Peter Hun Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 If you are a normal person, you have to deal with EAs and all of their spin. If you are rich, you have access to a buyer's agent who works for HSBC's Private Bank who has a fiduciary duty to you as the client. Absolutely nothing to stop you using a buying agent. Might cost a bit, but peanuts compared to the property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Absolutely nothing to stop you using a buying agent. Might cost a bit, but peanuts compared to the property. yes, he could call Phil, Krusty's mate....he was so good he did away with his firm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 yes, he could call Phil, Krusty's mate....he was so good he did away with his firm. Market distress is a wonderful thing. It seperates the wheat from the chaff to the benefit of the market as only those who actually add value survive. The artificial prevention of the impact of market distress being felt by market participants is a terrible thing as it delays a natural, Darwinian process from occurring. This is one of my main objections to TARP / QE / Stimulus / ZIRP etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchy Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 (edited) its more about what a banker is prepared to lend than what you are prepared to pay, these days. True but if the banker is prepared to lend more than I am willing to offer then I should be fine. If the bank is not prepared to back my offer then all the better because I should have hopefully some form of written record to show the seller that even my low offer is more than a "professional" - e.g. the bank (as the term professional is misleading!) - is willing to lend and I could lower my offer further. I would actually love it if the result of the survey was that the house is actually worth even less than I thought!!! Edited January 6, 2011 by frenchy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 OK I'll try it: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 We seem to live in a two tiered world. The VIs try to impose their will on the masses while the rich seem to live in a world where the get a more honest opinion about what is happening. HSBC Private Bank has a buyers' agency business called PropertyVision. Their December market comment makes for interesting reading. nice find, thanks for sharing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 OK I'll try it: I like your work ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyOne Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 nice find, thanks for sharing. My pleasure. I like the challenge to the orthodoxy from a reputable source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 True but if the banker is prepared to lend more than I am willing to offer then I should be fine. If the bank is not prepared to back my offer then all the better because I should have hopefully some form of written record to show the seller that even my low offer is more than a "professional" - e.g. the bank (as the term professional is misleading!) - is willing to lend and I could lower my offer further. I would actually love it if the result of the survey was that the house is actually worth even less than I thought!!! + 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Market distress is a wonderful thing. It seperates the wheat from the chaff to the benefit of the market as only those who actually add value survive. The artificial prevention of the impact of market distress being felt by market participants is a terrible thing as it delays a natural, Darwinian process from occurring. This is one of my main objections to TARP / QE / Stimulus / ZIRP etc. Yep, this is a known benefit of business cycles. The cleansing effect of the down phase, weeding out inefficient economic actors. It liberates resources (both capital and labour) that are then used by the efficient economic actors, during the recovery phase. The problem is that the British Labour party, despite being aware of this positive economic process, uses demagogic language against it, like: "Are you saying that unemployment is a price worth paying?! You are heartless!!!" Of course the government should help those individuals affected, preferably with re-training, but it is futile to attempt an eternal boom. Brown has tried that... He avoided a minor correction in 2004-05, using both fiscal and monetary stimulus (tampering with the inflation index). We are now paying a mush bigger price for it, with a huge crisis. A minor correction would probably have a NET benefit, but this current crisis may be too strong for that. Medicines in too high doses can do more harm than good. Let's see, and hope for the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.