree with you more. every deal is about the right place at the right time for the two sides involved. call it luck, call it timing, call it hard work...just call it "done deal" and i don't care how you label it.

"almost everyone here told you it was overpriced"
for someone who posts on here so often, you don't seem to absorb much: most buyers think everything is overpriced while most sellers try to extoll the value and specialness of their place. that is how it works. as soon as i switched hats i joined the chorus as well.

NYC212 wrote "scoots, you could have sued the seller in that situation for the expenses (attorney fees, etc). Once you have the meeting of the minds, the seller cannot undo the deal one-sidedly just because a higher offer was received"

Since I believe one of the great things about this site is the close analysis of commonly held beliefs, I'm going to say that, while I'm not an attorney, and anyone with the filing fees can file a complaint in the NY court system, I don't think scoots would have prevailed in court. Under the "Statute of Frauds" no contract for the purchase of real estate is binding until reduced to writing and executed by both parties. Unfortunately (and especially during bubble times) scoots experience is common and nobody goes off to court and gets to recover lost profits, attorney fees...etc.

If I'm wrong, perhaps there's an attorney in the house?

why is it that everyone on SE has a sue mentality? Seriously, you can't just file a lawsuit for any little thing.

> you use the word delusion way too much nyc10022.

No, I just save it for the folks who say "there is no decline" and "find me just one example of an apartment down 20%. JUST ONE".

That just happens to be you...

"real estate terrorism"

Oh my lord.

The people who think they are "entitled" to peak prices.

What a joke.

I love this horseshit about low-ball offers being insulting.
What happens if 3 - 6 months from now it turns out not to be insulting??

People who are "insulted" by offers should get a life...it's business! It's not like they're calling your mothers names...
get over it

You're talking about the same people who were "insulted" when they were told the market was going to decline...

There was writing that satisfies the Statute. scoots said emails were written and exchanged. The writing was executed by the parties clicking "send."

Thanks mjsalisb. I had no interest in suing and I certainly had NO interest in buying her apartment. Especially a week later when her broker called to say that she wasn't sure the new bidder would pass the coop board and if I wanted to meet the new price, it was mine ...Good one!

As is always the way with these stories, I much prefer the property we bought instead of that one ...

I am a random SE follower and I somehow missed the sale of sniper's place. Congrats Sniper! Is there a thread around this (otherwise, I will just ask you all the dumb questions that everyone else has already asked! How many OHs did you do? How did you find the eventual buyer? etc etc!)

Well HDLC you may be right (are you an attorney?) but somehow I think that under the "sof" a contract has to signed and notarized. Not to mention that the inclusion of even the slightest phrase in the email exchange that indicated that the offer or acceptance was subject to a "customary contingencies" would mean that no true meeting of the minds had occured. But again, I'm not an attorney so what do I know?

I read about an offer my apartment received, at an OH, and I wasn't told about on SE. I didn't feel comfortable commenting but my apartment was in the process of going into contract (last summer) for just under the ask price and this offer was for considerably less.

It did make me wonder what else my broker didn't tell me but I was happy with the contract so I didn't really get into it.

I had planned to take my apartment off the market if I didn't get what I wanted as I was selling out of want not need

A "writing" sufficient to meet the SOF requirement does not have to equal a customary contract with all the formalities. An email can be sufficient to satisfy SOF, however, you are correct that all the other elements of a contract, and/or conditions of acceptance must be in place in order for the agreement to be binding.

kylewest noted that whether or not the SOF is or is not satisfied may not be legally relevant to duties of a broker to a client. That is, even offers which would not be legally binding on the offeror would be information that the broker (agent) would have a duty to transmit to the client (principal).

Lawyers?

thanks scoots.

i did 3 or 4 open houses - lots of free, warm cookies...and i ate most of them and I am still working them off.
i am set to close early june and i will post a "tell-all" just after that with all the details.

As a broker I present all offers. If someone gives me an insulting offer I ask them to put it in writing back it up with a commitment from a bank and have a lawyer ready if the seller should say yes.
If my seller just says no as oppose to countering I respond to the buyer that the offer was so low my seller felt there was no need to counter. If they are serious they come back

with the experts predicting another decline. they should submit all offers and let the sellerd decide. nyc has been very overpriced for years.... it could not continue.

"nyc has been very overpriced for years.... "

No it was not. For those "years" peopel bought RE in droves. If people are willing to pay sky high prices, especially in the luxury market, then NYC is NOT overpriced.

how about each of us on SE formally (in writing, including downpayment and financials)submit number of offers on 2 - 3 apartments we are interested in within 20%-30% bellow asking price. let see how many offers will get presented to seller and how many will not.

I have handled offers (low, insulting, whatever) in the same manner as urbandigs describes as his MO for many years. one thing you often see is that the broker is AFRAID to submit these low offers because they are AFRAID it will make them look bad 9they aren't doing their jobs appropriately screening qualified buyers, etc). but what they don't realize is that often they are doing both themselves and the seller a disservice by not presenting these offers: if a seller is "protected" from a slew of alleged "lowball" offers, they often won't accept and "appropriately low" offer because IT seems like a lowball offer. OTOH, if a seller gets 25 offers at 30% off, it gives them some idea of where the market might really be at so when they get that 15% to 20% off offer, they are ready to take it.

Secondly, the situation HarlemNWCP describes which ended up in a sale is not all that uncommon: if rather than outright rejecting low offers you put the ball in play, you'd be surprised at it leading to deals (not always, of course). the expression I've most often used to my clients is "If you say 'go away', odds are that they will comply and go away, and that's not really what you want. What you want is a higher offer. So come back with some symbolic minor price adjustment and say "we're very interested in selling you the place, but the numbers don't work for us at this price point. But let's see if we can agree on something". now, I'll combine this with another issue: people here don't think there is value in having a broker, but if you've got a good one, here is often where is makes all the difference: if 2 principals are dealing directly with eachother, what you get is:
buyer:"I'll give you $700,000"
seller:"Go fuck yourself"
buyer"yeah, fuck you too. you can eat that POS you'll never get rid of"

or, you can have:
buyer:"offer $700,000"
buyer's broker:"that's pretty low. I'll submit it but i wouldn't expect much. Hell, at that number I'D buy it myself"
buyers broker to seller's broker:"I have an offer, but you're not going to like it"
seller's broker:"let me see what i can do"
seller's broker to seller:"Remember that nice couple? I looked into their finances and they look like a good match. they are starting a little low, however; they offered $700,000"
seller:"tell them to go fuck themsevles"
seller's broker (see above)

I could play it all out, but I hope some of you see the picture.

As far as written/binding offers: I think most of you are too used to how Coop and Condo deals are done in NYC and not how a lot of other places work: in many places, the OFFER is in the form of a Contract Of Sale which the Buyer signs with a small ($1,000 or so) deposit. This is VERY different from what has been standard custom and practice in Coop sales in Manhattan for many years. I will say that for a very long time now I have required buyer's brokers to submit their offers in writing, as well as keeping actual notes of all phone conversations in the file once any type of negotiation has started.

"a contract has to signed and notarized."

Contracts of Sale in NY are RARELY notarized.

30yrs - two people who want to get a deal done can get a deal done, broker or not. i sold without a broker and had a few offers. i responded to them all looking to get a dialogue going and meet at a point that worked for me and them. one guy wanted to dance and so we did. the others wanted to throw in their offer and that was it.

alpine -"If people are willing to pay sky high prices, especially in the luxury market, then NYC is NOT overpriced."
if people are putting billions of dollars with madoff then it must be a good investment!
your logic is not only flawed but funny. the difference is that the real estate investment is unwinding a lot slower (probably because it actually exists) and people at least have something to show for it in the end.

I couldn't read all this. I skimmed it. Someone actually said a contract has to be notarized? Brilliant. So, so wrong.

sniper; I guess we should get rid of all the mediators along with the brokers because people can always come to agreements without intermediaries.

30yrs, I read this on another thread:

"These days if your broker gets your property to closing at a price you like that's the best 6% you ever shelled out. The reverse was true during the bubble... paying 6% for someone to run a bidding contest is crazy"

In tough mkts, I'd get everything on my side, very much including a good broker.

30yrs - that is not what i said. i was just giving an anecdotal viewpoint. your response may come from the usual behavior of the broker haters on here. i am not one of them. brokers played a part in my sale as well. they helped me in pricing my place and even gave lots of advice along the way. your "broker says, buyer says" script made it sound like without a broker a fist fight will ensue. you really painted everyone (buyer, seller and broker) with a broad brush that self-served to highlight the need for a broker. i simply responded with an actual story where this was not the case. many on here have gone to great lengths to point out how brokers have "ruined" the NYC market and cause prices to be higher. is this the case? i don't know. but i do know that i didn't need one to buy my apartment 5 years ago and i didn't need one to sell it a few months ago.

sniper: let me ask you this question if we're going to pick apart each other's scenarios: which one fits the pattern that the whole thread is about: the one where someone submits an offer 30% below the asking price and the seller is irate/"insulted", or the one where the buyer presents an offer 15% below ask in Sept 06. From a neighbor. {the seller) laughed but their broker counter, so they did with 1% below ask; or yours (where you don't say how much below ask the first offer was: without knowing, I'll bet it wasn't anywhere near 30% below your asking, now was it?

Thanks for all your comments everyone. Sorry for the delay in replies, I was unavailable for one day.

For clarification -
I've bought and sold several times on the UWS since 1990. I've only used a broker once in my life and I would never hire one to represent me as a buyer or seller. I don't see what they offer in service to EARN their commssion.

Yes, one of the two apartment is grossly overpriced - asking about 1,000 a sq ft for a total gut wreck, but with nice views.
In our neighborhood, the ask is about 950 and few sales that have closed are going through at about 900 for apartment in good condition.
That said, there was a classic 6 at 522 wea with about 1600 sq ft that just closed at 950K. Views were of WEA. Maintenance was high at 2500.

So yes, we did extensive comps in this market based on location, sq ft and in the same building.
And yes, we submitted our offer to the broker in writting with our analysis of the comps less the gut renovation costs.
This is a Corocoran broker -
I would never go directly to the owner because that would be asking for a legal battle with Corcoran but I do believe there is a clear disconnect between real buyers with cash in hand versus sellers.
Sellers was 2008 pricing. Buyers want 2005 pricing.
The market will eventually give way once the wall street guys go another year or two without their full bonus money.
I'm confident that the real estate market will continue to slide. I just have little patience for a few of these sleezy brokers.
And fianlly, no offer should be "insulting". Its just business guys. You can always say "no thanks".

rbs: I don't see how going to a higher-up at the agency would be'asking for a legal battle'. You can do anything you want. You aren't bound to anything in terms of whom you communicate with. It would be for the seller and agent to work out. You either get word your offer was communicated after the other parties work out their differences or you don't, but either way you aren't any worse off. I guess you could worry about being blacklisted in some form by the local Corcoran agents. Whatever the case, I don't think 'legal battle' is a reason not to address improper conduct with bosses of the agent.

kyle - he said going to OWNER might cause a legal battle.

30yrs - again, i don't come on here to bash brokers but the the whole thread is about a broker not giving the offers to the seller, isn't it? regardless of the sellers response i guarantee you that he would GET THE OFFER if the seller could give it directly to him. whether he chooses to counteroffer, say 'fuck off', or just say no - he would be getting the offer (the point of the thread). making a statement like:
"sniper; I guess we should get rid of all the mediators along with the brokers because people can always come to agreements without intermediaries" is not intelligent debate on the subject of whether brokers are needed or not. in some cases they are, in some they aren't.

on another note, the guy who started the thread states:
"I've only used a broker once in my life and I would never hire one to represent me as a buyer or seller."

rbs, I am sure you're absolutely right that you don't need a broker. But that just shows that you're no average joeshmoe.

When my stepdad died, my mom needed to get out of her house, as the stairs were a hazard. I spent three weeks with her in Denver prepping the house for sale, but critical was hiring agents that told us exactly what they wanted to get the deal done and what price they needed to move the property quickly. They sold it to their best prospect the day before the posting. Just two weeks from our first conversation. There is NO way that I could have done that alone. They provided us an invaluable service.

The Wash DC house that I mentioned above selling in Sept 06 (the peak of the market there), I did the negotiating. But my neighbor waited for a proper listing to get the courage to speak. Could I have risked it? How would I know that he would come forward? I had already moved to NY... And I got all of one single offer. At 50% more than I paid in 2004. Why should I whine about paying the brokers for doing relatively little?

For us nonprofessionals, a good broker is worth it.

Wow! This is a long thread and I haven't read it all but my understanding is that it's unethical not to present all offers from buyers whether Manhattan brokers do it and whether there is a clear obligation under the law is something I am seriously questioning and trying to find out from NYS..The agency forms are not required for condos and coops and I don't think the law is clear in protecting the buyer and the buyer's broker which I am..I've had a lot of trouble with listing brokers recently and had a client who presented through me Cash offers in writing on 3 different co-ops two of them we never got a counter offer (which enraged my buyer because he's a businessman and offer and counter-offer is how business is done worldwide) and I do wonder if they were ever presented, one was on a garden apt in the 70's.The last offer was accepted in writing, the selling broker assured us that we just had to wait for their lawyer and the next thing you know is he's telling me they went with a higher offer this after only accepting the offer contingent on disclosing my buyers financials and repeatedly assuring me that the seller wanted to go with my buyer. After all this the buyer got insulted!! I contacted the principal broker but who knows???

rbs: I miss read what you wrote, but my answer stands: a buyer can go to whomever the buyer wants. You wanna talk to the seller directly? Go for it. Nothing bars you from doing so. The seller just may not want to talk to you. But there's no legal risks I can figure out in doing this. So long as the seller is willing to pay the broker the commission their contract calls for, what you do or whom you speak to has no bearing on it.