On Friday, August 29, 2014 9:02:16 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:


You do realize that the company offering the gift certificates is not

even a realty company, don't you?



I believe they are licensed brokers, perhaps not actively engaged in the

real estate game other than their "scam".



What makes you think they are licensed? I didn't see anything on the website
that says they are. If they are, I would think that would be a big thing they
would mention to add credibility. Seems like that would be a real pain to
do across the
whole country. Also, if they are brokers and need to be licensed as such,
then what about the folks they are hiring, like Micky's friend? Micky's
friend, who's doing the selling isn't licensed. I doubt
they are licensed, what I see is a broker referral service. How that is
treated would probably vary among different state regulators and laws.





it would be the "scamming" company that would come after you, and they very

well may. To collect a fee, and to keep others in line.


I agree that if you agreed to the deal, received the givt certificates,
then didn't use one of their referal brokers, then the company has a
legitimate claim against you. But it's not for some astronomical
amount. What their damages would be is whatever referal fee they would
have gotten from one of the realtors for the referral. No reason to
believe that's much. I would guess it might be $500, $1000 tops.
What do you think any realty firm would pay for a referal?
So, yes, they could sue you for that, whether they would when you're
located somewhere across the country, I tend to doubt that.

The biggest flaws I see in all this a

1 - No mention of what exactly the gift certificates are. That no
clear examples are even given is a red flag. They could turn out to
be something with little value to you. Also those certificates are not
handed out upfront, apparently you get some each year for four or five
years.

2 - You don't know what realty firms they would have participating say
5 years from, when you do want to sell your house. If I knew that a
couple of the respected local firms would be the choice, then I would
consider the deal. That you don't know what the situation will be years
down the road is a big problem.








nop, the "scamming company" would come after you.


I agree it's actually the company that would have the case, for their
referal fee. I doubt they are going to come after you in court, when
they don't even have a presence in your state. And if they did, they
don't have some $10K lawsuit, it's probably not worth pursuing.







There are a lot of reasons to not do this.



no kidding!



I just don't see living in fear

that they are going to lean your house from day one being one of them. As

soon as folks found out that a lien was being placed on their property,

all

hell would rain down on this company.



If they don't record the contract against your house, they are fools.

Exactly WHEN they get hell rained down on them remains to be seen.

It's not even clear to me that they have anything that could be recorded
here in NJ. Why don't you just go ask them the question and then you'll
know.

Also, if you're worried about lawsuits so much, you might want to stop
throwing around the term "scamming company". So far, I see reasons why
I wouldn't participate. I've listed them. But nothing that I've seen so
far rises anywhere near the level of a scam.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:30:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


I agree that if you agreed to the deal, received the givt certificates,
then didn't use one of their referal brokers, then the company has a
legitimate claim against you. But it's not for some astronomical
amount. What their damages would be is whatever referal fee they would
have gotten from one of the realtors for the referral. No reason to
believe that's much. I would guess it might be $500, $1000 tops.

Well, it would depend on what it said in the contract. There could be
liquidated damages, damages that the courut need not calculate because
they are specified in the contract. I suppose there is a limit to how
high those can be, in the court's opinion, based on the rules of state
law and precedent, but maybe they only do business in state's where that
is not a problem.

What do you think any realty firm would pay for a referal?
So, yes, they could sue you for that, whether they would when you're
located somewhere across the country, I tend to doubt that.

The biggest flaws I see in all this a

1 - No mention of what exactly the gift certificates are. That no
clear examples are even given is a red flag. They could turn out to

I'm pretty sure the salesman and customer would know before any papers
were signed. Especially if, as in my other post, they're not actually
going to give the gift cards. Then they can offer the best companies'
cards.

be something with little value to you. Also those certificates are not
handed out upfront, apparently you get some each year for four or five
years.

One card each year for 5 years, unless you're in the lowest price home
that's eligible then it's 100 a year for 3 years.

2 - You don't know what realty firms they would have participating say
5 years from, when you do want to sell your house. If I knew that a
couple of the respected local firms would be the choice, then I would
consider the deal. That you don't know what the situation will be years
down the road is a big problem.

But it's true, like in the hamburger skit. "I'll give you so much money
now for a hamburger tomorrow", or how does that saying go? Whatever it
is, a lot of people will bite.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, August 29, 2014 9:02:16 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:


You do realize that the company offering the gift certificates is not

even a realty company, don't you?



I believe they are licensed brokers, perhaps not actively engaged in the

real estate game other than their "scam".



What makes you think they are licensed? I didn't see anything on the
website
that says they are.

I did. It said they were licenced in a bunch of states and adding more.


It's not even clear to me that they have anything that could be recorded
here in NJ.

they could easily create a contract, tied to the land, that is recordable
against the land.

Why don't you just go ask them the question and then you'll
know.

no, you ask. I already know how it can be done and recorded.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Friday, August 29, 2014 9:02:16 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:



I agree that if you agreed to the deal, received the givt certificates,
then didn't use one of their referal brokers, then the company has a
legitimate claim against you. But it's not for some astronomical
amount. What their damages would be is whatever referal fee they would
have gotten from one of the realtors for the referral. No reason to
believe that's much.

I bet they are writing their contract so they get the commission, and then
they will share it. So, arguably, their damages are 6% of the sales price.
I am not sure that would hold up, given that they need to share the
commission, but that must be the approach they are taking. Maybe they are
adding a percent or two on the top, or maybe they will take a percent from
the real brokers. That could be a few thou per house.


The biggest flaws I see in all this a

1 - No mention of what exactly the gift certificates are. That no
clear examples are even given is a red flag. They could turn out to
be something with little value to you. Also those certificates are not
handed out upfront, apparently you get some each year for four or five
years.

yep. Who needs a white elephant?


2 - You don't know what realty firms they would have participating say
5 years from, when you do want to sell your house. If I knew that a
couple of the respected local firms would be the choice, then I would
consider the deal. That you don't know what the situation will be years
down the road is a big problem.

yep. or what commissions might be with or without this "arrangement".



nop, the "scamming company" would come after you.


I agree it's actually the company that would have the case, for their
referal fee. I doubt they are going to come after you in court, when
they don't even have a presence in your state. And if they did, they
don't have some $10K lawsuit, it's probably not worth pursuing.

if they get big and turn into a paper mill, they could persue smaller cases
efficiently. And maybe they will gum up the works on the sale of a house so
it will be settled through escrow "willingly" by the seller.

On Friday, August 29, 2014 11:14:51 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:30:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:





I agree that if you agreed to the deal, received the givt certificates,

then didn't use one of their referal brokers, then the company has a

legitimate claim against you. But it's not for some astronomical

amount. What their damages would be is whatever referal fee they would

have gotten from one of the realtors for the referral. No reason to

believe that's much. I would guess it might be $500, $1000 tops.



Well, it would depend on what it said in the contract. There could be

liquidated damages, damages that the courut need not calculate because

they are specified in the contract. I suppose there is a limit to how

high those can be, in the court's opinion, based on the rules of state

law and precedent, but maybe they only do business in state's where that

is not a problem.



Yes, I agree, it could provide for liquidated damages.



What do you think any realty firm would pay for a referal?

So, yes, they could sue you for that, whether they would when you're

located somewhere across the country, I tend to doubt that.



The biggest flaws I see in all this a



1 - No mention of what exactly the gift certificates are. That no

clear examples are even given is a red flag. They could turn out to



I'm pretty sure the salesman and customer would know before any papers

were signed. Especially if, as in my other post, they're not actually

going to give the gift cards. Then they can offer the best companies'

cards.



My point is that if these are great, really useful gift certificates,
I find it odd that in all their sales puffery on the website they don't
say or give examples of what they actually are.





be something with little value to you. Also those certificates are not

handed out upfront, apparently you get some each year for four or five

years.



One card each year for 5 years, unless you're in the lowest price home

that's eligible then it's 100 a year for 3 years.



2 - You don't know what realty firms they would have participating say

5 years from, when you do want to sell your house. If I knew that a

couple of the respected local firms would be the choice, then I would

consider the deal. That you don't know what the situation will be years

down the road is a big problem.



But it's true, like in the hamburger skit. "I'll give you so much money

now for a hamburger tomorrow", or how does that saying go? Whatever it

is, a lot of people will bite.

IDK, it would be interesting to see how many people sign up. If I knew
what exactly the cards were, for example that I was getting VISA gift
cards, and I could pick the realty firm today so I know who I'm going
to wind up with, I would seriously consider the deal and probably do it.

If it's I get some gift cards, TBD in the future, I get to pick from whatever
realty firms they have someday in the future, which might be just
one that I don't want, then forget it.

From a business model, something also doesn't smell right. This is a
business that sucks up capital. The company apparently has to shell out
dollars for all those gift certificates upfront. And apparently they
collect a referal fee only when the house is sold, which could be 5,
15 or 50 years later. What kind of business model is that? That's why
I'll bet the gift certificates aren't something like a VISA, but something
they are getting deeply discounted and likely of questionable value to me.
I guess it's also possible that the realty firms involved are helping
pay the cost of the certificates, but I think that would be a hard sell.

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 1:07:50 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message

...

On Friday, August 29, 2014 9:02:16 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:







I agree that if you agreed to the deal, received the givt certificates,

then didn't use one of their referal brokers, then the company has a

legitimate claim against you. But it's not for some astronomical

amount. What their damages would be is whatever referal fee they would

have gotten from one of the realtors for the referral. No reason to

believe that's much.



I bet they are writing their contract so they get the commission, and then

they will share it. So, arguably, their damages are 6% of the sales price.

Ridiculous. My local Century 21 is going to agree to that? They say
I get to pick the local company and they list major names like Centrury 21,
Coldwell banker. Typical sale, my realty firm gets 3%. And that is for
all the work they do in completing the sale. Some referal company has
no case for 6%, 3%. At most they have a case for a tiny piece of that,
ie whatever their referal fee that they get from realtors actually is.
They aren't selling my house, Century 21 is.




I am not sure that would hold up, given that they need to share the

commission, but that must be the approach they are taking.

Well, duh! Not sure that it wouldn't hold up? Of course it wouldn't
hold up. Their damages are what their referal fee would have been,
not the commission someone else would have earned and kept.




Maybe they are

adding a percent or two on the top, or maybe they will take a percent from

the real brokers. That could be a few thou per house.


In the question and answers on the website, it specifically says they are
not adding anything on top of the normal real estate commission.







The biggest flaws I see in all this a



1 - No mention of what exactly the gift certificates are. That no

clear examples are even given is a red flag. They could turn out to

be something with little value to you. Also those certificates are not

handed out upfront, apparently you get some each year for four or five

years.



yep. Who needs a white elephant?



Actually, I take that back. I see on the website where they do show
examples of great gift certificates, eg VISA, Macys, Target, Walmart,
Amazon, etc. If that is what you really get, those are fine by me.







2 - You don't know what realty firms they would have participating say

5 years from, when you do want to sell your house. If I knew that a

couple of the respected local firms would be the choice, then I would

consider the deal. That you don't know what the situation will be years

down the road is a big problem.



yep. or what commissions might be with or without this "arrangement".


They address that in the Q/A, standard commission










nop, the "scamming company" would come after you.





I agree it's actually the company that would have the case, for their

referal fee. I doubt they are going to come after you in court, when

they don't even have a presence in your state. And if they did, they

don't have some $10K lawsuit, it's probably not worth pursuing.



if they get big and turn into a paper mill, they could persue smaller cases

efficiently. And maybe they will gum up the works on the sale of a house so

it will be settled through escrow "willingly" by the seller.

Yeah, with a vivid imagination you can come up with all kinds of
nightmare scenarios.

"micky" wrote in message
...
A friend who has been looking hs been offered a job. His role is to
gve out gift cards, that start at 300l doolars but also go higher if
people have a more expansive hom. For every card he hands out antd
hey sign for , he gets 30 dollars. By signing, the car reciipient has
to agree that if he ever sells his hous someone from the group that
gives out the cards will get the listing, and he commission when the
house is sold The commission is usally 7%, though it may be split
bewtween buyer's and seller's agents, and the seller may have agreed o
pay less comission if he could arrange it.

Buy back to my friend. Have you ever heard of a plan like this before.
Is it a fraud? Legal? Will it be too hard to get people to sign?

The company is out $330 for the average house and won't get it back
until the owner decides to sell and succeeds in selling, which could be
next year or in 30 years. plus I thnk they have to monitor all these
poiple to make sure they don't hire another agen. That shouldn't be
hard, Just google every address once a month to see if it's listed for
sale.

Here is their patent application 20140188660.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND+commission

It looks like they are struggling in the patent office: this was originally
filed in 2006, and they have had to file a couple continuations. That is a
long time, even considering the slow pace of the patent office.

It does say the contract may be recorded.

It does say they will get a cooperating brokers fee of 1% or 2%. Not a
paltry "referral fee" as suggest by others.

"A further qualification in accordance with an aspect of the present
invention is to engage with real estate brokers who commit in advance to a
preset sharing of commission with the party who secured the commitment of
the future listing by the homeowner. For instance such a qualification may
be that the party will be paid a percentage of each sell-side commission
ranging from 1.5%-1.8% of each home's value."

"In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the written
agreement with Cooperating Brokers may include entitlement to a second
referral fee from the Cooperating Broker to whom the party provided the
homeowner for a listing if the referred property seller uses a Cooperating
Broker for the concurrent purchase of a new home. "

It does say they may be paid through escrow.

It does say "Failure to cooperate will generate the filing of Lis Pendens
prior to sale."

It also says they may use this as a hook to get referral fees from other
related businesses:

"In addition, as the party will likely be the first in the country (other
than the homeowners) to know when the homeowners are about to sell, the
party will have many opportunities to reap additional rewards through repeat
business and additional referral fees from various vendors for services such
as: movers, title insurance, homeowners insurance, lawn care,
telecommunications services, refuse removal, storage space, home repair,
energy and more. "

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:02:29 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:



Here is their patent application 20140188660.



http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND+commission




Hat's off to you for finding that. Who would ever think they would try to
pattent this thing. The patent does give a much better understanding of
how the whole thing works.




It looks like they are struggling in the patent office: this was originally

filed in 2006, and they have had to file a couple continuations. That is a

long time, even considering the slow pace of the patent office.



If they can patent this, it will be remarkable.




It does say the contract may be recorded.



Yes, I saw that too. But they only say that is an option and they also
don't refer to it again in the various descriptions of the process flow.
We don't know what the actual contract they are using says, because you
can't see it. Which for me is another red flag. The contract should be
on the website.




It does say they will get a cooperating brokers fee of 1% or 2%. Not a

paltry "referral fee" as suggest by others.


They can say anything they want. But I'll bet they aren't collecting it.
The realty firm is collecting 3% typically, which they acknowledge in the
patent application. I don't see many realty firms giving up 1/3 of their
commission. Also, buried in there, they seem to be saying that it actually
costs the realty firm nothing, because it comes out of the individual agents
share. That would be something. Right now the firm collects 3%, the agent
is getting maybe 1/2 of that, 1.5% and the company seems to think that the
agent should hand over 1 to 2%? Does not compute in my world. I'd bet
that what they are actually collecting on referals is a lot less.

They also say that the value of the gift cards should be less than 1%
of the property value. That also doesn't compute with what they have
on the website. For example, on the web they say that for a $300 - 499K
house, you get $1000. That's 2 to 3.3%. Also there are curious
discontinuitues, ie if the house is $500K - 999K, you get $2,000.
What's up with that? I would think that would make all kinds of
trouble, people arguing over whether the house is really worth 499 or 502,
etc.




"A further qualification in accordance with an aspect of the present

invention is to engage with real estate brokers who commit in advance to a

preset sharing of commission with the party who secured the commitment of

the future listing by the homeowner. For instance such a qualification may

be that the party will be paid a percentage of each sell-side commission

ranging from 1.5%-1.8% of each home's value."



"In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the written

agreement with Cooperating Brokers may include entitlement to a second

referral fee from the Cooperating Broker to whom the party provided the

homeowner for a listing if the referred property seller uses a Cooperating

Broker for the concurrent purchase of a new home. "


That's mostly a nit, not many home buyers are going to be using the
same broker to sell their current home and buy a new one, but it's not
unreasonable.





It does say they may be paid through escrow.



It does say "Failure to cooperate will generate the filing of Lis Pendens

prior to sale."


Yes they can do that, to collect the referral fee they are due. My
main point was there were some folks in this thread suggesting that
it was a "scam", they were never going to give you the gift certificates
and that they were still going to come pursue you in court.






It also says they may use this as a hook to get referral fees from other

related businesses:



"In addition, as the party will likely be the first in the country (other

than the homeowners) to know when the homeowners are about to sell, the

party will have many opportunities to reap additional rewards through repeat

business and additional referral fees from various vendors for services such

as: movers, title insurance, homeowners insurance, lawn care,

telecommunications services, refuse removal, storage space, home repair,

energy and more. "

Yes, that's a new angle no one here thought of. Not unreasonable though.

I would hope that there would be agreement that while people may have
various issues with the whole concept, from all that is evident at this
point, it is not a "scam".

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:02:29 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:



Here is their patent application 20140188660.



http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND+commission




Hat's off to you for finding that. Who would ever think they would try to
pattent this thing. The patent does give a much better understanding of
how the whole thing works.



Thanks.



It looks like they are struggling in the patent office: this was
originally

filed in 2006, and they have had to file a couple continuations. That is
a

long time, even considering the slow pace of the patent office.



If they can patent this, it will be remarkable.

I would love to read the file history.





It does say the contract may be recorded.



Yes, I saw that too. But they only say that is an option and they also
don't refer to it again in the various descriptions of the process flow.

patents are always written with lots of "may" and "if desired". They want
as broad coverage as possible. Anybody doing this and NOT recording the
contract or an abstract of contract would be a fool.

We don't know what the actual contract they are using says, because you
can't see it. Which for me is another red flag. The contract should be
on the website.

I am not sure it is a "red flag" to me, but I woud sure want to read the
contract and its fine print very early in the process, not AFTER they have
all my information, have tried to evaluate my house, etc. etc. But if I
were them, I would play these cards close to my vest. Hmm, maybe that IS a
"red flag"!




It does say they will get a cooperating brokers fee of 1% or 2%. Not a

paltry "referral fee" as suggest by others.


They can say anything they want. But I'll bet they aren't collecting it.
The realty firm is collecting 3% typically, which they acknowledge in the
patent application. I don't see many realty firms giving up 1/3 of their
commission. Also, buried in there, they seem to be saying that it
actually
costs the realty firm nothing, because it comes out of the individual
agents
share. That would be something. Right now the firm collects 3%, the
agent
is getting maybe 1/2 of that, 1.5% and the company seems to think that the
agent should hand over 1 to 2%? Does not compute in my world. I'd bet
that what they are actually collecting on referals is a lot less.

If their contract has 1% built in, there will be major issues. And telling a
broker that it is all coming from his agent's cut means agents will find
other properties to work on.

One thing to note is that commissions are negotiable. There is a lot less
room for a home owner to negotiate commissions downward when there is
already a cooperating broker commission in place.



They also say that the value of the gift cards should be less than 1%
of the property value. That also doesn't compute with what they have
on the website. For example, on the web they say that for a $300 - 499K
house, you get $1000. That's 2 to 3.3%.

Have a bit more coffee. that is 0.33% to 0.2%




Also there are curious
discontinuitues, ie if the house is $500K - 999K, you get $2,000.
What's up with that? I would think that would make all kinds of
trouble, people arguing over whether the house is really worth 499 or 502,
etc.

not only discontinuites, but very wide bands. My $999k house gets me the
same gift cards as a $500k house? No way!





"A further qualification in accordance with an aspect of the present

invention is to engage with real estate brokers who commit in advance to
a

preset sharing of commission with the party who secured the commitment of

the future listing by the homeowner. For instance such a qualification
may

be that the party will be paid a percentage of each sell-side commission

ranging from 1.5%-1.8% of each home's value."



"In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the written

agreement with Cooperating Brokers may include entitlement to a second

referral fee from the Cooperating Broker to whom the party provided the

homeowner for a listing if the referred property seller uses a
Cooperating

Broker for the concurrent purchase of a new home. "


That's mostly a nit, not many home buyers are going to be using the
same broker to sell their current home and buy a new one, but it's not
unreasonable.

they would be fools not to write this in.






It does say they may be paid through escrow.



It does say "Failure to cooperate will generate the filing of Lis Pendens

prior to sale."


Yes they can do that, to collect the referral fee they are due. My
main point was there were some folks in this thread suggesting that
it was a "scam", they were never going to give you the gift certificates
and that they were still going to come pursue you in court.



I always assumed they would give the gift cards. They have a sweet deal if
they can pull it off, so why blow it by not providing the gift cards (which
they receive at a discount, most likely).





It also says they may use this as a hook to get referral fees from other

related businesses:



"In addition, as the party will likely be the first in the country (other

than the homeowners) to know when the homeowners are about to sell, the

party will have many opportunities to reap additional rewards through
repeat

business and additional referral fees from various vendors for services
such

as: movers, title insurance, homeowners insurance, lawn care,

telecommunications services, refuse removal, storage space, home repair,

energy and more. "

Yes, that's a new angle no one here thought of. Not unreasonable though.

I thought that was smart, too. And the homeowner is not locked in
beforehand.


I would hope that there would be agreement that while people may have
various issues with the whole concept, from all that is evident at this
point, it is not a "scam".

I probably used "scam" in the wrong sense. It seems like such a ridiculous
thing for a homeowner to sign up for, particularly YEARS in advance. But
outright fraud is unlikely.

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 11:53:34 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:

It does say the contract may be recorded.



Yes, I saw that too. But they only say that is an option and they also

don't refer to it again in the various descriptions of the process flow.



patents are always written with lots of "may" and "if desired". They want

as broad coverage as possible. Anybody doing this and NOT recording the

contract or an abstract of contract would be a fool.


I don't know that they would necessarily be fools. They outlined an
extensive system of how
to monitor to make sure people are complying. If they have experience
of substantial compliance without recording
it, they could choose not to. And they also know that if they
go around putting liens on peoples homes from day one, that is likely to
quickly spread around, people are going to be ****ed off, not refer them
to friends, etc. It's also curios that if it's an essential part
of the process, they only devote one sentence to the *possibility*,
while devoting a lot to all the other steps. They are just learning
how this will all work themselves. If compliance is a problem,
they certainly could do the lien thing.



We don't know what the actual contract they are using says, because you

can't see it. Which for me is another red flag. The contract should be

on the website.



I am not sure it is a "red flag" to me, but I woud sure want to read the

contract and its fine print very early in the process, not AFTER they have

all my information, have tried to evaluate my house, etc. etc. But if I

were them, I would play these cards close to my vest. Hmm, maybe that IS a

"red flag"!









It does say they will get a cooperating brokers fee of 1% or 2%. Not a



paltry "referral fee" as suggest by others.





They can say anything they want. But I'll bet they aren't collecting it.

The realty firm is collecting 3% typically, which they acknowledge in the

patent application. I don't see many realty firms giving up 1/3 of their

commission. Also, buried in there, they seem to be saying that it

actually

costs the realty firm nothing, because it comes out of the individual

agents

share. That would be something. Right now the firm collects 3%, the

agent

is getting maybe 1/2 of that, 1.5% and the company seems to think that the

agent should hand over 1 to 2%? Does not compute in my world. I'd bet

that what they are actually collecting on referals is a lot less.



If their contract has 1% built in, there will be major issues. And telling a

broker that it is all coming from his agent's cut means agents will find

other properties to work on.



+1

Another question is where is all the money for this coming from? This
seems to me the worst business model. It's like a business where you're
rapidly escalating inventory, piling it ever highr, while sales are
years in the future. Reading that patent I thought I might see a
section where they talk about bundling the pending referals, then
using them for financial collateral or trading them. Can we patent
that?



One thing to note is that commissions are negotiable. There is a lot less

room for a home owner to negotiate commissions downward when there is

already a cooperating broker commission in place.



Yes, I agree with all that. But around here, it would be a lot easier
for a homeowner to get $1000 in gift certificates than to get a broker
to cut the commission. Funny thing that. The broker has to give up
even more when you have the middleman in the equation.







They also say that the value of the gift cards should be less than 1%

of the property value. That also doesn't compute with what they have

on the website. For example, on the web they say that for a $300 - 499K

house, you get $1000. That's 2 to 3.3%.



Have a bit more coffee. that is 0.33% to 0.2%



You're right, my bad!










Also there are curious

discontinuitues, ie if the house is $500K - 999K, you get $2,000.

What's up with that? I would think that would make all kinds of

trouble, people arguing over whether the house is really worth 499 or 502,

etc.



not only discontinuites, but very wide bands. My $999k house gets me the

same gift cards as a $500k house? No way!




I always assumed they would give the gift cards. They have a sweet deal if

they can pull it off, so why blow it by not providing the gift cards (which

they receive at a discount, most likely).



I agree. I had some question as to what the gift cards actually were, but
I finally saw that they did have examples on the website. Assuming that's
representative of what you get, then there are good cards.


I would hope that there would be agreement that while people may have

various issues with the whole concept, from all that is evident at this

point, it is not a "scam".



I probably used "scam" in the wrong sense. It seems like such a ridiculous

thing for a homeowner to sign up for, particularly YEARS in advance. But

outright fraud is unlikely.

Based on what we know so far, the worst part that
I see is that you don;t know who the brokers will be that participate
5 years from now. It's possible the national franchise types bail on
the thing, then you're left with IDK what. Worse case, theoretically,
I guess they could have some one man shop, you never heard of, that only
does their referals. That wouldn't be good.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, August 30, 2014 11:53:34 AM UTC-4, Pico Rico wrote:

It does say the contract may be recorded.



Yes, I saw that too. But they only say that is an option and they also

don't refer to it again in the various descriptions of the process
flow.



patents are always written with lots of "may" and "if desired". They
want

as broad coverage as possible. Anybody doing this and NOT recording the

contract or an abstract of contract would be a fool.


I don't know that they would necessarily be fools. They outlined an
extensive system of how
to monitor to make sure people are complying. If they have experience
of substantial compliance without recording
it, they could choose not to. And they also know that if they
go around putting liens on peoples homes from day one, that is likely to
quickly spread around, people are going to be ****ed off, not refer them
to friends, etc. It's also curios that if it's an essential part
of the process, they only devote one sentence to the *possibility*,
while devoting a lot to all the other steps. They are just learning
how this will all work themselves. If compliance is a problem,
they certainly could do the lien thing.

recording a contract or memorandum of contract is not a lien, and not
anywhere near as frightening. And the homeowner might not be aware it has
been done.

I stand by my statement: they would be fools not to record.




We don't know what the actual contract they are using says, because
you

can't see it. Which for me is another red flag. The contract should
be

on the website.



I am not sure it is a "red flag" to me, but I woud sure want to read the

contract and its fine print very early in the process, not AFTER they
have

all my information, have tried to evaluate my house, etc. etc. But if I

were them, I would play these cards close to my vest. Hmm, maybe that IS
a

"red flag"!









It does say they will get a cooperating brokers fee of 1% or 2%. Not
a



paltry "referral fee" as suggest by others.





They can say anything they want. But I'll bet they aren't collecting
it.

The realty firm is collecting 3% typically, which they acknowledge in
the

patent application. I don't see many realty firms giving up 1/3 of
their

commission. Also, buried in there, they seem to be saying that it

actually

costs the realty firm nothing, because it comes out of the individual

agents

share. That would be something. Right now the firm collects 3%, the

agent

is getting maybe 1/2 of that, 1.5% and the company seems to think that
the

agent should hand over 1 to 2%? Does not compute in my world. I'd bet

that what they are actually collecting on referals is a lot less.



If their contract has 1% built in, there will be major issues. And
telling a

broker that it is all coming from his agent's cut means agents will find

other properties to work on.



+1

Another question is where is all the money for this coming from? This
seems to me the worst business model. It's like a business where you're
rapidly escalating inventory, piling it ever highr, while sales are
years in the future. Reading that patent I thought I might see a
section where they talk about bundling the pending referals, then
using them for financial collateral or trading them. Can we patent
that?

they are trying to patent that, I think. I am not going to go back and read
the claims. I bet they are hoping they will get a significant number of
contracted houses to be put on the market sooner, rather than later. maybe
the people that will fall for this are pretty broke anyway, and will have to
sell their homes to get out the equity.




One thing to note is that commissions are negotiable. There is a lot
less

room for a home owner to negotiate commissions downward when there is

already a cooperating broker commission in place.



Yes, I agree with all that. But around here, it would be a lot easier
for a homeowner to get $1000 in gift certificates than to get a broker
to cut the commission. Funny thing that. The broker has to give up
even more when you have the middleman in the equation.



so, they are providing the homeowners with a valuable service: essentially a
cut of the commission that they can not likely negotiate on their own.






They also say that the value of the gift cards should be less than 1%

of the property value. That also doesn't compute with what they have

on the website. For example, on the web they say that for a $300 -
499K

house, you get $1000. That's 2 to 3.3%.



Have a bit more coffee. that is 0.33% to 0.2%



You're right, my bad!

was it the inadequate coffee?











Also there are curious

discontinuitues, ie if the house is $500K - 999K, you get $2,000.

What's up with that? I would think that would make all kinds of

trouble, people arguing over whether the house is really worth 499 or
502,

etc.



not only discontinuites, but very wide bands. My $999k house gets me the

same gift cards as a $500k house? No way!




I always assumed they would give the gift cards. They have a sweet deal
if

they can pull it off, so why blow it by not providing the gift cards
(which

they receive at a discount, most likely).



I agree. I had some question as to what the gift cards actually were, but
I finally saw that they did have examples on the website. Assuming that's
representative of what you get, then there are good cards.


I would hope that there would be agreement that while people may have

various issues with the whole concept, from all that is evident at this

point, it is not a "scam".



I probably used "scam" in the wrong sense. It seems like such a
ridiculous

thing for a homeowner to sign up for, particularly YEARS in advance. But

outright fraud is unlikely.

Based on what we know so far, the worst part that
I see is that you don;t know who the brokers will be that participate
5 years from now. It's possible the national franchise types bail on
the thing, then you're left with IDK what. Worse case, theoretically,
I guess they could have some one man shop, you never heard of, that only
does their referals. That wouldn't be good.

yep. And they might CAUSE that result by insisting on high cooperating
broker commissions, resulting in many of the brokers to fall off their list.

On 8/22/2014 12:35 AM, micky wrote:
A friend who has been looking hs been offered a job. His role is to
gve out gift cards, that start at 300l doolars but also go higher if
people have a more expansive hom. For every card he hands out antd
hey sign for , he gets 30 dollars. By signing, the car reciipient has
to agree that if he ever sells his hous someone from the group that
gives out the cards will get the listing, and he commission when the
house is sold The commission is usally 7%, though it may be split
bewtween buyer's and seller's agents, and the seller may have agreed o
pay less comission if he could arrange it.

Buy back to my friend. Have you ever heard of a plan like this before.
Is it a fraud? Legal? Will it be too hard to get people to sign?


Never give up control of something you own. Run away as fast as you can.

That's exactly why I don't like these "reverse mortgages" you hear advertised on TV. Basically, you sell half of your house back to the reverse mortgage company for whatever the price is NOW. Then 20 years from now, when you pass away, your estate only collects half of what the house sells for. The reverse mortgage company you deal with pockets the other half.

When I was a kid, people built houses for $25,000 dollars. Those same houses are now selling for 10 to 15 times as much.

People buy houses now presuming they're going to increase in value, and it's exactly that presumtion that causes prices to go up on houses. Each buyer figures he'll get more when he sells it than he paid, and so the prices continue to rise with every flip. But, that situation is unsustainable. Once the baby boomers that were born after WWII start going into the nursing homes and cemetaries, their homes are going to go on the market, and there will be a glut of houses flooding the market. Then, prices will start falling, and all of the people that bought houses as investment will try to sell them for what they can get, and that will cause the situation to get even worse.

If people considered houses to be a commodity, which is what they are, which is something you buy as you need it, like food, clothing and fuel, there wouldn't be the steady increase in housing costs that attracts investors, and there wouldn't be the volatility in housing prices that we see.

Back in 2008, there were thousands of people that bought houses on a "teaser" zero percent mortgage. The mortgage would stay at 0 percent for three years, and then jump up to 6 percent. Lots of people figured "Great, I'll just keep this house and let it appreciate in value for three years, and then sell it." It was those same people that are now deeply in debt because their mortgage went upside down. The value of their house fell below what they bought it for, and now they owe the banks money on a house that's been foreclosed on them. Terrible investment.

"nestork" wrote in message
...

'Bob[_66_ Wrote:
;3278158']
Never give up control of something you own. Run away as fast as you can.

That's exactly why I don't like these "reverse mortgages" you hear
advertised on TV. Basically, you sell half of your house back to the
reverse mortgage company for whatever the price is NOW. Then 20 years
from now, when you pass away, your estate only collects half of what the
house sells for. The reverse mortgage company you deal with pockets the
other half.

That's not exactly how it works. It is a rising debt loan, the interest
continues to accrue, and this increase compounds over time. You may end up
with more or less than 50% of the proceeds from the sale.

I think that before a reverse mortgage is entered into, serious
consideration should be given to downsizing: selling the house, buying a
smaller house or condo, and putting the rest of the proceeds away for
careful budgeting.

And your remaining lifespan has a lot to do with how much sense it might
make.

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 6:40:45 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
'Bob[_66_ Wrote:

;3278158']

Never give up control of something you own. Run away as fast as you can.



That's exactly why I don't like these "reverse mortgages" you hear

advertised on TV. Basically, you sell half of your house back to the

reverse mortgage company for whatever the price is NOW. Then 20 years

from now, when you pass away, your estate only collects half of what the

house sells for. The reverse mortgage company you deal with pockets the

other half.



When I was a kid, people built houses for $25,000 dollars. Those same

houses are now selling for 10 to 15 times as much.



People buy houses now presuming they're going to increase in value, and

it's exactly that presumtion that causes prices to go up on houses.


IDK about that. The price of a hamburger, gas, cars, and the vast
majority of all items we buy have gone up 10X too. They didn't go up
because people wished them higher. It's mostly inflation, ie the dollar
being worth less.




Each buyer figures he'll get more when he sells it than he paid, and so

the prices continue to rise with every flip. But, that situation is

unsustainable. Once the baby boomers that were born after WWII start

going into the nursing homes and cemetaries, their homes are going to go

on the market, and there will be a glut of houses flooding the market.

Then, prices will start falling, and all of the people that bought

houses as investment will try to sell them for what they can get, and

that will cause the situation to get even worse.



I thought we just had the real estate debacle of the century in 2008.
You mean it's coming again?



If people considered houses to be a commodity, which is what they are,

which is something you buy as you need it, like food, clothing and fuel,

there wouldn't be the steady increase in housing costs that attracts

investors, and there wouldn't be the volatility in housing prices that

we see.


The fact that everything it takes to build a house has gone up
isn't a primary driving factor? That in many urban areas, the supply
of land has gone down? If housing prices are high just because of
speculation, then you should be able to build houses and make a killing,
because the margin should be huge. Seems like that isn't happening.

I agree there is some truth to what you say. The debacle in 2008 was
due to a bubble and that bubble is driven to a great extent by govt
policy. If you work in a job, you can get taxed as high as 39%
federal and then state on top. If you speculate with the house you
live in, it's tax free for most people. And if you speculate on other
houses, it's still only taxed at 15%.





Back in 2008, there were thousands of people that bought houses on a

"teaser" zero percent mortgage. The mortgage would stay at 0 percent

for three years, and then jump up to 6 percent. Lots of people figured

"Great, I'll just keep this house and let it appreciate in value for

three years, and then sell it." It was those same people that are now

deeply in debt because their mortgage went upside down. The value of

their house fell below what they bought it for, and now they owe the

banks money on a house that's been foreclosed on them. Terrible

investment.


I guess that's what bankruptcy is for.

On 8/30/2014 7:46 PM, Pico Rico wrote:


That's not exactly how it works. It is a rising debt loan, the interest
continues to accrue, and this increase compounds over time. You may end up
with more or less than 50% of the proceeds from the sale.

I think that before a reverse mortgage is entered into, serious
consideration should be given to downsizing: selling the house, buying a
smaller house or condo, and putting the rest of the proceeds away for
careful budgeting.

And your remaining lifespan has a lot to do with how much sense it might
make.



I know a couple that did the reverse mortgage in their mid 70's. While
not what I'd call a great financial deal, it worked for them Small
house long paid for needed some expensive septic work, their car died,
etc. Not to mention some medical expenses. The RM allowed them to take
care of the sudden big expenses and they still get by normal expenses on
their monthly SS checks.

IMO, it is something to be used as a last ditch way of surviving, not a
way to take a long vacation or buy a Lamborghini. You don't have to be
wealthy to do a little basic fiscal planning and get your house paid off
before retiring, no credit card debt, etc. If you can't do that,
chances are a RM is only a temporary aid.

On 08/30/2014 02:47 PM, Bob wrote:


Never give up control of something you own. Run away as fast as you can.


I wouldn't let someone control MY computer. If they think something's
wrong, they can tell me about it.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"A believer is a bird in a cage, a free-thinker is an eagle parting the
clouds with tireless wing." [Robert G. Ingersoll]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:40:45 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Bob[_66_ Wrote:
;3278158']
Never give up control of something you own. Run away as fast as you can.

That's exactly why I don't like these "reverse mortgages" you hear
advertised on TV. Basically, you sell half of your house back to the
reverse mortgage company for whatever the price is NOW. Then 20 years
from now, when you pass away, your estate only collects half of what the
house sells for. The reverse mortgage company you deal with pockets the
other half.

I see your point, but what if your income from pension etc. is
inadequate to meet your needs, and the only asset you haven't sold is
your house and your car, and you don't want to move.

I know, at least I'm told, it's expensive compared to what one gets just
selling his house, And I expect they give you a monthly check which
never goes up while inflation raises other prices.

But what is better for someone who doesn't want to move?.

The only alternative I can see is to try to get a regular mortgage,
probably hard to do when your income is too low for you to live on. But
if you could get the mortgage, say 100,000, and you put 50,000 away to
make mortgage payments with, you'd only have half the money also. Then
every month you'd make the payment and the amount you owed would go
down, and if you lived 15, or 20 or 30 years longer (depending on the
term of the mortgage) you'd own the house again completely. And you'd
die with a 120,000 asset, while living short of money all those years.

With a reverse mortgage, you die with nothing, because yo've spent it
all, but you don't have to worry about running out of money as long as
you're living, because the mortgagee (plus your pension and social
security) pays you as long as you live.

I really want you're counter arguments.

I think I have enough money to last me for the rest of my life if I
spend down the principal too, but the problem is I don't know how long
I'll live.

I don't want to run out of money early-- that would be horrible -- , and
I don't want to live a scrimping life and then leave too much to my
niece, nephew, and charities.

People can have this problem at many levels of wealth. Not just poor.
Wealthier people just have different views as to how low a level of
their spending is oppressive. People with no children, or children who
already have, say , as much money as their parent does, don't want to
leave a lot of money behind,

Micky




Maybe tomorrow I can reply to the rest of your post.

When I was a kid, people built houses for $25,000 dollars. Those same
houses are now selling for 10 to 15 times as much.

People buy houses now presuming they're going to increase in value, and
it's exactly that presumtion that causes prices to go up on houses.
Each buyer figures he'll get more when he sells it than he paid, and so
the prices continue to rise with every flip. But, that situation is
unsustainable. Once the baby boomers that were born after WWII start
going into the nursing homes and cemetaries, their homes are going to go
on the market, and there will be a glut of houses flooding the market.
Then, prices will start falling, and all of the people that bought
houses as investment will try to sell them for what they can get, and
that will cause the situation to get even worse.

If people considered houses to be a commodity, which is what they are,
which is something you buy as you need it, like food, clothing and fuel,
there wouldn't be the steady increase in housing costs that attracts
investors, and there wouldn't be the volatility in housing prices that
we see.

Back in 2008, there were thousands of people that bought houses on a
"teaser" zero percent mortgage. The mortgage would stay at 0 percent
for three years, and then jump up to 6 percent. Lots of people figured
"Great, I'll just keep this house and let it appreciate in value for
three years, and then sell it." It was those same people that are now
deeply in debt because their mortgage went upside down. The value of
their house fell below what they bought it for, and now they owe the
banks money on a house that's been foreclosed on them. Terrible
investment.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:14:56 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

BUT I GUARANTEE IT that
=20
they will take in a l ot more money than they have to pay out, after
=20
the law suit.=20
=20

Again with the lawsuits. You folks have lawsuits on the brain.


Maybe I'll have time to reply to more of your post later, but wrt
lawsuits

When people believe they were misled or lied to , or just don't like the
deal they've made, or they don't pay, and short of pulling out a gun and
demanding that they pay, a lawsuit is the usual way for the other party
to get his money.

So plenty of these people will be going to a non-listed real estate
agent who won't have to pay a big referral fee and will give more
attention to the sale of their house.

Sometimes they've paid already and sometimes they sue to get back money
they have paid,

The winner may have to do more things after that to get his money, but
lawsuits are very common. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a
class action about this in 10 years.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:02:29 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"micky" wrote in message
.. .
A friend who has been looking hs been offered a job. His role is to
gve out gift cards, that start at 300l doolars but also go higher if
people have a more expansive hom. For every card he hands out antd
hey sign for , he gets 30 dollars. By signing, the car reciipient has
to agree that if he ever sells his hous someone from the group that
gives out the cards will get the listing, and he commission when the
house is sold The commission is usally 7%, though it may be split
bewtween buyer's and seller's agents, and the seller may have agreed o
pay less comission if he could arrange it.

Buy back to my friend. Have you ever heard of a plan like this before.
Is it a fraud? Legal? Will it be too hard to get people to sign?

The company is out $330 for the average house and won't get it back
until the owner decides to sell and succeeds in selling, which could be
next year or in 30 years. plus I thnk they have to monitor all these
poiple to make sure they don't hire another agen. That shouldn't be
hard, Just google every address once a month to see if it's listed for
sale.

Here is their patent application 20140188660.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND+commission

How did you find this?

And it sure looks like what I posted about, but you seem sure that it
is. How is that? Was the name Steven Daum mentioned in the scheme?
If not, I don't understand how you found this.

I really need to know because I've been asking other people about this
and I don't want to add this patent application to the mix unless I can
tell them how it's related. At least in general terms.


Also I didn't think "methods of doing business" were patentable.

Wanamakers of Philadelphia was the first store in the USA to have fixed
prices and no dickering, around 1870 or 80 iirc. If they had patented
fixed prices, would other stores not have been allowed to do that? (He
had other marketing innovations too, all of them appealing to customers)

How many of you have heard of Wanamakers? It's a big name in the
northeast, but I don't know about Canada or the rest of the US, It's a
department store,


But why would they put anything in print for the public, including
competitors, to read if they didn't expect to actually get a patent.
Don't all those patent applications with sketches and everything
disclose trade secrets, and it's only worth it because they probbaaly
will get the patent and the protection it brings?

It looks like they are struggling in the patent office: this was originally
filed in 2006, and they have had to file a couple continuations. That is a
long time, even considering the slow pace of the patent office.

It does say the contract may be recorded.

It does say they will get a cooperating brokers fee of 1% or 2%. Not a
paltry "referral fee" as suggest by others.

"A further qualification in accordance with an aspect of the present
invention is to engage with real estate brokers who commit in advance to a
preset sharing of commission with the party who secured the commitment of
the future listing by the homeowner. For instance such a qualification may
be that the party will be paid a percentage of each sell-side commission
ranging from 1.5%-1.8% of each home's value."

"In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the written
agreement with Cooperating Brokers may include entitlement to a second
referral fee from the Cooperating Broker to whom the party provided the
homeowner for a listing if the referred property seller uses a Cooperating
Broker for the concurrent purchase of a new home. "

It does say they may be paid through escrow.

It does say "Failure to cooperate will generate the filing of Lis Pendens
prior to sale."

It also says they may use this as a hook to get referral fees from other
related businesses:

"In addition, as the party will likely be the first in the country (other
than the homeowners) to know when the homeowners are about to sell, the
party will have many opportunities to reap additional rewards through repeat
business and additional referral fees from various vendors for services such
as: movers, title insurance, homeowners insurance, lawn care,
telecommunications services, refuse removal, storage space, home repair,
energy and more. "

"micky" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:02:29 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:


"micky" wrote in message
. ..
A friend who has been looking hs been offered a job. His role is to
gve out gift cards, that start at 300l doolars but also go higher if
people have a more expansive hom. For every card he hands out antd
hey sign for , he gets 30 dollars. By signing, the car reciipient has
to agree that if he ever sells his hous someone from the group that
gives out the cards will get the listing, and he commission when the
house is sold The commission is usally 7%, though it may be split
bewtween buyer's and seller's agents, and the seller may have agreed o
pay less comission if he could arrange it.

Buy back to my friend. Have you ever heard of a plan like this before.
Is it a fraud? Legal? Will it be too hard to get people to sign?

The company is out $330 for the average house and won't get it back
until the owner decides to sell and succeeds in selling, which could be
next year or in 30 years. plus I thnk they have to monitor all these
poiple to make sure they don't hire another agen. That shouldn't be
hard, Just google every address once a month to see if it's listed for
sale.

Here is their patent application 20140188660.

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND+commission

How did you find this?

By searching the USPTO database. I think I just used "real estate" and
"commission" or something as the search terms, and I knew it would be fairly
recent so near the top of the list of results. I then scanned the results
to find it.


And it sure looks like what I posted about, but you seem sure that it
is. How is that?

by reading it.

Was the name Steven Daum mentioned in the scheme?

no, and I did try an assignment search first, but nothing turned up under
the company name.

If not, I don't understand how you found this.

see above


I really need to know because I've been asking other people about this
and I don't want to add this patent application to the mix unless I can
tell them how it's related. At least in general terms.

see above. Read the patent application - do you think it is NOT what you
posted about?



Also I didn't think "methods of doing business" were patentable.

think again.


Wanamakers of Philadelphia was the first store in the USA to have fixed
prices and no dickering, around 1870 or 80 iirc. If they had patented
fixed prices, would other stores not have been allowed to do that? (He
had other marketing innovations too, all of them appealing to customers)

yes, for a period of 17 years, if indeed he was issued a patent on that.
But I bet there was prior art out there.


How many of you have heard of Wanamakers? It's a big name in the
northeast, but I don't know about Canada or the rest of the US, It's a
department store,

173 of us.



But why would they put anything in print for the public, including
competitors, to read if they didn't expect to actually get a patent.
Don't all those patent applications with sketches and everything
disclose trade secrets, and it's only worth it because they probably
will get the patent and the protection it brings?

yes. Read their website, their contract, their press releases. They have
to disclose most if not all of their invention in order to be in business.
So they really don't have much of a chance in keeping this under wraps as a
trade secret. So, they might as well try for patent protection - they have
nothing to loose. Contrast that with a secret chemical formula that can be
kept under wraps in your factory. In that case, you may not want to
disclose it in exchange for possible patent protection.

"micky" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:40:45 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Bob[_66_ Wrote:
;3278158']
Never give up control of something you own. Run away as fast as you can.

That's exactly why I don't like these "reverse mortgages" you hear
advertised on TV. Basically, you sell half of your house back to the
reverse mortgage company for whatever the price is NOW. Then 20 years
from now, when you pass away, your estate only collects half of what the
house sells for. The reverse mortgage company you deal with pockets the
other half.

I see your point, but what if your income from pension etc. is
inadequate to meet your needs, and the only asset you haven't sold is
your house and your car, and you don't want to move.

Then a reverse mortgage may make sense. Particularly if you cannot downsize
your abode (if you can, you should rethink not wanting to move).

I know, at least I'm told, it's expensive compared to what one gets just
selling his house, And I expect they give you a monthly check which
never goes up while inflation raises other prices.

but if you sell your house, you will need to pay rent which WILL go up with
inflation. So, you need to do your math.


But what is better for someone who doesn't want to move?.

The only alternative I can see is to try to get a regular mortgage,
probably hard to do when your income is too low for you to live on. But
if you could get the mortgage, say 100,000, and you put 50,000 away to
make mortgage payments with, you'd only have half the money also. Then
every month you'd make the payment and the amount you owed would go
down, and if you lived 15, or 20 or 30 years longer (depending on the
term of the mortgage) you'd own the house again completely. And you'd
die with a 120,000 asset, while living short of money all those years.

and for a regular mortgage, the lender will want you to have INCOME to pay
the mortgage, not just put money away for it (which most people will blow
one way or another)


With a reverse mortgage, you die with nothing, because yo've spent it
all, but you don't have to worry about running out of money as long as
you're living, because the mortgagee (plus your pension and social
security) pays you as long as you live.

you don't necessarily die with nothing. It depends on how long you live,
how much you took out, what the accrued interest is, etc.


I really want you're counter arguments.

I think I have enough money to last me for the rest of my life if I
spend down the principal too, but the problem is I don't know how long
I'll live.

there is a solution for that.

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:42:17 -0700, "Pico Rico"
wrote:

Thanks for the reply. Part of it snipped.

The only alternative I can see is to try to get a regular mortgage,
probably hard to do when your income is too low for you to live on. But
if you could get the mortgage, say 100,000, and you put 50,000 away to
make mortgage payments with, you'd only have half the money also. Then
every month you'd make the payment and the amount you owed would go
down, and if you lived 15, or 20 or 30 years longer (depending on the
term of the mortgage) you'd own the house again completely. And you'd
die with a 120,000 asset, while living short of money all those years.

and for a regular mortgage, the lender will want you to have INCOME to pay
the mortgage, not just put money away for it (which most people will blow
one way or another)

That's why I said "if". But my ex-girlfriend got a mortgage this
summer, (even though she quit her job 6 or 12 months ago), for maybe
half a million dollars.

She said it was harder to get, but she only gave one detail, that right
near the closing, she had to get a letter from her bank saying that the
money had been there for at least 60 days, I think it was. Now I've
heard of people borrowing a big chunk of money and putting it in the
bank so they can show people a piece of paper with a high balance on it,
and maybe get credit based on that, but in this case, it was the money
she was going to spend at the closing, so I don't know why it mattered
if it had been there for 60 days or only a couple hours. I asked her
and she didn't know either.

Other than her previous house, not yet sold, which is not worth more
than 250G, I don't know what assets she has, but they are probably
substantial.

Six or more months ago she got so mad at her almost new boss that she
quit. She'd worked there for 30 years but her old boss died. I think
she was sorry that she didn't wait until she was fired. So she had
no job to offer the lender.

OTOH, when she had a job, she had to spend her evenings and weekends
doing errands. She didn't have time to find a new house. It's much
easier to spend money when you don't have a job.


With a reverse mortgage, you die with nothing, because yo've spent it
all, but you don't have to worry about running out of money as long as
you're living, because the mortgagee (plus your pension and social
security) pays you as long as you live.

you don't necessarily die with nothing. It depends on how long you live,
how much you took out, what the accrued interest is, etc.

Dang. If I have to do this, I want to die with almost nothing, just
enough to pay the last year's taxes and for the funeral and headstone.
and to hire someone for a couple weeks (or more) to get rid of all my
tools, books, a couple things for the historical society, etc.

I really want you're counter arguments.

I think I have enough money to last me for the rest of my life if I
spend down the principal too, but the problem is I don't know how long
I'll live.

there is a solution for that.

Suicide? Not unless I'm in more than mild pain much of the time and
they can't stop it. Or if the health care professionals make me sleep
on my back. (Although I'm training to do that now. I'm up to 2 hours.
I learned my lesson last year. I spent one night in the hospital a year
ago, and because of the tubes, I had to sleep on my back which then
meant no sleep at all. I had to lie about how I felt to get out of the
hospital without doing it AMA, against medical advice. Not sure why I
cared about AMA. I went home around 8AM and slept all day Sunday. )

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 1:31:06 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:14:56 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:



BUT I GUARANTEE IT that

=20

they will take in a l ot more money than they have to pay out, after

=20

the law suit.=20

=20



Again with the lawsuits. You folks have lawsuits on the brain.





Maybe I'll have time to reply to more of your post later, but wrt

lawsuits



When people believe they were misled or lied to , or just don't like the

deal they've made, or they don't pay, and short of pulling out a gun and

demanding that they pay, a lawsuit is the usual way for the other party

to get his money.



So plenty of these people will be going to a non-listed real estate

agent who won't have to pay a big referral fee and will give more

attention to the sale of their house.



Sometimes they've paid already and sometimes they sue to get back money

they have paid,



The winner may have to do more things after that to get his money, but

lawsuits are very common. And I wouldn't be surprised if there is a

class action about this in 10 years.

So show us some examples of these lawsuits involving Exceed. You're
speculating wildly with no evidence, eg lied to, mislead. So far I don't
see any evidence that Exceed has lied or mislead. Those are serious
accusations. You apparently just don't like
the value proposition. I think it has some potential problems too. There
are a lot of things that I don't think are good deals, that doesn't mean they are lies or misleading, destined for a lawsuit, etc. If I knew I was likely
selling my house in a few years, they had a couple major realtors in the
area signed up, had done deals through them, I would seriously consider
signing up.

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 1:13:02 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 00:40:45 +0200, nestork

wrote:





'Bob[_66_ Wrote:

;3278158']

Never give up control of something you own. Run away as fast as you can.



That's exactly why I don't like these "reverse mortgages" you hear

advertised on TV. Basically, you sell half of your house back to the

reverse mortgage company for whatever the price is NOW. Then 20 years

from now, when you pass away, your estate only collects half of what the

house sells for. The reverse mortgage company you deal with pockets the

other half.



I see your point, but what if your income from pension etc. is

inadequate to meet your needs, and the only asset you haven't sold is

your house and your car, and you don't want to move.


Then it depends on the extent of the inadequacy, how much equity you
have in the house, and how long you expect to live and actually will
live.




I know, at least I'm told, it's expensive compared to what one gets just

selling his house, And I expect they give you a monthly check which

never goes up while inflation raises other prices.



Wouldn't it be better to find out what they actually are, instead of
speculating? They can be lump sum or more typically they are line of
credit type, where you can draw whatever you want.




But what is better for someone who doesn't want to move?.



The only alternative I can see is to try to get a regular mortgage,

probably hard to do when your income is too low for you to live on. But

if you could get the mortgage, say 100,000, and you put 50,000 away to

make mortgage payments with, you'd only have half the money also.

You'd also be actually paying interest on $100,000 from day one, instead of
accruing interest on maybe $1000 in the beginning of the reverse mortgage.
Which would you rather pay interest on?


Then

every month you'd make the payment and the amount you owed would go

down, and if you lived 15, or 20 or 30 years longer (depending on the

term of the mortgage) you'd own the house again completely. And you'd

die with a 120,000 asset, while living short of money all those years.


If you could pay for a new mortgage, you probably wouldn't need the
new mortgage. For many of these people, the point is to not die with
a $120,000 asset.





With a reverse mortgage, you die with nothing, because yo've spent it

all, but you don't have to worry about running out of money as long as

you're living, because the mortgagee (plus your pension and social

security) pays you as long as you live.



You typically don't die with nothing, just substantially less. Whatever
equity is left in the house is still yours. The mortgage apparently only
continues to pay if that's the type you selected. A one time, lump
sum one won;t.





I really want you're counter arguments.



I think I have enough money to last me for the rest of my life if I

spend down the principal too, but the problem is I don't know how long

I'll live.



I don't want to run out of money early-- that would be horrible -- , and

I don't want to live a scrimping life and then leave too much to my

niece, nephew, and charities.



Seems like that's the reason some folks choose a reverse mortgage.

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 6:07:18 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:42:17 -0700, "Pico Rico"

wrote:



Thanks for the reply. Part of it snipped.



The only alternative I can see is to try to get a regular mortgage,

probably hard to do when your income is too low for you to live on. But

if you could get the mortgage, say 100,000, and you put 50,000 away to

make mortgage payments with, you'd only have half the money also. Then

every month you'd make the payment and the amount you owed would go

down, and if you lived 15, or 20 or 30 years longer (depending on the

term of the mortgage) you'd own the house again completely. And you'd

die with a 120,000 asset, while living short of money all those years.



and for a regular mortgage, the lender will want you to have INCOME to pay

the mortgage, not just put money away for it (which most people will blow

one way or another)



That's why I said "if". But my ex-girlfriend got a mortgage this

summer, (even though she quit her job 6 or 12 months ago), for maybe

half a million dollars.



She said it was harder to get, but she only gave one detail, that right

near the closing, she had to get a letter from her bank saying that the

money had been there for at least 60 days, I think it was. Now I've

heard of people borrowing a big chunk of money and putting it in the

bank so they can show people a piece of paper with a high balance on it,

and maybe get credit based on that, but in this case, it was the money

she was going to spend at the closing, so I don't know why it mattered

if it had been there for 60 days or only a couple hours. I asked her

and she didn't know either.



Mortgage folks want to make sure that the funds you claim you're
putting into the deal are really yours and not more borrowed money
from somewhere else, eg pulled at the last minute on a line of
credit. Seeing that it's in your account for 60 days
doesn't totally prove it, but it helps.

On 8/31/2014 1:13 AM, micky wrote:

The only alternative I can see is to try to get a regular mortgage,
probably hard to do when your income is too low for you to live on. But
if you could get the mortgage, say 100,000, and you put 50,000 away to
make mortgage payments with, you'd only have half the money also. Then
every month you'd make the payment and the amount you owed would go
down, and if you lived 15, or 20 or 30 years longer (depending on the
term of the mortgage) you'd own the house again completely. And you'd
die with a 120,000 asset, while living short of money all those years.


I know of someone who did that just before retiring. Don't know the
details, but with low interest rates and decent investments it is
costing about nothing. It is sort of a DIY reverse mortgage.

If we knew when we would check out, planning would be much easier. I'm
using family history as a guide. Once work income stops, the first five
years will be a little change and by them I'll be leass active and will
probably need less to live on. Then five years and done.

On 8/31/2014 1:32 AM, micky wrote:

Wanamakers of Philadelphia was the first store in the USA to have fixed
prices and no dickering, around 1870 or 80 iirc. If they had patented
fixed prices, would other stores not have been allowed to do that? (He
had other marketing innovations too, all of them appealing to customers)

How many of you have heard of Wanamakers? It's a big name in the
northeast, but I don't know about Canada or the rest of the US, It's a
department store,


My mother took us there when we were little kids. The had a really nice
Christmas Wonderland and also the largest pipe organ in the world in a
big hall in the center of the store.

On 8/31/2014 2:42 AM, Pico Rico wrote:


but if you sell your house, you will need to pay rent which WILL go up with
inflation. So, you need to do your math.


Depends on where you live. Some people qualify for "senior housing" and
pay low rent based on income. I know someone at work using that as
retirement planning. Single, no assets other than a 40ik and IRA she
will be content with that.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 8/31/2014 2:42 AM, Pico Rico wrote:


but if you sell your house, you will need to pay rent which WILL go
up with inflation. So, you need to do your math.


Depends on where you live. Some people qualify for "senior housing"
and pay low rent based on income. I know someone at work using that
as retirement planning. Single, no assets other than a 40ik and IRA
she will be content with that.



Looks like a welfare leach to me. "low rent based on income" is just
another way to say some other taxpayer gets to carry the load.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 04:14:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:



That's why I said "if". But my ex-girlfriend got a mortgage this

summer, (even though she quit her job 6 or 12 months ago), for maybe

half a million dollars.



She said it was harder to get, but she only gave one detail, that right

near the closing, she had to get a letter from her bank saying that the

money had been there for at least 60 days, I think it was. Now I've

heard of people borrowing a big chunk of money and putting it in the

bank so they can show people a piece of paper with a high balance on it,

and maybe get credit based on that, but in this case, it was the money

she was going to spend at the closing, so I don't know why it mattered

if it had been there for 60 days or only a couple hours. I asked her

and she didn't know either.



Mortgage folks want to make sure that the funds you claim you're
putting into the deal are really yours and not more borrowed money
from somewhere else, eg pulled at the last minute on a line of
credit. Seeing that it's in your account for 60 days
doesn't totally prove it, but it helps.

Makes sense. But I think they should have warned her about it in
advance. What if in order to maximize income she'd waited until the
last few days to sell a stock or redeem bonds.


My next door neighbor sold his house and bought a better one, and the
guy he bought the better one was going to buy an even better one. All
three closings were to be in a row, one hour I think scheduled for each,
on a Fridaay morning.

Something went wrong with my neighbor's purchase, and whoever was in
charge cancelled all three. For some reason, his wife had given the
keys to the real estate agent, so they couldn't get back in their house.
Their other next door neighbor had keys, but she was out of town for a
few days. They went to a motel in Frederick Friday and Saturday
nights. Then she went home to her parents in Pa. and he got the key
from the other neighbor, and slept on the floor for 2 or 3 more nights
until the new closing. The new neighbors had moving in scheduled but
had to do it on a weekday instead, or a week later.

And the guy buying the best house had to be assured the deal was really
going to go through.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:36:20 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/31/2014 1:13 AM, micky wrote:

The only alternative I can see is to try to get a regular mortgage,
probably hard to do when your income is too low for you to live on. But
if you could get the mortgage, say 100,000, and you put 50,000 away to
make mortgage payments with, you'd only have half the money also. Then
every month you'd make the payment and the amount you owed would go
down, and if you lived 15, or 20 or 30 years longer (depending on the
term of the mortgage) you'd own the house again completely. And you'd
die with a 120,000 asset, while living short of money all those years.


I know of someone who did that just before retiring. Don't know the
details, but with low interest rates and decent investments it is
costing about nothing. It is sort of a DIY reverse mortgage.

If we knew when we would check out, planning would be much easier. I'm

Maybe that's how we could get rich. Sell people a battery of tests
which when analysed (by us) will tell them when they will die, so they
can plan. It's at least as good a money-maker as the battery of tests
they're selling now that allegedly will help you to live longer (the
aorta bursting test, etc.)

using family history as a guide. Once work income stops, the first five
years will be a little change and by them I'll be leass active and will
probably need less to live on. Then five years and done.

Sorry to hear that.

I've outlived my father by 5 years so far, and my brother at 74 is more
than twice the age his father lived to.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:40:26 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 8/31/2014 1:32 AM, micky wrote:

Wanamakers of Philadelphia was the first store in the USA to have fixed
prices and no dickering, around 1870 or 80 iirc. If they had patented
fixed prices, would other stores not have been allowed to do that? (He
had other marketing innovations too, all of them appealing to customers)

How many of you have heard of Wanamakers? It's a big name in the
northeast, but I don't know about Canada or the rest of the US, It's a
department store,


My mother took us there when we were little kids. The had a really nice

That's great.

Christmas Wonderland and also the largest pipe organ in the world in a
big hall in the center of the store.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanamaker%27s

or maybe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanamaker's (Actually I left out the
apostrophe entirely and it still went right to it.)

has a picture of the Grand Court, emphasizing the organ. The store had
been the abandoned Pennsylvania Railroad station.

He permitted cash returns and invented the price tag. His employees got
access to some sort of business schooling, free medical care,
"recreatonal facilities, profit-sharing, and pensions," way back in the
19th century. The webpage has more of the many firsts there..

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 3:37:24 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 04:14:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

wrote:







That's why I said "if". But my ex-girlfriend got a mortgage this



summer, (even though she quit her job 6 or 12 months ago), for maybe



half a million dollars.







She said it was harder to get, but she only gave one detail, that right



near the closing, she had to get a letter from her bank saying that the



money had been there for at least 60 days, I think it was. Now I've



heard of people borrowing a big chunk of money and putting it in the



bank so they can show people a piece of paper with a high balance on it,



and maybe get credit based on that, but in this case, it was the money



she was going to spend at the closing, so I don't know why it mattered



if it had been there for 60 days or only a couple hours. I asked her



and she didn't know either.







Mortgage folks want to make sure that the funds you claim you're

putting into the deal are really yours and not more borrowed money

from somewhere else, eg pulled at the last minute on a line of

credit. Seeing that it's in your account for 60 days

doesn't totally prove it, but it helps.



Makes sense. But I think they should have warned her about it in

advance. What if in order to maximize income she'd waited until the

last few days to sell a stock or redeem bonds.


The way it works, in my experience is you say I'm putting X into this
deal. They ask where X is coming from. You tell them. Then somewhere
along in the process they ask you to show that. So, if she said she
was going to sell bonds for the deal, they would have asked for proof of
that.



My next door neighbor sold his house and bought a better one, and the

guy he bought the better one was going to buy an even better one. All

three closings were to be in a row, one hour I think scheduled for each,

on a Fridaay morning.



Something went wrong with my neighbor's purchase, and whoever was in

charge cancelled all three. For some reason, his wife had given the

keys to the real estate agent, so they couldn't get back in their house.

Their other next door neighbor had keys, but she was out of town for a

few days. They went to a motel in Frederick Friday and Saturday

nights. Then she went home to her parents in Pa. and he got the key

from the other neighbor, and slept on the floor for 2 or 3 more nights

until the new closing. The new neighbors had moving in scheduled but

had to do it on a weekday instead, or a week later.



And the guy buying the best house had to be assured the deal was really

going to go through.

Relying on the sale of another property always has some risk. And
scheduling the 3 closings within an hour is truly nuts.

On 8/31/2014 12:00 PM, Zaky Waky wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote in
:

On 8/31/2014 2:42 AM, Pico Rico wrote:


but if you sell your house, you will need to pay rent which WILL go
up with inflation. So, you need to do your math.


Depends on where you live. Some people qualify for "senior housing"
and pay low rent based on income. I know someone at work using that
as retirement planning. Single, no assets other than a 40ik and IRA
she will be content with that.



Looks like a welfare leach to me. "low rent based on income" is just
another way to say some other taxpayer gets to carry the load.

Yes, government owned and subsidized. She has me stumped a bit. She is
not one to take anything from the government, at least up to retirement.
Very self sufficient. Her parents always rented and so has she. No
desire to own a house, even when she was married.

Government housing is not much to aspire to, IMO.