5 ms·

Not to diminish your point, but you’ve described the UK housing market where that’s exactly how it works.

by aidos 3y ago

argiopetech 3y ago
That's how it works de facto in the US as well. Agents don't show houses under contract, and a significant percentage of contracts fall through.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- donor20 3y ago
  They do take backup offers. We got our place that way. We didn’t want to beat the winning bid, but had a no contingency offer. We let them know if first fell through we’d still be interested at our price with a quick close. Someone missed some deadline and they were quick to call.
zik 3y ago
Coming from Australia the way London house sales work seems like such a complete disaster. It seems like you can make your buy contingent on selling your old house, which creates chains of buys and sells which fail the instant anyone pulls out. I can't imagine how anyone can operate in that environment.
- dboreham 3y ago
  Perhaps different today, but back when I lived in the auld country it was totally different in Scotland (still in the UK, I believe).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - xnorswap 3y ago
    As I suspect you know, Scotland has a distinct legal system from England & Wales, and large differences to England in laws around house buying & selling in particular.
    - another2another 3y ago
      There's still the 'offers over xxx,000' blind auction, but gazumping which is allowed in England (still I believe) is not in Scotland, and a good thing too.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  You can make your offer contingent on selling your old house (or on an inspection, or anything else you want). Sellers are also free to not accept such offers. Both of my house purchases were from submitting a no financing contingency offer with significant earnest money, and I think that helped me win both bids.
  - brianwawok 3y ago
    Yes, for sure. Even if you are coming in 10k or 20k under others, having a 0 contingent offer is so much more clean and more likely to get approved. My last offer I went even further and added a note "I know both the roof and HVAC are old and ruined, I will not ask for either to be fixed as part of closing" and I won the house despite not being the highest bid.
- mythhabit 3y ago
  That is quite normal in Denmark as well. Part of the reason is that the bank cannot approve of the deal, if you have not sold your old house. So either you sell your house and move into a rented apartment, or you commit to buy a house if you can get your old sold in some specified timeframe. Usually the sellers realtor advice the seller if the house is likely to sell or not at a given price.
cj 3y ago
Sounds like the US and UK housing markets, as well as startup M&A, suffer from similar problems. In a free market, you should be able to market what you’re selling until the moment it’s officially sold.
- jahewson 3y ago
  That’s not fair though because it takes a few weeks for a broker to close on a mortgage whereas a cash buyer can pay immediately.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    What part of that is not fair? If someone else has more ready access to funds, and a seller wishes to prioritize highly for that, they should be able to. It would seem to me to be unfair to a seller to say "you must wait an extra N weeks on all sales because some buyers will need that long to get funds together".
  - MrPatan 3y ago
    The world is easier to understand when you replace "fair" with "good for me and mine in the shortest of terms"
- ska 3y ago
  > In a free market, you should be able to market what you’re selling until the moment it’s officially sold. That's not what free market means. In a free market (which this is an okayish example of) buyers and sellers are free to set their own terms, rather than having them externally imposed. So you are free to try and negotiate a lack of exclusivity, it's just that likely nobody will take you up on it. SEC oversite and similar mechanisms, by comparison, is an external imposition on the market. Ironically, what you seem be suggesting (exclusivity terms "not allowed") could only be enforced by regulation, therefore making the market less free.
  - cj 3y ago
    I agree. Free market was a poor choice of words

Not to diminish your point, but you’ve described the UK housing market where that’s exactly how it works.

by aidos 3y ago

Not to diminish your point, but you’ve described the UK housing market where that’s exactly how it works.

That's how it works de facto in the US as well. Agents don't show houses under contract, and a significant percentage of contracts fall through.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
donor20 3y ago
They do take backup offers. We got our place that way. We didn’t want to beat the winning bid, but had a no contingency offer. We let them know if first fell through we’d still be interested at our price with a quick close. Someone missed some deadline and they were quick to call.

zik 3y ago

Coming from Australia the way London house sales work seems like such a complete disaster. It seems like you can make your buy contingent on selling your old house, which creates chains of buys and sells which fail the instant anyone pulls out. I can't imagine how anyone can operate in that environment.

dboreham 3y ago
Perhaps different today, but back when I lived in the auld country it was totally different in Scotland (still in the UK, I believe).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- xnorswap 3y ago
  As I suspect you know, Scotland has a distinct legal system from England & Wales, and large differences to England in laws around house buying & selling in particular.
  - another2another 3y ago
    There's still the 'offers over xxx,000' blind auction, but gazumping which is allowed in England (still I believe) is not in Scotland, and a good thing too.
sokoloff 3y ago
You can make your offer contingent on selling your old house (or on an inspection, or anything else you want). Sellers are also free to not accept such offers. Both of my house purchases were from submitting a no financing contingency offer with significant earnest money, and I think that helped me win both bids.
- brianwawok 3y ago
  Yes, for sure. Even if you are coming in 10k or 20k under others, having a 0 contingent offer is so much more clean and more likely to get approved. My last offer I went even further and added a note "I know both the roof and HVAC are old and ruined, I will not ask for either to be fixed as part of closing" and I won the house despite not being the highest bid.
mythhabit 3y ago
That is quite normal in Denmark as well. Part of the reason is that the bank cannot approve of the deal, if you have not sold your old house. So either you sell your house and move into a rented apartment, or you commit to buy a house if you can get your old sold in some specified timeframe. Usually the sellers realtor advice the seller if the house is likely to sell or not at a given price.

cj 3y ago

Sounds like the US and UK housing markets, as well as startup M&A, suffer from similar problems. In a free market, you should be able to market what you’re selling until the moment it’s officially sold.

jahewson 3y ago
That’s not fair though because it takes a few weeks for a broker to close on a mortgage whereas a cash buyer can pay immediately.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  What part of that is not fair? If someone else has more ready access to funds, and a seller wishes to prioritize highly for that, they should be able to. It would seem to me to be unfair to a seller to say "you must wait an extra N weeks on all sales because some buyers will need that long to get funds together".
- MrPatan 3y ago
  The world is easier to understand when you replace "fair" with "good for me and mine in the shortest of terms"
ska 3y ago
> In a free market, you should be able to market what you’re selling until the moment it’s officially sold. That's not what free market means. In a free market (which this is an okayish example of) buyers and sellers are free to set their own terms, rather than having them externally imposed. So you are free to try and negotiate a lack of exclusivity, it's just that likely nobody will take you up on it. SEC oversite and similar mechanisms, by comparison, is an external imposition on the market. Ironically, what you seem be suggesting (exclusivity terms "not allowed") could only be enforced by regulation, therefore making the market less free.
- cj 3y ago
  I agree. Free market was a poor choice of words