All Forum Posts by: Chris DeSisto

@Ronald Rohde

For sure, no reason not, honestly.  

@Ronald Rohde

The in-state requirement is "Buyer (Checkbox) Seller Checkbox) is a South Carolina real estate licensee"

That is what is on the state promulgated purchase and sales agreement. As far as other states, I looked at their P&S and didn't see anything specific (that I saw), some anyway, Texas does. Also, I even called NAR (in Chicago) and the local agencies in the state i was thinking of buying in and nobody had an answer. They all just pawned me off to different departments or agencies.. kind ridiculous if you ask me. So, what can I do but disclose that I am licensed? Even in NARs ethics stuff, 4-1 says you need to disclose but doesn't give any exact verbiage. This comes right off of their website.

"REALTORS® shall not acquire an interest in or buy or present offers from themselves, any member of their immediate families, their firms or any member thereof, or any entities in which they have any ownership interest, any real property without making their true position known to the owner or the owner’s agent or broker. In selling property they own, or in which they have any interest, REALTORS® shall reveal their ownership or interest in writing to the purchaser or the purchaser’s representative. (Amended 1/00) [listen]

• Standard of Practice 4-1

For the protection of all parties, the disclosures required by Article 4 shall be in writing and provided by REALTORS® prior to the signing of any contract. (Adopted 2/86)"

@Joe Funari

Ok, so just adding in the state to the first option should be clear enough. Not trying to get complicated, just need it in writing, and I can tell them verbally when I talk to them.

Yeah, I was just trying to make sure there isn't some hard fast rule or what needs to be said.

Curious if there is specific disclosure verbiage that you need to use when buying something in another state, for yourself? Do you just need to put something like this on top or bottom of the P&S agreement?

"Buyer (checkbox) Seller (Checkbox) is a licensed real estate agent contracting in their own interest." 

                                                     Or

"BUYER (checkbox) SELLER (Checkbox) IS THE PRINCIPLE IN THIS TRANSACTION AND IS A LICENSED REAL ESTATE AGENT. BUYER DOES NOT REPRESENT ANYONE IN THIS TRANSACTION BUT THEMSELVES."

Would either one be enough? Would I need to do more than this? I think either would work. I tried calling multiple agencies (NAR, local MLSs state agencies), they all just pawned me off to another department, nobody had an answer.

Thanks

@Jay Hinrichs 

Well if I doubt they make 100k that often. Maybe 20k to the seller and the wholesaler is making 15-20k? I bet most wholesalers average 10-15k, maybe less. I am someone that truly believes in taking responsibility for yourself. To many ways to find out information on any topic on the planet. We have access at all times. 

If a wholesaler offers 50k and turns and sells to a fix and flipper for 100k, wasn't there multiple wholesalers right behind him offering 90k to make a 10k fee? That seller isn't getting multiple people hitting them up? If the seller wants more, ask an agent, ask on FB, ask friends and family. Find someone willing to buy it for more then 50k. 

@James Wise

I was referring to the post from many others complaining about taking advantage of grandma. Honestly, the first part telling you that I don't really wholesale was the only part I was tagging you for... I just got off on a tangent about the other stuff, wasn't meant for you, just talking in generalities about the topic.

@James Wise

Not really looking to wholesale, I'd do it if something presented itself and it made sense. People talking about ripping grandma off for 100k and using it as an example is a little silly. Something like this (where a WS is making 100k on a 300k house) is probably extremely rare and happens like .000000001% of the time. 

Nobody should be ripping people off but this is an extrem example in my opinion. At what point is regulation in any industry to much? I mean you can't protect every person in the 10 trillion different scenarios. Regulation strangles movement of any kind. 

There is unlimited information on the internet, pretty much anyone can do a little bit of research and think to themselves, maybe I should ask another person... Being ignorant isn't excuse because your being a little lazy. 

There is less and less excuses to be completely ignorant on pretty much any subject. You can get the gist of things by taking 30 minutes of reading.

@Jay Hinrichs

Not really talking about the state or the city. NAR is a pretty powerful organization. You don't think they had anything to do with getting this pushed through? That's what I meant about wanting more money.

I don't disagree with the fact that people have taken advantage of others in some cases. Who condoned taking large amounts of money from an elderly lady or non English speaking people? There is nothing right about that, lol. This happens in every industry, someone is going to be taken advantage of, doesn't make it right. You just can't protect every person from every situation, every time. People need to think for themselves.

Were all those people that took advantage of those people that you've seen, wholesalers? Where they investors? Agents? My guess is everyone one of them had a part. 

To me this is NAR wanting more, now more people need to become agents (2 week course will now make them an expert and ethical....). Plus the brokers may get a cut of the wholesaling fee.

I don't wholesale but if the opportunity was there I guess I'd make the deal. I just think it's a power move from NAR.

@Eric Micheals

For the most part I'll agree to disagree.

ill agree a very small minority of wholesale deals are the problem. I am not one for to much government, they screw things up most of the time with wide blanket reforms that are not thought out. They are slow to fix things and over react to a very small amount cases. This really just comes down to NAR wanting a bigger piece of the pie, it's just disguised in "keeping the vulnerable people safe". Come...on... This about money, not saving the little people. It's always about the money. They don't like people profiting and not getting their share.