All Forum Posts by: Guy Gimenez

Sounds like your sourcing your "deals" from the MLS (retail market), which means you're paying retail most of the time. It's always hard to cash flow retail deals which is why most investors market heavily to locate motivated sellers. Profitable deals are found primarily off market through dedicated marketing or through relationships.

I would love to understand how to get into the club of these off-market deals. Where do I start and what makes them "off-market"? You are correct, I am only involved in searches on zillow, crexi, and the like. Would love your guidance here.

Off market sellers need to find you, not vice versa.

1. SEO

2. Pay Per Click

3. Social media ads

4. Relationships with other investors and/or bird-dogs (ie deal finders)

5. Driving for dollars

0 Votes

Assuming the law is righteous, just and will be legally applied is fools gold. I have two attorneys in the family and they know this all too well. I have a good friend who spent two years of her life in litigation as the plaintiff on a no-brainer legal case. Yes, she won, but the toll it took on her emotionally and financially was, in her own words, devastating and not worth it. Trial attorneys donate huge amounts to judge campaigns for a reason...and it's not so they can be ruled against. Look around and you'll see the difference between theory and reality.

0 Votes

Dallas, Texas

Ultimately, this will level the playing field. Consumers (buyers) can decide if they are willing to pay for a representative or go direct to the seller. I believe most consumers want what they want and will do whatever it takes to get it as long as it doesn't cost them more to do so. I also believe technology and A.I. will play a greater role in this industry, as it should. Time will tell, but I'm hopeful the proposed settlement will cause some creativity in the industry and will allow sellers to have greater control in the sale process while potentially saving a great deal of money.

2 Votes

Every one of my properties has exterior cameras on them and have for years. My vacant properties also have interior cameras. I'll be the first to know if someone is walking around my properties without permission. For my rentals, acceptance of these exterior cameras is part of the lease agreement. And I'm in Texas so I'm a little less concerned about squatters here.

0 Votes

Houston, Texas

Title company doesn't represent you...nor does their counsel. You need to find an attorney who handles foreclosures as it must be done properly. Don't step over a dollar to save a dime...seek legal counsel to handle the foreclosure as you're not yet versed in this process and one mistake or a wrongful foreclosure can get you sued.

0 Votes

San Antonio, Texas

Quote from @Victor Patel:

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

I have a few HOT TAKES on this recent NAR Settlement News

1. Buyer's agents won't wait long to get into written agreement with a Buyer. Right now, many agents don't sign any agreements until they sign an offer. With this new system, I won't wait long to sign an agreement and spell out what commissions are owed. Many Buyers will refuse to sign, but will quickly see that no one will want to work with them for free without an agreement in place. This is actually not a bad thing for Buyer's agents, as we will encounter less tire kickers.

2. Prices of listings will adjust. The MLS market always included both sides of the commission. So if the Seller is not offering that commission, then the price of the home offered should be less, since the buyer is now assuming this responsibility

3. Many agents will leave the business. Again, this is a good thing. For many agents it can be a sigh of relief, as we no longer have to compete with incompetent family members for business

4. The market will drive commissions. In a sellers market, anyone can sell a home. This is why I believe this issue started in the first place. Sellers got greedy and wanted more money in their pocket because they felt they could sell their home on their own just by putting it on the market. While some of this is true, this won't hold true when the market shifts. In a Buyer's market, sellers offer LARGER commissions to Buyers agents in hopes of getting an offer. To the sellers thinking they are going to make more money, maybe not.

5. Buyers who don't have representation will get screwed. If a buyer doesnt want to pay an agent and goes directly to the seller, their interests are not protected. In the short term we might not see any issues, but overtime, cases will arise when Buyers start getting screwed in shaky deals. Its like going to court without a lawyer. The lawyer could've likely gotten you a shorter sentence.

What are your thoughts?

I'm not convinced home prices will go down anytime soon. I believe this settlement will make things worse for home buyers. Many home buyers barely have enough money for a down payment and now they have to come up with additional funds for their buyer's agent? Sure the buyer can go directly to the listing agent but that agent will not represent the buyer for free. Even if he/she does so the savings is perhaps 3% of the sales price. On an average $400,000 home that amounts to $12,000 savings over a 30 year period. At an interest rate of 6% that amount to a monthly savings of around $72. Sure the buyer could pay a higher price and ask the seller to pay the buyer's agent 3%. If that is the case, has affordability really gone down? Has the buyer really saved any money? How is that different than it has been? Perhaps the government should let market forces dictate commissions. I have been a realtor for around 25 years. I have taken listings for 4%, 5%, 6% and even a $1500 flat fee. There was never a "standard" commission. I am glad to be on the tail end of my career. This new law will not work. Buyer's will get screwed even more.

I agree with much of what you say. And I'm all for free market principles but requiring a seller to pay another party to negotiate against the seller is the polar opposite of free market. The NAR settlement, if approved, is a big step toward a free market. Sellers have been getting screwed for decades. This will even the playing field a bit.

2 Votes

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Investor / broker here.

Funny how it's always the other party who is greedy, never the person in the mirror. Why is it greedy that a seller takes a risk and wants to reap the full rewards, but it's not greedy for a buyer to expect the seller to pay someone to negotiate against a seller?

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

Well for starters… because the buyer always lid both fees so…

Review a HUD and tell me who pays. The industry language has never worked for me...I look at things logically, not emotionally.

Logically speaking, only one side brings money to the table. The HUD is nonsense. The reality is the buyer pays a certain amount less based on certain things. The seller doesn't pay a penny. Unless they're under water that's a whole different thing, but it has to be pretty bad to pay at closing. Lol

I get it. You're scared for your future. It's OK man...just adapt or find a job that guarantees you a paycheck. The HUD is a legal document...but OK, you can claim it's bunk if you wish as I know it makes you feel comfortable. Using a specific marketing strategy, I'm able to sell about 40% of my flips directly to a buyer. My houses don't sell for less but there is considerably less drama in the transaction. I know brokers and NAR provide you this "the buyer pays the commission anyway" because this industry has refused to change for decades and any change brings little quotes as you mentioned above to help ease the pain. As a frequent seller, I know who pays the fees and it ain't the buyer. But again, stay that course if it makes you feel better.

I love watching the people who claim they’re dictate get all emotional. As the last guy said. The net transaction says it all. One guy brings money to the table one leaves with it. bUT The sELeR pAid tHaT pArT. It’s absurd.

Stick with your theory. But you better learn to "up" your game as you now have to prove value rather than just using little industry quips about it. The golden goose has been terminated and those with true value will win, those who only believe they add value will be looking for the next guaranteed check.

Lol this guy… the emotions pouring out are great. I never said I was a buyers agent. Some other guys on here are actually mad at me for saying the buyers agent is often worthless. I’m just a guy who can see the obvious. When 2 people come to the table one brings the money, the other leaves with it. By your theory next month all the home prices are going to “stay the same,” but the buyers are going I pay 3% more. We will see if that happens. What I expect is home prices will “go down 3%,” the buyer will pay the same exact amount. The HUD statement will adjust in the middle but the amount the buyer brings to the table and the amount the seller takes won’t change.

Real property has intrinsic value based on supply and demand. If there's anything I've learned in the last 24 years of investing is that that Buyers will not bring 2% to 3% to pay their agent. Will those buyers just hang up their home buying hat and continue renting (or staying in their entry level home) thereby foregoing their dream home? No, no they won't. They'll go direct to the listing agent just as they often do with new build properties. I have proven this "theory" over and over again. Values do not decrease based on whether a buyer broker is involved. All NAR did was remove the free market restriction and I'm all for it.

0 Votes

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Investor / broker here.

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

Well for starters… because the buyer always lid both fees so…

Review a HUD and tell me who pays. The industry language has never worked for me...I look at things logically, not emotionally.

Forget the HUD, just look at the net transaction. The buyer pays both, and the buyer's agent has a vested interest in the deal closing at arguably the highest mark. Which in theory means the buyer pays both sides at the worst metric to them.

The HUD shows the net. You guys kills me with the "the HUD" is useless talk. There's clearly a lot of fear amongst buyer agents now the the tide has turned and they have to prove themselves instead of forcing a seller to pay a broker a fee, regardless of a buyer brokers competency. Wonder if you'd think the HUD was useless if your commission wasn't shown on it?

My commission? I'm an investor, probably more so than 99% of this board, and if you had a clue you'd see I'm actually more anti-agent then the next guy.

I never said HUD is useless, I said just look at how the the transaction plays out. Buyers pays net closing costs(including down payment), lender distributes cash, seller receives cash less mortgage debt and agent's commissions. Do you not agree?

So in totality, the buyer really pays for both sides once we factor the lender's cash(/mortgage) is subsidizing the buyer.

Versus in the new era, where I think the buyer pays similar to what they are paying, the buyer's agent takes less, and the seller ends up keeping more. The seller agent remains unch, but now are arguably one of the most vital pieces in how transactions work. Who you hire as a sellers agent probably has never been more important. Fake promises, communication, etc., are going to be heavily scrutinized.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding who pays but we CAN agree that sellers will net more because we are no longer forced to include a commission amount in the MLS. Now a buyer broker will be less likely to lowball offers because the "concessions" offered, if any, will surely include any amounts a buyer broker will receive.

0 Votes

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Investor / broker here.

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

Well for starters… because the buyer always lid both fees so…

Review a HUD and tell me who pays. The industry language has never worked for me...I look at things logically, not emotionally.

1 Vote

Quote from @V.G Jason:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Investor / broker here.

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

Well for starters… because the buyer always lid both fees so…

Review a HUD and tell me who pays. The industry language has never worked for me...I look at things logically, not emotionally.

0 Votes

All Forum Posts by: Guy Gimenez

Guy Gimenez has started 48 posts and replied 1982 times.

Post: Where Are The Deals!?

Post: Seller threatening to break contract to put back on market (for more $)

Post: NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES

Post: Texas Landlords against Squatters Rights

Post: Owner Finance Foreclosure

Post: NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES

Post: NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES

Post: NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES

Post: NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES

Post: NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES