Moral Issues

Stan 101 · 8 March 2006

Okay, I'm keen to see the result of this scenario.

You have the ability to purchase a property at well below market value. We don't know the scenario of why the house is for sale but it must sell fast. The house is in exceptional condition and is a fantastic location. All checks are done. This is your once in a lifetime "Alan Bond."

If we follow a natural train of thought, we will realise that someone will lose out in this deal, and not knowing why, we could assume they any possible scenario this particular property is for sale.

Do you buy?

pete152 · 8 March 2006

Re: Moral Issues.

Mate just think of it as helping some one out. As you do not know the reason for the sale you just could be.
Cheers,
Peter

sam76 · 8 March 2006

GO FOR IT.

if you don't then someone else will.

then you'll be kicking yourself for the rest of your days.

carpets · 8 March 2006

could be riddled with white ants or something.
you never know with those sorts of places.
fast sale might mean something dodgy, owners need money fast, selling off assets that need alot of work/money spent on them etc...
even so, if its cheap enough, you can justify any sort of structural/asthetic dilemma.

lesm · 8 March 2006

Stan 101 said:
Okay, I'm keen to see the result of this scenario.

Do you buy?

Short answer - Yes.

This should be a commercial decison not an emotional decision.

As a buyer you need to ensure that their are no underlying reasons that would affect the value of the property that have caused the seeler to sell at a discounted value. In other words you need to ensure that you are not buying a lemon.

The seller may have many reasons for wishing to sell at below market and may or may not wish to reveal them.

These situations have arisen in the past and I have no doubt they will continue to occur at various times into the future.

As long as the seller is sane and well aware of the situation, then what is the real issue?

Stan 101 · 8 March 2006

Just to ratify my first post. All checks are done. This house is immaculate. There are no hidden suprises in my scenario.

Cheers,

tech/a · 8 March 2006

Hmm if the property was last sold prior to 2002 (This will be on a title search)Chances are no one will be missing out.

An apartment in one of our blocks was sold for 60K under market to a friend of ours---we were not happy as the last sale devalues our holdings.

When we were asked why they would accept such a low price we had no idea--now know its business problems.
But we do know what they paid for the property and its still 100% on their purchase price at the 60K discount.

Could be any number of reasons for a quick sale they may even own it freehold and want to walk away tommorow.

Unless a liquidator is handling the sale or an insurance company then there will likely be no hardship here for anyone.

Just mail me the address and I'll fly over and have a look,If I could have the agents number that would be handy,just to get the paperwork ready.

justjohn · 8 March 2006

YES the only problem is i will have to wait till xmas for SBM to reach $1

wayneL · 8 March 2006

Depends if it below current market value and above its intrinsic value.

Or below intrinsic value as well.

Even big discounts of todays valuations aren't necessarily bargains.

Strw23 · 8 March 2006

I personaly would buy the property. I was just wondering though is this poll going to be compared to the answers from people on the David Tweed thread as I see the two situations as almost the same thing.

Scott

Stan 101 · 8 March 2006

Strw23... You are the first to openly pick up on it...

I'm certainly in no place to judge people but was just curious to do a little research on when a moral issue would strike someone.

I did mention that knowledge of the seller's position wasn't known and it hasn't be questioned here as I've found in real estate in general.

I suppose I'm pondering on why real estate is a noble act, yet what Tweed is doing is not. Isit the mass soliciting tactics Tweed uses?

Personally I would buy the property.

Cheers,

Julia · 8 March 2006

Stan 101:

Thanks for putting up an interesting moral question.

I think there's an essential difference between your scenario and the Tweed modus operandi in that in your scenario the vendor has presumably voluntarily placed the property on the market.

In Tweed's approaches, they appear to usually be to people who would not otherwise have considered selling and hence are somewhat unprepared to objectively consider his offer. (That's not to say they shouldn't rationally and objectively seek advice as to the validity of Tweed's offer price.)

Would I buy? Yes. I learned a long time ago that I can't be the moral gatekeeper of all transactions, and -as has already been said - if I don't then someone else will.

I think the basic ethical consideration is that the property has already been offered for sale, and given that, it is not up to prospective purchasers to consider the reasons why.

Julia

wayneL · 8 March 2006

Julia said:
Stan 101:

Thanks for putting up an interesting moral question.

I think there's an essential difference between your scenario and the Tweed modus operandi in that in your scenario the vendor has presumably voluntarily placed the property on the market.

In Tweed's approaches, they appear to usually be to people who would not otherwise have considered selling and hence are somewhat unprepared to objectively consider his offer. (That's not to say they shouldn't rationally and objectively seek advice as to the validity of Tweed's offer price.)

Would I buy? Yes. I learned a long time ago that I can't be the moral gatekeeper of all transactions, and -as has already been said - if I don't then someone else will.

I think the basic ethical consideration is that the property has already been offered for sale, and given that, it is not up to prospective purchasers to consider the reasons why.

Julia

Agree on that fundamental difference there Julia

Cheers

anon · 8 March 2006

This question is hypothetical. There would be no such property because if there was - the estate agent would have snapped it up. This is a known practice by the agents.

anon

wayneL · 8 March 2006

anon said:
This question is hypothetical. There would be no such property because if there was - the estate agent would have snapped it up. This is a known practice by the agents.

anon

I am predicting there will be plenty of this at some stage.:fan

Stan 101 · 8 March 2006

Anon, this is a hypothetical scenario, yes. Yet it happens often. I can give you personal and first hand experiences. Cash in hand is king. I mentioned my best windfall in another post in this area. I know of a 21yo lad in Toowoomba who is now close to retirement due purchases made with cash in hand and then often using only 10% of capital to finalise the deal. 12 properties on positive and capital growth... A part time job will suit him just fine.

Stan 101 · 9 March 2006

Wayne, I'm thinking it's not that far off. The place I rent now is canal front and the owner bought 8 months ago and is feeling the squeeze. He got caught in the negitive gearing - the boom will continue scenario. I've offered him 60 k less than he bought for and he's crying over it. No takers on his offer and he can't understand why. SE QLD market is flat and there is no where to move. We will only need a .25% upward shift in interest rates to bring this thing down. Sydney house starts are missing by 30%. SE QLD is just holding it's own, FNQ is still going okay...It'll be fish in a barrel if the status que moves.

Bloveld · 9 March 2006

People sell property and shares and even managed funds at a loss every day. What makes Tweed immoral is that he profits from vulnerable people. And it looks like ASIC agrees with that view.

bullmarket · 9 March 2006

:iagree: also with Julia's view re the difference between the suggested scenario and Tweed's strategy.

Julia said:
Stan 101:

Thanks for putting up an interesting moral question.

I think there's an essential difference between your scenario and the Tweed modus operandi in that in your scenario the vendor has presumably voluntarily placed the property on the market.

In Tweed's approaches, they appear to usually be to people who would not otherwise have considered selling and hence are somewhat unprepared to objectively consider his offer. (That's not to say they shouldn't rationally and objectively seek advice as to the validity of Tweed's offer price.)

Would I buy? Yes. I learned a long time ago that I can't be the moral gatekeeper of all transactions, and -as has already been said - if I don't then someone else will.

I think the basic ethical consideration is that the property has already been offered for sale, and given that, it is not up to prospective purchasers to consider the reasons why.

Julia

Prospector · 9 March 2006

Would you still buy it if there was a multiple murder/suicide committed there and that is why the price is so low - you were the prospective buyer who didnt know?

Moral Issues

Do you buy the property described below?

Yes, I buy.

No, I don't buy.

Stan 101

pete152

sam76

carpets

lesm

Stan 101

tech/a

No Ordinary Duck

justjohn

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Strw23

Stan 101

Julia

In Memoriam

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

anon

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Stan 101

Stan 101

Bloveld

bullmarket

Prospector

Not a scaredy cat anymore

Similar threads

Moral Issues

Do you buy the property described below?

Yes, I buy.

No, I don't buy.

No Ordinary Duck

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

In Memoriam

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Not a scaredy cat anymore

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency