Mart Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,17...rticle_continue funny, funny, funny. What's his problem ? I bet he wasn't pulling his face when it was going the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immigrant Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I totally agree that gazundering is unethical. The only solution, as pointed out in the article, is that the system needs to change so that once an offer is accepted, it is final. The English system is ridiculous and encourages time-wasters and crooks. It creates a huge amount of unnecessary stress for people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BandWagon Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 (edited) "Buyers can take the attitude 'I don't believe the vendor is going to tell me to get lost' and if they do, there are lots more properties available," said Peter Bolton King, the NAEA's chief excutive. Oh dear, it looks like there isn't a shortage of property after all. Interesting to watch how these people behave in a falling market. Quite sure they weren't complaining when gazumping sent prices rocketing. "Sellers operating in a slow market are unlikely to have people queuing up to buy their property. Therefore they may feel pressured into agreeing to buyer demands." Wow. The man discovers the laws of supply and demand. Amazing how important they can become when the sales commission dries up. Time to lower the selling prices I suggest. Edited March 12, 2006 by BandWagon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPCheese Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 The EAs are representing the sellers, so it's not surprising they're complaining about Gazundering but didn't kick-up a fuss about Gazumping. It's a business transaction and the price isn't agreed until the money changes hands. I don't know why they've created a new name for it when it's more commonly known as haggling. "Sellers operating in a slow market are unlikely to have people queuing up to buy their property. Therefore they may feel pressured into agreeing to buyer demands."Boo-hoo. It's called business you moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StainlessSteelCat Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 My heart bleeds a single drop of blood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyShears Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Lot of deja vu threads recently. Billy Shears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashCrash Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I totally agree that gazundering is unethical. The only solution, as pointed out in the article, is that the system needs to change so that once an offer is accepted, it is final. The English system is ridiculous and encourages time-wasters and crooks. It creates a huge amount of unnecessary stress for people. Bit angry are we? lovin it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Pay back time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
time 2 raise interest rates Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 It seems a bit strange if properties are flying off the shelves as we are lead to believe by estate agents, can someone explain why Countrywide's share price is in the top ten biggest fallers of the week and are down 31p or 6% on the week and are currently trading at 486p. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 And Tony B is probably wondering why his property has not flown off the shelf yet despite being in London where the market is white hot again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 It seems a bit strange if properties are flying off the shelves as we are lead to believe by estate agents, can someone explain why Countrywide's share price is in the top ten biggest fallers of the week and are down 31p or 6% on the week and are currently trading at 486p. I agree. Logically gazundering makes no sense in a rising market and should not exist, particularly since the buyer is picking up many of the transacation costs in advance of HIPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyShears Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I agree. Logically gazundering makes no sense in a rising market and should not exist, particularly since the buyer is picking up many of the transacation costs in advance of HIPs. Probably not much gazundering in Central London then. But surely if someone gazunders, and the seller walks away, the buyer loses their deposit. Billy Shears Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Totally disagree. Both gazundering and gazumping should be legal. You SHOULD have the choice to pull out as a seller if the market has risen since. You SHOULD have the choice as a buyer to pull out if the market has fallen since. It makes no difference, just so long as it's the same for both players. It would be a true injustice to rid one but not the other. This is just pure VI spin and ********, as usual. Babies!!!!! PS. I don't often use the phrase "VI spin" in my posts, but I will today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairlocks Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Probably not much gazundering in Central London then. But surely if someone gazunders, and the seller walks away, the buyer loses their deposit. Billy Shears This is why the EA's don't like it as they lose their commission. Plus the seller does have to find another buyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoredTrainBuilder Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Totally disagree. Both gazundering and gazumping should be legal. You SHOULD have the choice to pull out as a seller if the market has risen since. You SHOULD have the choice as a buyer to pull out if the market has fallen since. It makes no difference, just so long as it's the same for both players. It would be a true injustice to rid one but not the other. This is just pure VI spin and ********, as usual. Babies!!!!! PS. I don't often use the phrase "VI spin" in my posts, but I will today. I for one am not arguing with that, just pointing out that there is no logical point to gazundering in a rising market (from the buyer's point of view). Especially as BillyShears points out once a deposit has been paid. QED if there is gazundering, the market is not rising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charlie The Tramp Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 But surely if someone gazunders, and the seller walks away, the buyer loses their deposit. A 10% deposit is paid by the buyer at exchange of contracts and the balance paid at completion. Any other deposit paid by the buyer would be a token deposit held by the EA and would be returnable at the breakdown of negotiation. I don`t believe these type of deposits are asked for today. On exchange of contracts the seller or buyer cannot pull out or each would be subject to penalties or breach of contract litigation by either party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlad1967 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Billy - gazunfering takes place before contracts exchange - therefore no deposit has been paid yet... But if the seller walks away, the buyer will have wasted money on all the searches, surveys etc etc... Unless, of course, HIP's come into force... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 (edited) I totally agree that gazundering is unethical. Indeed, and how the NAEA bitched and complained about gazumping during the boom years! It's not like Krusty Oldsop actually did this on primetime TV Anyway, the market is stronger than ever and properties are "flying off the shelves" according to Rightmove so I doubt this is much of an issue. Edited March 12, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North London Rent Girl Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 The person who normally says it hasn't yet so I will They don't like it up 'em! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spline Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Agree about the “prices are not set until agreed” points above, but I’m not completely convinced that gazundering is the mirror image of gazumping. Gazundering has some similarity to blackmail – the buyer “agrees” a “false” initial price and waits until the seller has sorted out their next house, booked the kids into the new school, and arranged for the removal vans, i.e. until the seller is “committed” a certain amount of money (or equivalent) to the move. The buyer then attempts to get their hands on *some* of this money by converting it into a discount; the assumption is that the seller will choose the option that hands them the least loss. Arguably a bit like impounding someone’s wallet and offering to give it back half empty. Gazumping appears more naturally to be part of the price discovery process – someone comes along with a higher offer and the seller takes it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 Agree about the “prices are not set until agreed” points above, but I’m not completely convinced that gazundering is the mirror image of gazumping. Gazundering has some similarity to blackmail – the buyer “agrees” a “false” initial price and waits until the seller has sorted out their next house, booked the kids into the new school, and arranged for the removal vans, i.e. until the seller is “committed” a certain amount of money (or equivalent) to the move. The buyer then attempts to get their hands on *some* of this money by converting it into a discount; the assumption is that the seller will choose the option that hands them the least loss. Arguably a bit like impounding someone’s wallet and offering to give it back half empty. Gazumping appears more naturally to be part of the price discovery process – someone comes along with a higher offer and the seller takes it. You make the latter sound benign and entirely without consequence compared devilish gazundering, however gazumping is blackmail too, the seller is saying "unless you better this new price you can get lost", despite the fact the buyer has invested his time and money in the buying process, he too might have kids expecting to attend the local school once they move in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spline Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I guess that the “benign” or “simply part of price discovery” aspect is the intervention of an external factor – like a second buyer with a higher offer, or (equivalently, on the “other side”) a bad survey report, adverse valuation, or an obviously falling market after initially agreeing the price. The “devilish” part is the pre-planned and disingenuous behaviour of one side without the excuse that comes from having “new” information to hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 The “devilish” part is the pre-planned and disingenuous behaviour of one side without the excuse that comes from having “new” information to hand. Not devilish if the market price falls in the meantime. In which case outlawing gazundering would be unfair on the buyer. I think gazundering is probably more common than people let on, once a whole chain is involved and it's all taken several months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spline Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 (edited) Not devilish if the market price falls in the meantime. In which case outlawing gazundering would be unfair on the buyer. Agree, and that’s exactly what’s said in the post above. Not devilish if the final price reflects relevant new information that comes to light after the initial price was agreed. But very devilish if one side identifies a cost already incurred by the other and subsequently attempts a “blackmail type” manoeuvre to get their hands on (say) half of it. Edit: good point about leveraging the whole chain! Edited March 12, 2006 by spline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 (edited) The “devilish” part is the pre-planned and disingenuous behaviour of one side without the excuse that comes from having “new” information to hand. It might not be pre-planned, during the selling process the buyer might find that a better house across the road has come onto the market at a lower price, therefore meaning his previous offer was over-valued. This too is an external factor that is part of the price discovery process, the opposite equivalent of your gazumper's "better offer". Edited March 12, 2006 by BuyingBear 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.