Should a RE Investor get a real estate license? - Posted by Brian

Posted by Carmen_FL on February 23, 2000 at 20:13:55:

if the owner SPECIFICALLY told them not to. Legally they are not obligated to present these offers.

Most realtors, for CYA reasons, get these specs in writing (e.g. “Seller hereby advises Realtor that he does not wish to have offers under $80,000 presented until further written notice. Signed, Joe Blow, Seller”), and then present the offers anyway! Sometimes it’s as informal as a phone call, and mentioned among other things, and if the buyer is being a total pest, Realtors will usually say “I know you told me you didn’t want to see any offers below $80,000, but some clown sent one in for $72,000 and is giving me a hard time. Would you mind signing this marked ‘refused’?” Once in a while, they are shocked when the owner goes “Hmmmm… $72K, huh? Tell you what, why don’t you send me the contract so I can look at it?” but usually the seller who sets out conditions is not particularly motivated to sell that particular house except under his own terms anyway.

The Realtor CANNOT make decisions for the seller if no specifications are mentioned, however - e.g. Realtor thinks to himself “Hmm, the owner has been trying to sell this house for 6 months, and I know he’s getting desperate, but I don’t think he’s desperate enought to take $72K, so I won’t bother him with this lowball offer”. THAT could get a Realtor in trouble.


Should a RE Investor get a real estate license? - Posted by Brian

Posted by Brian on February 22, 2000 at 14:12:34:

I typically do rehabs. What the advantages/disadvantages be for getting my real estate license?



See Thread Below … - Posted by Carmen_FL

Posted by Carmen_FL on February 22, 2000 at 14:38:05:

Starting at:

Re: Should a RE Investor get a real estate license? - Posted by Jared

Posted by Jared on February 22, 2000 at 14:26:36:


I got my Real Estate license and I thought it was worthwhile for a couple of reasons. For starters, I learned quite a bit, and, it’s not really a big deal to get one anyway. (Well, at least not in Massachusetts). It cost me about $200 and 1 or 2 nights a week for 4 weeks. No big deal.

The main benefit that I’ve received from this, is my ability to become a member of a referral network. This way, when I purchase a property I can “refer” myself to the Real Estate Company and I get a referral fee. (The same thing would happen if I were to sell). So whenever I buy a house, I usually get back about seven or eight hundred dollars for just having my license. (I get a portion of the commission).

Yeah, it’s not a huge money maker, but hell, to spend that little bit of time to get a license, sure has been worthwhile.


what are the numbers, again? - Posted by RR Smith

Posted by RR Smith on February 22, 2000 at 18:40:03:

When you are an agent you look more like a dealer (IRS rulings to the contrary not withstanding) and therefore the profit advantage of pocketing your own commision are questionable. If you are a buy and holder and/or rehabber you would not have to worry about this, but if the IRS decides you are a RE dealer (not a investor/holder) then your whole tax picture changes for the worse. The only other solid reason I can see (and my mentor) is that you have unlimited MLS data preview. Since the general trend is about 5 to 6 against maybe she IS RIGHT
(once again).

It’s not RIGHT or WRONG - just a choice! - Posted by Carmen_FL

Posted by Carmen_FL on February 22, 2000 at 22:39:28:

I wouldn’t pass a moral judgment on the choice - for some people, if they use it correctly, it can be a great bonus to be a realtor. For others, it would just be a waste of time and money.

Also, if this site has taught me one thing, is to make my own decisions, and not just believe what everyone else says - you know, “it can’t be done where you live”, “it’s illegal”, etc. So, whether it’s 5 to 6 against or not … I think I’ll keep my license! :slight_smile:

MLS will SOON Be available to all - Posted by Tony James

Posted by Tony James on February 22, 2000 at 22:15:01:

I was told by an agent that the MLS will soon be available on the INTERNET. so Being an AGENT wouldn’t even have that benefit.

Re: Off this topic… - Posted by Chris

Posted by Chris on February 23, 2000 at 04:42:18:

Hi Carmen-

I would like your opinion on this scenario please:

I am aware of the rule that all written offers are to be presented and the trick for the buyer to include a clause that buyer reserves right to accompany broker to present offer or at least receive a written refusal from the seller. Is there a grey area such as this, and how is it handled-

What if the seller gives his broker specific instructions that no offers will be accepted from buyers requesting seller financing or below a certain price? Along comes a buyer with a written offer with these things that the seller gave the broker instructions to not accept.

What is the broker’s next step when the buyer will not accept the broker’s answer about the seller’s limits on offers and the buyer demands the offer be presented? Could the broker legally refuse to present the offer as well as refuse to allow the buyer to present the offer?

This seems like a legal Catch 22 to me. The broker is required to present an offer that the seller has ordered him not to present. Which has precedence?

Your thoughts on this are appreciated.


Don’t hold your breath… - Posted by HR

Posted by HR on February 23, 2000 at 06:51:16:


There is no way one of the largest industries and largest group of workers is going to hand over their most valuable tool: their information. The MLS will never be available to all.

What will be available are current listings over the internet. But that ain’t the MLS. MLS access also brings the ability to pull up sold listings, expired listings, etc.

I, for one, find access to the MLS invaluable.