Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

selassie

Eamon Ryan on Newstalk this morning talking about putting power back in the hands of local county councils because they know what's needed locally.

The same local county councils who are opposing every large scale development in their areas and revising down the number of houses they need.

Blowfish

Ace2007 wrote: »

Agreed, there has to be some sort of financial loss for bidding and pulling out - say 5% the value of the house - that would soon get rid of all the weeds and then you would see who is a real time buyer.

The problem is, some banks require you to be sale agreed and booking deposit put down before they'll even let you apply for a LTI exception. This ends up with people who reckon they have a good chance of an exception bidding beyond what they have AIP for and then rolling the dice that the banks will grant the exception.

Bass Reeves

In the last boom Auctioneers who knew your finance details ( what size mortgage you got approval for and what size deposit you had ) used this information to drive you to that payment point

Bass Reeves

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In the last boom Auctioneers who knew your finance details ( what size mortgage you got approval for and what size deposit you had ) used this information to drive you to that payment point

Why would a buyer inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

Ace2007

Blowfish wrote: »

The problem is, some banks require you to be sale agreed and booking deposit put down before they'll even let you apply for a LTI exception. This ends up with people who reckon they have a good chance of an exception bidding beyond what they have AIP for and then rolling the dice that the banks will grant the exception.

Two ways of tackling that - get the banks to change their policies. Or have the 5% penalty that is waived if the the bidder shows a rejection letter from the bank (that also states that the bidder has an AIP). This gets rid of those who have no attention to buy at all and bidding for friends.

You could even go a step further and say there is a 1% penalty regardless. It would take the heat out of the bidding wars, as only those with the approval, with the money, or those that are certain that they will get the exception will be bidding. This would in turn could put pressure on banks to change their policies.

The policy shouldn't be bid on a house and then come looking for more money if needed.

cnocbui

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would a seller inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

I presume you mean buyer? If you read the currently buying/selling thread, you will see that some EAs are demanding to see the offer letter from a bank, not accepting a solicitors assurance that funds are available. Some buyers quite rightly don't want to show their hand.

L1011

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would a seller inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

Some EAs would demand such info before accepting a bid. Even had that as late as 2011 from an EA that has since ceased to exist.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

I presume you mean buyer? If you read the currently buying/selling thread, you will see that some EAs are demanding to see the offer letter from a bank, not accepting a solicitors assurance that funds are available. Some buyers quite rightly don't want to show their hand.

L1011 wrote: »

Some EAs would demand such info before accepting a bid. Even had that as late as 2011 from an EA that has since ceased to exist.

Apologies, yes buyer. The EAs are demanding proof of funds to support the bid, not the maximum you can bid. This is progressive and hopefully cuts out some of the time wasters.

cnocbui

selassie wrote: »

Eamon Ryan on Newstalk this morning talking about putting power back in the hands of local county councils because they know what's needed locally.

The same local county councils who are opposing every large scale development in their areas and revising down the number of houses they need.

IMO they need to completely overhaul the planning laws and system and take power away from councils, not give them more.

cnocbui

Dav010 wrote: »

Apologies, yes buyer. The EAs are demanding proof of funds to support the bid, not the maximum you can bid. This is progressive and hopefully cuts out some of the time wasters.

No, they are asking to see the bank letter and the amount that has been made available. One person on that thread, If I am recalling correctly, gave the EA a copy of the letter with the amount redacted and the EA refused it and wanted to see how much money was on the table.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

No, they are asking to see the bank letter and the amount that has been made available. One person on that thread, If I am recalling correctly, gave the EA a copy of the letter with the amount redacted and the EA refused it and wanted to see how much money was on the table.

I suppose that is their prerogative, but I see no reason why an EA could want more than proof to support a bid, and why a buyer would give anything more than that. I have read posts where bids were made with a supporting letter from the bank confirming funds for that amount.

I understand why a redacted figure would not suffice as this does not show proof of funds to match the bid on the table.

snow_bunny

Cyrus wrote: »

No.

Hmm, quality contribution.

So, I can't prove something and that makes me a conspiracy theorist, in your opinion. You can't disprove something, but we should take your opinion as fact. Right.

You've missed the point anyway. It's neither here nor there whether this is happening or not, or can be proved or not. The only FACT here is that it is indeed possible and that there exist several loopholes that can be exploited by both Estate Agents and vendors if they so pleased.

L1011

Dav010 wrote: »

Apologies, yes buyer. The EAs are demanding proof of funds to support the bid, not the maximum you can bid. This is progressive and hopefully cuts out some of the time wasters.

This EA wanted original documents showing max AIP, not a proof of funds letter and was very, very insistent on it to the point that I walked away.

randomname2005

Ace2007 wrote: »

Two ways of tackling that - get the banks to change their policies. Or have the 5% penalty that is waived if the the bidder shows a rejection letter from the bank (that also states that the bidder has an AIP). This gets rid of those who have no attention to buy at all and bidding for friends.

You could even go a step further and say there is a 1% penalty regardless. It would take the heat out of the bidding wars, as only those with the approval, with the money, or those that are certain that they will get the exception will be bidding. This would in turn could put pressure on banks to change their policies.

The policy shouldn't be bid on a house and then come looking for more money if needed.

I can understand where you are coming from but I don't see it as realistic. There are too many unknowns that mean you might want to be bidding on two or more properties. (In our case we only bid on one at a time as we felt guilty about boosting bids on houses but regret that).

What happens if there is an issue that arises with the survey, or legal issues over title or planning, or being involved in a chain and something happens with the buyer of your current property, or the property the owners you are buying from want to buy.

Something needs to be done but I don't see how this approach would work

cnocbui

Dav010 wrote: »

I suppose that is their prerogative, but I see no reason why an EA could want more than proof to support a bid, and why a buyer would give anything more than that. I have read posts where bids were made with a supporting letter from the bank confirming funds for that amount.

I understand why a redacted figure would not suffice as this does not show proof of funds to match the bid on the table.

An EA rejecting a solicitor's assurance of funds and demanding to see the buyers hand is not on. It's the tail trying to wag the dog. Any solicitor encountering this nonsense should approach their professional body to take it up with the IPAV as an official complaint. It's not hard - don't have the funds, you don't get your deposit back. In other countries, that's what deposits are for and how they actually work.

snow_bunny

randomname2005 wrote: »

I can understand where you are coming from but I don't see it as realistic. There are too many unknowns that mean you might want to be bidding on two or more properties. (In our case we only bid on one at a time as we felt guilty about boosting bids on houses but regret that).

What happens if there is an issue that arises with the survey, or legal issues over title or planning, or being involved in a chain and something happens with the buyer of your current property, or the property the owners you are buying from want to buy.

Something needs to be done but I don't see how this approach would work

Something like this:

1. If you want to bid on a house, you must register with your ID (which is hidden from all but the estate agent and an independent body who are free to inspect the logs during audit).

2.You must add your solicitor verified AIP offer to your registered profile. This may be redacted.

3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder.

4. Once sale agreed, your deposit can be kept as a holding deposit and later refunded when signing contracts.

5. If the engineers report returns serious issues, you can chose to renegotiate the price or walk away and have your deposit refunded. Same goes for legal issues outside of the buyers control.

6. Upon going sale agreed, all other bidders have their deposit returned.

This system would really cut out time wasters and fraud. You'd have to be serious to even bid on a house and it would be great for the vendors and agents too because they'd know they had strong buyers.

Cyrus

snow_bunny wrote: »

Something like this:

1. If you want to bid on a house, you must register with your ID (which is hidden from all but the estate agent and an independent body who are free to inspect the logs during audit).

2.You must add your solicitor verified AIP offer to your registered profile. This may be redacted.

3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder.

4. Once sale agreed, your deposit can be kept as a holding deposit and later refunded when signing contracts.

5. If the engineers report returns serious issues, you can chose to renegotiate the price or walk away and have your deposit refunded. Same goes for legal issues outside of the buyers control.

6. Upon going sale agreed, all other bidders have their deposit returned.

This system would really cut out time wasters and fraud. You'd have to be serious to even bid on a house and it would be great for the vendors and agents too because they'd know they had strong buyers.

You are providing a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist at least on any sort of scale.

As a seller you can insist on conditions to the EA on the type of buyer you want and you can sell to whoever you want so next time you are selling a property feel free to put those conditions in place and see how it goes.

Some sellers want the maximum price regardless others want a cash buyer and a quick close.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

An EA rejecting a solicitor's assurance of funds and demanding to see the buyers hand is not on. It's the tail trying to wag the dog. Any solicitor encountering this nonsense should approach their professional body to take it up with the IPAV as an official complaint. It's not hard - don't have the funds, you don't get your deposit back. In other countries, that's what deposits are for and how they actually work.

I don't see what standing a solicitor has during the bidding stage, why would refusal to acknowledge their assurance be grounds for a professional complaint? Are solicitors empowered by lending institutions to give assurances on their behalf?

Bass Reeves

Dav010 wrote: »

Why would a buyer inform a an EA about what amount they had mortgage approval for and how much they had for deposit?

Towards the end of the last boom the first Mortgage brokers started to appear. Most were tied/part of the Auctioneering firms. The information flowed between the two sections. The Auctioneering section then used this info to there advantage.

Anybody that think's that giving Auctioneers details of AIP or your funds details are not living in the real world. The assumption that people bid houses up without funds is deluded. The ideal you have to give a deposit to bid is stupid as well.

Bass Reeves

snow_bunny wrote: »

Something like this:

1. If you want to bid on a house, you must register with your ID (which is hidden from all but the estate agent and an independent body who are free to inspect the logs during audit).

2.You must add your solicitor verified AIP offer to your registered profile. This may be redacted.

3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder.

4. Once sale agreed, your deposit can be kept as a holding deposit and later refunded when signing contracts.

5. If the engineers report returns serious issues, you can chose to renegotiate the price or walk away and have your deposit refunded. Same goes for legal issues outside of the buyers control.

6. Upon going sale agreed, all other bidders have their deposit returned.

This system would really cut out time wasters and fraud. You'd have to be serious to even bid on a house and it would be great for the vendors and agents too because they'd know they had strong buyers.

1 why
2 grand
3 wtf should you not get s deposit back if you were an underbidder
4 no issue
5 every buyer would use engineer reports to negotiate down price or walk away from contract similar with legals

3&6 are a contradiction

mcsean2163

Cyrus wrote: »

You are providing a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist at least on any sort of scale.

As a seller you can insist on conditions to the EA on the type of buyer you want and you can sell to whoever you want so next time you are selling a property feel free to put those conditions in place and see how it goes.

Some sellers want the maximum price regardless others want a cash buyer and a quick close.

The problem is for the buyer who may potentially being ripped off by fake bidders.

We went €70k over asking and all the time were wondering if we were bidding against ourselves. When the market is hot, a professional ea could easily rip off a FTB for tens of thousands with nobody any the wiser. Ideal system to prey on first time parents looking for a family home. That type of behaviour would be criminal in many sectors but it's still fine in housing.

It's all a joke to the property merchants, no a joke to parents who may have to sacrifice soccer training/ gymnastics when times are tight.

Bass Reeves

Dav010 wrote: »

I don't see what standing a solicitor has during the bidding stage, why would refusal to acknowledge their assurance be grounds for a professional complaint? Are solicitors empowered by lending institutions to give assurances on their behalf?

No but a solicitor assurances that funds are in place at bidding stage should be sufficient. If the solicitor send incorrect information then the Estate agent complaint to the solicitor regulations body

mcsean2163

mcsean2163 wrote: »

The problem is for the buyer who may potentially being ripped off by fake bidders.

We went €70k over asking and all the time were wondering if we were bidding against ourselves. When the market is hot, a professional ea could easily rip off a FTB for tens of thousands with nobody any the wiser. Ideal system to prey on first time parents looking for a family home. That type of behaviour would be criminal in many sectors but it's still fine in housing.

It's all a joke to the property merchants, no a joke to parents who may have to sacrifice soccer training/ gymnastics when times are tight.

You are assuming no other bidders would be interested in the house you bid on? Or is there some other reason you think the other bids were fake?

In what other sectors is unsubstantiated allegations of fake bidding a criminal act?

snow_bunny

Bass Reeves wrote: »

1 why
2 grand
3 wtf should you not get s deposit back if you were an underbidder
4 no issue
5 every buyer would use engineer reports to negotiate down price or walk away from contract similar with legals

3&6 are a contradiction

1. Because providing ID like a passport scan would ensure fake profiles and bids couldn't be made up by Agents or Vendors.

3. Because if you make a bid, you should be definite that you'll stand by it and not just drive up the price for someone else. If you think you're going to pull out but should still be allowed bid anyway, you can feck off.

5. No, they wouldn't. You'd still have to pay for the engineer and go through all the bother, something time wasters and spoofers aren't likely to do.

3&6. No they're not, you get your deposit back if it goes sale agreed with someone else and you've been knocked out. If you pull out yourself after making a bid then that bid was made in bad faith, they're different scenarios.

Cyrus

mcsean2163 wrote: »

The problem is for the buyer who may potentially being ripped off by fake bidders.

We went €70k over asking and all the time were wondering if we were bidding against ourselves. When the market is hot, a professional ea could easily rip off a FTB for tens of thousands with nobody any the wiser. Ideal system to prey on first time parents looking for a family home. That type of behaviour would be criminal in many sectors but it's still fine in housing.

It's all a joke to the property merchants, no a joke to parents who may have to sacrifice soccer training/ gymnastics when times are tight.

Again what's the personal benefit to an EA to incriminate themselves? If it was socodu I presume it was one of the main EAs so even less likely.

Cyrus

snow_bunny wrote: »

1. Because providing ID like a passport scan would ensure fake profiles and bids couldn't be made up by Agents or Vendors.

3. Because if you make a bid, you should be definite that you'll stand by it and not just drive up the price for someone else. If you think you're going to pull out but should still be allowed bid anyway, you can feck off.

5. No, they wouldn't. You'd still have to pay for the engineer and go through all the bother, something time wasters and spoofers aren't likely to do.

3&6. No they're not, you get your deposit back if it goes sale agreed with someone else and you've been knocked out. If you pull out yourself after making a bid then that bid was made in bad faith, they're different scenarios.

Who would be the arbiter of bad faith?

snow_bunny

snow_bunny wrote: »

1. Because providing ID like a passport scan would ensure fake profiles and bids couldn't be made up by Agents or Vendors.

3. Because if you make a bid, you should be definite that you'll stand by it and not just drive up the price for someone else. If you think you're going to pull out but should still be allowed bid anyway, you can feck off.

5. No, they wouldn't. You'd still have to pay for the engineer and go through all the bother, something time wasters and spoofers aren't likely to do.

3&6. No they're not, you get your deposit back if it goes sale agreed with someone else and you've been knocked out. If you pull out yourself after making a bid then that bid was made in bad faith, they're different scenarios.

But GDPR would prevent an EA sharing ID with anyone accept the seller.

Until the contracts are signed, buyers are quite rightly allowed to change their mind. Circumstances change.

No contract is formed between you and the seller when bidding, that only comes with signing contracts.

Bass Reeves

snow_bunny wrote: »

1. Because providing ID like a passport scan would ensure fake profiles and bids couldn't be made up by Agents or Vendors.

3. Because if you make a bid, you should be definite that you'll stand by it and not just drive up the price for someone else. If you think you're going to pull out but should still be allowed bid anyway, you can feck off.

5. No, they wouldn't. You'd still have to pay for the engineer and go through all the bother, something time wasters and spoofers aren't likely to do.

3&6. No they're not, you get your deposit back if it goes sale agreed with someone else and you've been knocked out. If you pull out yourself after making a bid then that bid was made in bad faith, they're different scenarios.

On no 3 this is what you posted


3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder

This suggests if you are an underbidder and you pull out you lose your deposit.

You have to pay an engineer anyway if you are getting a mortgage. Most Auctioneers will be familiar with bidders a lot if the time.

I am off the assumption you are not overly familiar with buying property

Bass Reeves

Bass Reeves wrote: »

On no 3 this is what you posted


3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder

This suggests if you are an underbidder and you pull out you lose your deposit.

You have to pay an engineer anyway if you are getting a mortgage. Most Auctioneers will be familiar with bidders a lot if the time.

I am off the assumption you are not overly familiar with buying property

The joy for a seller if multiple bidders pull out. Easy money.

Bass Reeves

Dav010 wrote: »

The joy for a seller if multiple bidders pull out. Easy money.

I am not familiar with the Dublin market I do not live there is there a huge percentage of houses going sale agreed and then the sale falling through. What I see as more of an issue is Auctioneers undervaluing property to draw bidders in.

As an earlier poster stated they followed a house to 70k over EA valuation. They were unsure if someone was puffing them. If the house sold maybe the buyer was wondering were they being puffed.

There is only one way of being sure. Stop bidding. I buy cattle in marts. At time the auctioneer will add bids to get cattle into sellers price. However I know when to stop. If the auctioneer comes back to me I stick him for the fees if I am still interested.

The PPR will give a good indication when the sale goes through what exactly happened

mcsean2163

Cyrus wrote: »

Again what's the personal benefit to an EA to incriminate themselves? If it was socodu I presume it was one of the main EAs so even less likely.

All they have to do is ask a friend. It's not illegal and there is reputational gain.

snow_bunny

Bass Reeves wrote: »

On no 3 this is what you posted


3. You must pay a 5k deposit which is non refundable if you pull out of the bidding, even if you're an under bidder

This suggests if you are an underbidder and you pull out you lose your deposit.

You have to pay an engineer anyway if you are getting a mortgage. Most Auctioneers will be familiar with bidders a lot if the time.

I am off the assumption you are not overly familiar with buying property

Yeah, I have no idea what you're on about here, sorry. If you don't intend to buy you shouldn't be allowed to bid. Simple.

Your assumptions are totally wrong.

mcsean2163

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I am not familiar with the Dublin market I do not live there is there a huge percentage of houses going sale agreed and then the sale falling through. What I see as more of an issue is Auctioneers undervaluing property to draw bidders in.

As an earlier poster stated they followed a house to 70k over EA valuation. They were unsure if someone was puffing them. If the house sold maybe the buyer was wondering were they being puffed.

There is only one way of being sure. Stop bidding. I buy cattle in marts. At time the auctioneer will add bids to get cattle into sellers price. However I know when to stop. If the auctioneer comes back to me I stick him for the fees if I am still interested.

The PPR will give a good indication when the sale goes through what exactly happened

Good grief. It's not a cattle mart and most people in it are not experienced traders.

My point is, there's no transparency.

At the very least the bidders should have to give proof of identity to a government body in order to enter a bid.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see Joseph O'Shea bidding on hundreds of properties ranging in value from 100k to 10,000k and always being the underbidder or withdrawing a winning bid. A simple audit might show interesting results.

mcsean2163

Dav010 wrote: »

You are assuming no other bidders would be interested in the house you bid on? Or is there some other reason you think the other bids were fake?

In what other sectors is unsubstantiated allegations of fake bidding a criminal act?

Unsubstantiated allegations if personal may be slander.

Fake bidding would be illegal in stockbroking for one, I'm sure we're all familiar with a recent case...

Cyrus

mcsean2163 wrote: »

All they have to do is ask a friend. It's not illegal and there is reputational gain.

Right sherry Fitz agents are getting their mates to bid on property is that it?

I await the prime time investigation.

snow_bunny

Dav010 wrote: »

The joy for a seller if multiple bidders pull out. Easy money.

Think about it. Multiple bidders wouldn't pull out of a house they were sure they could afford to bid on, wanted enough to place a deposit and committed to buying if they were successful. They may pull out after they've had an engineer in and there was an issue, no problems with that and they'd get their deposit back. In the off chance that some eejit ahead of them pulled out for a change of mind reason, feck them, they should have thought of that before they puffed up the price for everyone else. In reality, the next in line would be delighted they were now in the running as top bidder.

Also, the steps I've described are pretty much how property auctions work in Ireland!

snow_bunny

snow_bunny wrote: »

Yeah, no idea what you're on about sorry. If you don't intend to buy you shouldn't be allowed to bid. Simple.

Your assumptions are totally wrong.

And what if you pull out because the bidding is going above what you want to spend?
What if you find out something about the house that makes it a no go for you?
What if you find a house that suits your needs better?
Why should someone lose their deposit?

What if you're looking at a number of properties? How much money would you have to have to put bidding deposits down on all of them?

mcsean2163

Cyrus wrote: »

Right sherry Fitz agents are getting their mates to bid on property is that it?

I await the prime time investigation.

I hope you're not implying I said anything of the sort. The potential to rig the system is not the same as the system being rigged.

Ace2007

bubblypop wrote: »

And what if you pull out because the bidding is going above what you want to spend?
What if you find out something about the house that makes it a no go for you?
What if you find a house that suits your needs better?
Why should someone lose their deposit?

What if you're looking at a number of properties? How much money would you have to have to put bidding deposits down on all of them?

He's offering a solution to the current situation that so many are complaining about - biding on houses and getting a call to say another bid of 5k higher has come in, There is no way of knowing currently if that bid exists or not, could be whole host of people bidding with nothing to lose. If you had a financial penalty you would soon see the number of bids falling.

Even a system whereby you had to pay €1,000 to enter the biding process would see a lot of ghost bidders disappear.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

He's offering a solution to the current situation that so many are complaining about - biding on houses and getting a call to say another bid of 5k higher has come in, There is no way of knowing currently if that bid exists or not, could be whole host of people bidding with nothing to lose. If you had a financial penalty you would soon see the number of bids falling.

Even a system whereby you had to pay €1,000 to enter the biding process would see a lot of ghost bidders disappear.

And a lot of genuine ones I suspect.

Timing belt

I may have it wrong but it sounds like you don’t know what the value of the property is worth and are looking for assurances that the price is not a rip off. The house is either worth what you are bidding or you walk away. If you are unsure walk away. I know supply is limited at the moment but it won’t always be this bad and there will be other properties

Ace2007

Dav010 wrote: »

And a lot of genuine ones I suspect.

But it would take the heat out of the market and maybe let the house prices get back to what they are worth and not the inflated prices that are being achieved.

snow_bunny

bubblypop wrote: »

And what if you pull out because the bidding is going above what you want to spend?
What if you find out something about the house that makes it a no go for you?
What if you find a house that suits your needs better?
Why should someone lose their deposit?

What if you're looking at a number of properties? How much money would you have to have to put bidding deposits down on all of them?

If bidding goes above what you want to spend then you'll be outbid and won't be able to buy? Unless you're saying someone should be allowed bid something they've no intention of honouring?

Why should someone lose their deposit? Well the only way they'd lose their deposit in the scenario I described is if they either bid up above what they could afford or intended to pay, in which case; tough ****. They've needlessly puffed up the price for others.There should be a penalty for that.

If you’re looking at a number of properties and end up being the top bid on more than one then maybe there could be a provision for this situation, such as providing proof of sale agreed on another property to get your deposit back.

As for the cost of the deposit, how many properties do you think people bid on at the same time?! It would usually be 1-3. Even if it was 6 that's 30k, less than most deposits.

Again, if you can't afford or won't commit to buying for your bid, then you've no business being allowed to bid. Genuine bidders would have no issue with those rules.

snow_bunny

Dav010 wrote: »

And a lot of genuine ones I suspect.

How so?

Bass Reeves

snow_bunny wrote: »

Yeah, no idea what you're on about sorry. If you don't intend to buy you shouldn't be allowed to bid. Simple.

Your assumptions are totally wrong.

But you are assuming that people are bidding or auctioneer are puffing. There may be a myriad of reasons you leave the bidding process.

Of course I know nothing about the process, I have only bought a farm, another piece of land, two other houses, one at auction and and build a house and completely done up an old farm house. So ya You are right

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Good grief. It's not a cattle mart and most people in it are not experienced traders.

My point is, there's no transparency.

At the very least the bidders should have to give proof of identity to a government body in order to enter a bid.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see Joseph O'Shea bidding on hundreds of properties ranging in value from 100k to 10,000k and always being the underbidder or withdrawing a winning bid. A simple audit might show interesting results.

All trading skills are transferable. All skills at auction are exactly the same. If I got an auction I no longer get the heebie jeebies I did when I first started.
Do you really think an auctioneer would use the same bidder even if he was doing it. Loads of people use auctioneers to bid for them. On one house I bought I was the only bidder I had 46k on it. Seller wanted 50k or he keep it on the market should I have refused to deal.......today the house is worth 80-85k with a rent roll of over 7.5k.

As you say most people are inexperienced however the reality is supply is very low with 5-10 buyers for each property.

snow_bunny

snow_bunny wrote: »

Again, if you can't afford or won't commit to buying for your bid, then you've no business being allowed to bid. Genuine bidders would have no issue with those rules.

I would be a genuine bidder and I have a lot more then a deposit in cash ready to go, but I would not be happy putting down different deposits with different EAs, in order to bid.
Also, if I decide that I will no longer be bidding on a house, then I have the right to change my mind, for whatever reasons I see fit, without losing my money!!
A letter from a broker, bank manager or solicitor etc, staying that someone is in a position to buy, should be more then enough.

snow_bunny

bubblypop wrote: »

I would be a genuine bidder and I have a lot more then a deposit in cash ready to go, but I would not be happy putting down different deposits with different EAs, in order to bid.
Also, if I decide that I will no longer be bidding on a house, then I have the right to change my mind, for whatever reasons I see fit, without losing my money!!
A letter from a broker, bank manager or solicitor etc, staying that someone is in a position to buy, should be more then enough.

Right so, you won't mind if someone jumps in and adds 20k on top of your latest bid on a place you love, just to keep their options open. They're only luke warm about the place and threw in a bid while watching Coronation Street. The estate agent lets you know the new bid and gets you to up your bid by 25k because you really want the place. The other buyer has a proper think or goes sale agreed somewhere else in the meantime. The estate agent never tells you the other buyer pulled out so you're none the wiser. You go sale agreed. You've just paid 25k more for no reason. The estate agent then realises an all time high for the property location and this sets the price floor for all similar properties in the area. All of a sudden we're all looking at 25k extra to live in that area.

snow_bunny

snow_bunny wrote: »

Right so, you won't mind if someone jumps in and adds 20k on top of your latest bid on a place you love, just to keep their options open. They're only luke warm about the place and threw in a bid while watching Coronation Street. The estate agent lets you know the new bid and gets you to up your bid by 25k because you really want the place. The other buyer has a proper think or goes sale agreed somewhere else in the meantime. The estate agent never tells you the other buyer pulled out so you're none the wiser. You go sale agreed. You've just paid 25k more for no reason. The estate agent then realises an all time high for the property location and this sets the price floor for all similar properties in the area. All of a sudden we're all looking at 25k extra to live in that area.

The estate agent cannot get me to up my bid by 25K, unless that's an amount I was always willing to pay.
Find it hard to believe that someone who is lukewarm about a property would bid 20K, over the current bidding. Can't see it.
I'm guessing you haven't bought it sold too many houses.

Ace2007

bubblypop wrote: »

The estate agent cannot get me to up my bid by 25K, unless that's an amount I was always willing to pay.
Find it hard to believe that someone who is lukewarm about a property would bid 20K, over the current bidding. Can't see it.
I'm guessing you haven't bought it sold too many houses.

But there is literally nothing stopping it from happening and that's the whole point. I could ring up for a mate and throw in the offer even though i have no intentions of ever buying it - you seem to think there is nothing wrong with this?

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

But there is literally nothing stopping it from happening and that's the whole point. I could ring up for a mate and throw in the offer even though i have no intentions of ever buying it - you seem to think there is nothing wrong with this?

Because I doubt it happens, if it does it is very very rare.
And like I said, no EA is going to make me up my bid by 25K, unless I was always going to pay that much.