All Forum Posts by: Karin Crompton

Welcome, @Kate Miller ! Ditto what Des Shei said regarding the Fairfield meet-up, and you might want to check out CTREIA as well (you can Google it and find their website).

All I would add is to make sure your numbers are really solid regarding that property. Every once in awhile I see a decent deal on HomePath, but for the most part I've found them to be overpriced, at least in CT. Of course, I don't know whether you plan to flip it, rent it, or move in, and that makes a difference as well. Best of luck!

Thanks, @Michael Noto. Interesting, the wall color seemed a pale yellow to me. Regardless, I think it works!

Congrats, @Michael Noto ! What did you do with the front steps? Is that a new set or were they painted? It's hard to tell from a distance what condition they were in originally. Also, what's your wall color? I like it.

Kudos!

Welcome to BP, @Tony Spinnato ! Sounds like you're on the right course.

P.S. Your name sounds awfully familiar - do you have a relative who's a hypnotist-comedian in the Eastern CT area?

Hi @Kate Stallmann it's an intriguing idea. We owned a single-family vacation rental in North Conway for 5 years (just sold it in August). The 25% vacancy seems a bit optimistic, though with an aggressive marketing campaign you might be able to do it. We were admittedly not very aggressive, but we did have good luck advertising on HomeAway. We found that April and May were almost completely vacant each year (mud season), then things picked up again the 3rd or 4th week of June when school let out. September was mediocre after Labor Day weekend, picked up again in about the 3rd week for leaf-peeping (mostly weekends), and then late October until about mid December were very slow. We did book a 3- or 4-day Thanksgiving weekend at a good holiday rate. Winters and summers did really well, though winters are mostly weekends with some weekday visits. School vacation weeks typically did very well, as did Memorial Day weekend and Labor Day weekend.

Overall, we found it a positive experience and would do it again. I'm not sure how condo rentals compare to single families, but you can get a sense of it by looking at the calendars on sites like HomeAway, VRBO or airBnB.

Good luck!

@Paul Choate , he leads the blog off with his intention:

In other words, he starts right off saying he doesn't intend to pay the price he told the seller he would pay. The seller is in for Round 2 of negotiations, a dirty round. There are those of us who consider a contract price as fixed - dependent upon any legitimate, *major* issues that arise in an inspection - and those who consider the contract price a moving target. I like to think, for most of us, our word is our bond. Not so for the blogger.

Then he goes on:

So here, he reiterates that he never had any intention of paying the agreed-upon price, that his real intention is to lock up a property and THEN ask for a huge reduction, and hits us with his brilliant rationale: he's got them by the you-know-whats.

He then goes on to detail how he further squeezes the seller, including having two contractors bid every single item (overkill), at which point he tells the seller that, should they tell him to shove off, they're screwed because they're going to have to disclose all bids and reports to every subsequent potential buyer (not true; they only need to disclose a major issue or what is known as a material fact, NOT hand over some schmo's summary opinion).

And after some more enlightening "info," he ends with this: "At this point they are probably so sick of negotiating with you that they would pay you just to leave them alone – which you will, just right after they give you that big ol’ credit request!"

Ignoring the innuendo of blackmail or extortion for a moment (I'll leave you alone after you give me that price reduction), I like to think that, for most of us, negotiating is not about wearing someone down until they're sick of you.

Hope that helps. A lot of us feel he crosses the line and keeps on going.

@Paul Choate  - that's not the point. An inspection clause and legitimate unearthing of problems is fair game. I think some people here are missing the point. It's perfectly fine to renegotiate if new info arises or yes, if the seller was trying to hide something. This guy is talking about making false offers and entering into contracts he has no intention of following through on. Further, just because plenty of sellers also play their own sleazeball games doesn't justify a buyer partaking in the same.

And @Joel Owens , I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that, "Everyone has a right with their capital to invest and negotiate how they see fit." There is a certain amount of gamesmanship inherent in any negotiation, but there is also illegal and unethical behavior.

I'm also not sure of the intent of this comment: "After reading the blog post that is child's play compared to what some try to pull out there. There is the perfect world and then there is reality of how properties are sold and bought everyday."

Does this mean that we sit by and don't speak out against it? I'm not a wide-eyed, naive little doe, but I do have a really hard time keeping my mouth shut about sleaze. To keep silent is to condone, no?

@darren h, the premeditation is exactly the issue. As is the sleaze and half-truths (which I'm not even sure are half true here). 

Also, to one of your last comments: it IS serious to me, bruh. That's exactly why crap tactics like this tick me off.

It's a straight-up scummy tactic, no gray area at all. I'd go so far as to say it's borderline illegal - ever hear of a bait and switch? - though I imagine you'd have a heckuva time proving intent. The intent is clear in that blog, however ... he makes a false offer to a homeowner (baits them) and then pretends to discover problems later in order to "negotiate" (the switch). This offends my sensibilities and sullies the reputation of all investors.

Even if he's "only" doing it to a corporation, i.e. a bank, it's an ugly tactic. If he's doing it to a desperate homeowner, shame on him. I can't express enough disgust. Discovering a real, previously unknown issue is one thing (I will do well and septic tests and rarely anything more). Deceit is another.

Having said that, I agree with other posters that Brandon & Co. would be hard-pressed to start yanking all blogs that offend or to play Ethics Police, which is quite subjective. However, if a BP blogger consistently crosses the line, they might want to step in. After all, the blog has BP's company name on it and many readers will assume the blogger's point of view and the advice he/she hands out is endorsed by BP.

This is definitely an interesting question, and I would lean toward the notion that it's simply more convenient to you if you get your license to also pay for access to the MLS. It's another fee, sure, but it's not much in the overall scope of things. And for every house that you drive by and want to get into, I'm guessing there are 50 others that popped up on the MLS that you may not have even been aware of.

@Shantul Nigam there is no provision in CT that bars an agent from representing both the buyer and the seller in a transaction (this is referred to as dual agency). I see it all the time. However, the agent must inform buyer and seller that this is happening - actually, agent needs to inform prior to it actually occurring - and each side must sign paperwork to demonstrate that the agent has informed them that he/she is representing both sides.