Advice Please: Phantom Bidder?

jvlme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is anybody willing to show all of his or her cards? Will a potential purchaser disclose that he or she is prepared to go as high as €350k when putting in a hopeful bid of €300k?

I sold two properties last year, using two different EAs. I would have been very upset if either had been totally transparent with prospective purchasers, and weakened my bargaining position. I was paying them to act in my interest. And my interest was, quite literally, a vested interest.

If and when purchasers pay EAs to find properties and negotiate their purchase, they can seek transparency at their end of the transaction. Until then, purchasers should simply accept that the EA works for the vendor, and will try to maximise the selling price: that's what the job is about.

There's a huge difference between not showing all your cards and blatant lies. A purchaser should NOT have to accept out and out deceit where the EA puts forward phantom bids to bump up the selling price. Both parties (buyer and seller) want to get the best price but there's way of achieving that in a transparent manner. Furthermore, if you choose to pay an EA to sell your property that's entirely your choice, don't expect me to also pay for the privilege

P. Breathnach

jvlme wrote: »

There's a huge difference between not showing all your cards and blatant lies. A purchaser should NOT have to accept out and out deceit where the EA puts forward phantom bids to bump up the selling price. Both parties (buyer and seller) want to get the best price but there's way of achieving that in a transparent manner.

Do you believe that it's an entirely unequal contest, that purchasers are transparent? I don't. Buyers typically tell lies about their funding, saying that €x is all they can afford - yet you might find them still competing when the bidding goes to €(x + 20k). And other buyers try to renegotiate the price when final contracts are about to be signed. It's a dog-eat-dog game.

Nobody compels a purchaser to top a competing bid, be it genuine or phantom.

Furthermore, if you choose to pay an EA to sell your property that's entirely your choice, don't expect me to also pay for the privilege

That's empty rhetoric. I paid the EAs when I sold the properties. I paid them for advice, for advertising and promotion, for showing the properties, for screening out messers, for negotiating on my behalf (subject, of course, to my final decision) and for getting initial contracts signed. So far as I am concerned, it was money well spent, and how much I paid is not the buyers' concern.

jmayo

jvlme wrote: »

There's a huge difference between not showing all your cards and blatant lies. A purchaser should NOT have to accept out and out deceit where the EA puts forward phantom bids to bump up the selling price. Both parties (buyer and seller) want to get the best price but there's way of achieving that in a transparent manner. Furthermore, if you choose to pay an EA to sell your property that's entirely your choice, don't expect me to also pay for the privilege

Talking of phantom bidders I know of one auction where there were, lets say not legitimate bidders, who it turned out were distant (as in lived far away) relatives of the seller.
Some of the people present at the auction twigged it and word spread.
The auctioneer had to pull the plug and the property is still unsold over a year later.

Now I don't know if the auctioneer was aware of the plants or not, but any local interested are steering clear as there is no trust now ?

jvlme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you believe that it's an entirely unequal contest, that purchasers are transparent? I don't. Buyers typically tell lies about their funding, saying that €x is all they can afford - yet you might find them still competing when the bidding goes to €(x + 20k). And other buyers try to renegotiate the price when final contracts are about to be signed. It's a dog-eat-dog game.

Nobody compels a purchaser to top a competing bid, be it genuine or phantom.

That's empty rhetoric. I paid the EAs when I sold the properties. I paid them for advice, for advertising and promotion, for showing the properties, for screening out messers, for negotiating on my behalf (subject, of course, to my final decision) and for getting initial contracts signed. So far as I am concerned, it was money well spent, and how much I paid is not the buyers' concern.

You appear to have gotten very angry, very quickly.

1. I never said it was 'an entirely unequal contest'. All I called for was transparency in the process

2. I'm not here to defend the rogue actions of purchasers.

3. I'm not interested in what you pay an EA for services rendered

4. Enjoy your 'dog-eat-dog' world

Victor

jvlme wrote: »

chump

Behave.

Moderator