Only fools rush in? Buyers again ensnared by bidding wars
It may look the return of the Ice Age this morning, but don't be fooled. The spring real estate market is here - and with it innumerable pitfalls for unprepared and naive buyers.
While things may be slower in the hinterlands, it's the same old story in many of the hotter towns and neighborhoods along and inside the Route 128 corridor.
Once again there are too many buyers battling it out for a limited pool of decent inventory - either new homes or older ones not needing expensive overhauls.
And brokers who have been around the block know all the tricks to stampeding eager buyers and getting them to check their common sense at the door to the open house. (Rona has written extensively on this over the past few weeks. Read and learn.)
My favorite is the broker at the open house who told buyers, all eager to see a house - in Burlington, I think - that sorry, he was now only taking "back up offers."
But how do we know those offers are real? Could this just be another broker ginning up the process with a few "phantom buyers?"
Does it really have to be this way?
No, says the Real Estate Cafe's Bill Wendel.
Some basic ground rules are needed to rein in such chicanery, bolstered by an online bidding system in which buyers can be assured they are competing against other legitimate buyers, not phantoms, Wendel contends.
To that end, he's renewing his call for an online petition to get state and federal regulators to crack down on these used-car sales tactics and set the stage for a shift to online bidding platforms.
What's at stake here? Wendel blames blind bidding wars for stoking the runaway prices we saw during the bubble years, both here in Greater Boston and beyond.
Check out his post on the issue - he lays it all out very eloquently while providing crucial background to similar campaigns launched over the years.
I'm always game to shake things up a bit - and certainly the real estate business could use a good shaking.
What's your take? Are you ready to sign up for the real estate revolution? Or could this be another case of good intentions masking a potential regulatory boondoggle?
