|
So you are looking for a good Realtor and or Loan Professional? Your looking for personal integrity someone that truly cares about you and will work diligently to give you the very best service and results? Complaints @ ConsumerAffairs.com (use your back button to come back) Article Page 1 of 3
For example, the high cost of working with referral fee-based third parties that use your listings to increase their traffic without paying you or your MLS, submerge your brand to their "network," charge up to one-third of your earnings for a closed lead, and encourage consumers to ask you to compete against other agents by lowering your fees is only beginning to dawn on some agents and brokers. As these agents realize how much they are truly paying, which is way beyond the referral fee, they are calling these companies "interlopers." "The reason why the whole referral fee debate is a concern," says Most Home Corp. Glenn Davies, vice president of sales and marketing, is that "we aren't a referral fee company, but we get lumped in with the interlopers." "Getting between brokers and their listings are using them to skim customers," clarifies Davies, "we think that is reprehensible." Most Home, says Davies, doesn't divert leads -- it helps agents manage their own. The company has been in business about five years and generates approximately 3000 leads per day between about 5,800 agents. "We'll put up a website," says Davies, "but we know the agent is busy and not tech-inclined and they have no time to manage leads, so we'll bet on you. We'll qualify the client, put our licensed agents in-house to phone and contact your Internet leads for you and those we pass on to you. Forty percent of agents pay us a referral fee to do that. Another 25 percent are paying us a fixed fee for volume of leads, and they are getting two-to-three completions a year. And others are self-managing their own websites using our software to filter leads." Davies says, "We see ourselves as personal assistants. You can license our technology, or we'll do it and you pay a referral fee or you pay a flat fee. We don't aggregate leads and sell them to agents." He turns up his nose at the user agreements that most virtual office websites require consumers to click through before they can see homes. "What we use on agent's websites is VOW-like," says Davies. "About 40 percent fill out the data, but the problem we have is asking the client to engage in a buyer's agreement. That is far too forward and not consumer-friendly. You are agreeing to a buyer's agreement, but they aren't binding, and that is deliberately cumbersome, which is at the center of the whole VOW debate." According to Davies, consumers don't like VOWs. "We talk to 400 consumers a day, and we put them through a full 15-minute interview to ask them for more information. When we are finished with them, we tell them we will ask their agent to call them. One of the things we ask is 'How did you find the agent's Website?' There are three things these consumers tell us they want: a Realtor they can trust, more information about the market, and more information on MLS data they can find on the Internet." Consumers want the data that the MLS was never intended to address -- like whether or not there are cats in the house, or dogs in the backyard. They want more pictures, he says. After software and personnel filtering, Davies says that 3.68 percent of one million leads are good enough to pass on to agents. Most consumers, says Davies, want "an idea" of what is available and to do some basic research before engaging the services of a Realtor. Consequently, a lot of Internet leads aren't really leads, and finding out which ones are is a valuable service. Do you "really" believe this...when you fill out that form to "compare" loans or Realtor qualifications...you are being manipulated and you are being used and SOLD! Next Article What's Really going on? http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/20031204_bloodsport.htm Anyone who has ever watched a boxing match understands that the contestants pay dearly for a payday in blood, brain damage, AIDS transmitted by flying body fluids, and death. Remember the day Muhammad Ali lit the Olympic torch for the opening of the 1996 Games? His hands were trembling and he had to have help. Fans the world over saw "The Greatest" at his weakest. That made the sheer bravery of his symbolic gesture even more gut wrenching to watch. As a young fighter, Ali was too fast to allow opponents to land many punches, but as he aged and fought long past expected retirement, injuries took their toll, leaving him with nerve damage, exaggerated by the onset of Parkinson's disease. Knowing what he had done to other fighters should have made it clear to Ali what the endgame was going to be. But he fought anyway, knowing any punch could land him in Jerry Quarry-land. And the world loved him for it. But not everyone cheers for valiant fighters. The practice of real estate has become a bloodsport, but no one applauds the combatant with the least injuries. In fact, it's the "winners" who shed the most blood. Another way to say it is that they compete on commissions and then share up to a third of their purses with their referral fee-based "fight promoters." The fight promoters aren't Don King, but they're every bit as ruthless and smart. They're mostly venture capital-funded companies which have created business models based on turning broker and agent desperation into gold. It works as long as brokers and agents are seduced by "new economy" double-talk like "success-based marketing" and "alternative lead generation." The fight promoters get brokers and agents to join their network by promising qualified leads. These are leads that brokers/agents are desperate to get because they know more consumers are using the Internet, but they don't understand Internet marketing. The Internet is not simple like newspapers where the rules of engagement are clear to everyone. So they buy their newspaper ads and sign on with the Internet fight promoters because it's easy. The fight promoters ask for the broker's listings and access to other broker's listings via Internet data exchange (IDX) and virtual office website (VOW) solutions. They use the listings to bring more traffic to their referral portals where they use sign-up forms to capture consumer information. If they get a lead, they give it to the broker (if he's the only one in the area, or he's agreed to pay additional money for exclusive status) or to multiple brokers who are then "compared" in a voluntary slave auction by the consumer using commissions, experience, and other criteria. The "winning" broker is the one who's most willing to lower his/her commission. Winning is described by one of these companies as "success-based" marketing -- only the broker isn't being marketed, the broker network created by the fight promoter is. There is no advertising of the names of participating brokers and agents in the network. It's made absolutely clear to consumers that the lower costs, rebates, gifts and other perks are supplied by the fight promoter. Without the power of the broker network, the consumer believes he/she would not be able to get such concessions otherwise. This belief tethers the consumer to the fight promoter so that the consumer never truly becomes a client of the broker or agent. The broker/agent finds this out the hard way as the consumer tests the broker/agent's time, patience and resources with unreasonable demands and expectations of obtaining a bargain home. The more the consumer saves, the more blood is lost by the broker and agent, and the more contempt the consumer has for the broker/agent. When the consumer closes, he/she tells friends and family about the rebates, commission savings, Home Depot gift certificates and other perks of having done business with the fight promoter. The point that the fight promoter is the hero is driven home by methods that insure the last name the consumer sees and remembers is the fight promoter's on a rebate check or some other perk. Friends and family of the consumer may contact the broker/agent, which makes the broker/agent think the pain was worth it, but then they learn that their referred customers insist on doing business through the fight promoter. So the broker/agent finds himself referring business to the fight promoter and paying one-third of his/her commissions for the privilege. The simplicity of this business plan is causing more venture capital-based companies to enter the real estate industry, making for some bizarre real estate license holders. Their collective advertising to get agents to compete on their commissions is sending a clear message to consumers, to the point that now most consumers want and expect discounts, rebates, etc. And the once brilliant, self-sustaining real estate industry, made weak with loss of blood and befuddled with brain-damage begins to wonder where it all went wrong. How did third-parties gain such control of the real estate consumer? How much more do commissions have to drop before consumers are satisfied? How did we lose our industry? One day it will dawn on them. copy end... Do you "Really" think a better service comes from all of this...Do you Really think the Realtor of Loan Professional will work as hard or as diligent?...the answer is NO! Who ultimately pays?...yep...it's the Consumer, Again! Last Article  http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/20030808_cbs.htm (Direct Article Link) CBSMarketwatch Editor Questions Referral, Lead Generation Models CBS MarketWatch editor Steve Kerch raises interesting questions about the commoditization of consumers via the new lead generation and referral fee-based companies that are collecting modest to hefty fees for leads from real estate agents and brokers. He's only begun to scratch the surface. In his article, "Consumers As Commodity", published 8-7-2003 on CBSMarketwatch.com, Kerch makes the point that Internet services make good money "matching" consumers to real estate agents, but that the services have "little incentive to strenuously police those on whom they depend for revenue." In other words, as the headline suggests, consumers are on their own. HomeGain president John Baker told Questioning the enforcement mechanism over agents who are allegedly screened by their marketing partners, Lending Tree, illustrates There are plenty more questions that could be raised from the topic of the commoditization of real estate consumers.
There's an incredible irony attached to this whole issue - that none of these lead generation or referral companies could exist if real estate brokers were more forthcoming to consumers on one simple little fact - that commissions are negotiable. It's not that consumers don't know how to find agents. Consumers use these lead generation and referral companies because they believe they just might get something special - a better agent or a better commission rate or both. What they don't know is that they are getting the same agents they would have found any number of other ways, only now there is a referral fee to be paid which is covered by a larger commission because that is the only way brokers can afford to pay such high referral fees. So who really benefits? The matchmakers NOT the consumers. end copy... Ditech.com, which contributes a big share of General Motors' profits lately, has left a lot of angry consumers by the side of the road, including those below: "C" of Jacksonville FL (7/28/03):
I actually showed up at closing 3 months after the initial app, to find out the rate lock I paid $500 for (5.85%) was not what I would be getting so I called Ditech as I'm sitting with the attorney that is closing. They told me bla bla bla "we should have told you about the change". Finally I received an email stating the loan was ready to be funded, but that I needed to fax them a copy of the land survey, which since my home was a VA repo I purchased 9 years ago, there was no survey required, therefore no survey was ever done. Why are they asking for this info at closing? Unreal. Finally after a couple of weeks, and Ditech refusing to waive the survey requirement, I had had enough and cancelled my loan. I am in the process now of trying to get my $500 back that I have been paying interest on for the past 60 days. Not only did Ditech waste my time, they actually cost me money for nothing but a lot of wasted time and hassle. Jennifer of El Cajon CA (7/25/03): That's when the trouble began. No phone calls- and when I called everything was fine - papers in underwriting etc. Then after the papers we signed expired there were problems. The appraisal didn't come in as high as they expected (although the figure told to me by G. Lin and all over our documents were the same) so we had to come up with more money or pay extra for them to give us a higher loan. I told my agent that wasn't acceptable and went to his boss, B. Merino. He couldn't do any better except $250 off the closing fee (this was a no cost loan). So he came back with 1/2 percent less on the loan but we still needed to come up with $2500 extra. I went to the Manager of Customer Care - Mike McD. He couldn't do anything for me either. NONE OF THEM EVER RETURNED A PHONE CALL AFTER 24 HOURS OF CALLING EVERY 1/2 HOUR. Any phone conversation was initiated by me. Then that night I got on the web to research who else I could talk to in the company. I had already sent numerous e-mails to the president M. McCarthy. I found all the bad reviews of ditech and knew we were in trouble. Sean of Sacramento (7/24/03): Calls to the loan agent and his supervisor were unanswered until today when we were informed that the papers had been sent to the wrong address but had been finally sent to the notary. The loan officer, Nicholas I., informed me that in order to refund the $500.00 lock-in fee, he would need to cite that my loan had been refused. I refused to comply with that and am now going to sign the papers and seek recourse later as we are leaving for a vacation and are nervous about this situation. When you work with ditech.com, you end up stuck with little alternative. I plan to seek legal advice and am also filing a report to the state consumer affairs department. I can't imagine how many people have been rooked by this company and it's practices but have been told recently that many people are getting into the loan business as "officers" to make fast money. I feel foolish that I did not check this site before starting up the process. As I told the "loan officer" today, "Shame on you for your lack of ethics!" If you are considering ditech.com - run! We have never had any sort of experience like this before and hope that we can prevent even one family from going through this. Stephen of El Paso (7/23/03): The interest rates are going back up, and I've already locked in a rate and it expired. Now I can't lock in again before the rates rise again. David of Tustin CA (7/8/03): The agent, Gilbert Lin, contacted me the next day and asked for current information regarding income and other requirements, bank statements, recent tax returns, etc., which I faxed to him immediately the same day. Mr. Lin called me back the next day and described terms for a refinancing of the 1st mortgage and an additional 2nd mortgage which would enable me to repay most of my existing obligations. I told him that those terms were satisfactory and had a $500.00 charge made to a credit card to lock in the rate of 6.00%. He told me that my processor would be Wendy S and that if I had any further questions, I should contact her and that she would be in touch with me to set up a signing. Several days elapsed and I tried to call Ms. S, left messages on her voice mail and received no response so I called Mr. Lin, left a message on his voice mail and he called me back and set up a signing date of April 13, 2003 at 10:00AM. At about 9:00AM on April 13 2003, not having heard from anyone, I placed another call to Mr. Lin. I left him a message and he called me back about 9:30. He said that he had an e-mail message from Ms. S that there was a problem with the terms he had quoted me and that it was necessary to change the terms. He quoted me the new terms, which were quite satisfactory, and in fact I thought they were better suited to my needs than the first quotation. This loan, according to Mr. Lin, was scheduled to close and be funded by the end of April. As we approached the end of April, I placed another call to Ms. S, and once again left messages and received no return calls so I called Mr. Lin and he called me back and said that Ms. S informed him that her supervisor had informed her that they would not fund any more loans in April and that my loan had to be moved into a May funding. At that time, Mr. Lin set up a new signing date for May 1, 2003. I received a call from the Notary and she came by at 10:00AM on May 1, 2003 and we signed the loan documents. A 1st mortgage for $202,000.00, which would provide funds to pay off the 1st mortgage held by GMAC Mortgage and to pay off the 2nd mortgage held by ditech.com. Another loan was for $58,000.00 secured by a 2nd mortgage and the proceeds were to be used to pay off existing credit card amounts and leave a cash-to-me balance of approximately $28,000.00. From this point on, there were many calls made to Ms. S. When she did answer in person, there were always many different excuses as to why I was still waiting. Underwriting had discovered errors made my Mr. Lin in transposing SSNs and he had to correct those errors! Underwriting needed more information regarding bank statements and bankruptcy adjudication date. We needed to show a bank statement with more than $715.00 in it. Anything that was asked for, we provided. Finally, after many phone calls and unreturned messages, I was informed by Ms. S that my loans had gone to funding and since the two loans couldnt be funded the same day, there would be a delay between funding of the 1st mortgage and the 2nd mortgage. By ditech.coms funding document, the 1st mortgage closed on 6/13/2003. Federal Express delivered the escrow statement with a check refunding my rate lock-in deposit and a partial refund of the June 1st mortgage payment which I had to make even though I had been told that the new loan would be closed in May 2003 and the first payment on the new 1st mortgage would be in July 2003. I now assumed, based on what I had been told by both Ms. S and Mr. Lin, that I would be receiving the proceeds from the 2nd mortgage at any moment starting on June 16, 2003. On June 25, 2003, my wife received a phone call from Ms. S saying that our 2nd mortgage loan had been turned down due to a high debt to income ratio. Then to add a little insult to injury, Mr. Lin informed us that they could still make a 2nd mortgage, but only with the amount necessary to pay off the credit cards. These bait and switch tactics are totally repugnant. I may be a senior citizen but I had expected much better treatment from a company that I had been a good customer of for over 10 years. I would like a response on how ditech.com plans to rectify the damage they have done by presenting false promises to me and causing undue stress. I held up my part of the initial agreement, providing everything that was requested, while ditech.com changed terms midstream and mishandled what should have been a very straightforward transaction. Vivian of Clarksville MD (7/4/03): To get an answer is, to put it bluntly, impossible! Our closing pay-off numbers from our old GMAC loan do not match the new higher numbers with our refinanced Ditech loan, and this was a no-fee, no-point transcation! Word of warning to any one using Ditech, review your paperwork carefully, and if possible have a title attorney go over it with a fine tooth comb, that is if you ever get your paperwork to review to begin with! With 5 closings, we only recived paperwork once prior, so that we could review, and wouldn't you know it, the notary scheduled to come to our home never even showed up, but of course that was not their fault ... nothing ever is. We were told twice by 2 of the notaries that came out to our home that there was no money due at these closings, to complete our new loan, and showed us the paperwork to back this. Both times the deal did not close because we did not pay them money that we were never told about. Both times I would never had known our loans did not go throughg because no one calls, as the customer I HAD TO INITIATE EVERYTHING!! It took 5 NOTARIES TO COME TO OUR HOME TO CLOSE UNTIL IT APPEARED WE GOT THINGS RIGHT! We have been out and out lied to, and when attempting to clarify matters and get the ball rolling AGAIN, calls are not even returned. This is the most unprofessional organization I have ever dealt with. When you ask Ditech to explain how certain fees and numbers are derived, they refuse to answer and tell you that that is just how the numbers are. I am hoping to purchase a new home, and would never consider doing business with this company again. "M" of Nashua NH (6/24/04): Jesus of Santa Ana CA (6/6/04): Tina of Bland VA (5/28/04): After he got our money, one month passed, then 2 months passed. When we finally got hold of him again, he changed his story. He said the only we would be able to get a $69,000.00 loan was to have the owner lie and sign a purchase agreement saying the cost of the home would be $73,000.00. We told him we would not do this. We would not lie to get the home. He then told us we would only be able to get $59,000.00. I then told him at this point that I would not go through with the loan. I demanded our $500.00 deposit back and I was told we would get it in 3-4 days. This was over 3 weeks ago. What can I do to get this money refunded? Julia of Pekin IL (5/22/03): Julie fo Solana Beach CA (5/9/04): Laurie of Fairfax Station VA (4/10/03): Chuck of Pepperell MA (3/31/05): Timothy of Mesa AZ (3/14/03): When the paperwork was done and the signing was imminent could reach no one to ask regarding a few questions we had. So we took matters into our own hands and scratched thru some items we thought were inaccurate. We signed the papers and sent them in January 17, 2003. We now are at March 14, 2003 and we have yet to see any final papers nor have we paid a mortgage payment. In spite of my best efforts, NO ONE at Ditech can find our loan other than in a very elementary way. We are frankly sick of Ditech, sick of Ms. H. and her ineptness and sick and tired of trying to help these people try to finish our process. It was nice of them to pay for our house and not expect anything back from us other than a down payment. Bungling, thats what I call it. Pathetic, or too busy to care! Not worth the effort. We would never recommend or use Ditech again. Dave of Durand MI (8/5/02): Marc of Alta Loma CA (7/9/02): What also happened was that our old escrow account was accessed and used to pay off some of the new ones debts dispite that we had written instruction otherwise. We hasve written David Applegate CEO, Mike Murphy, President & Pete Saso, Director of consumer relations. They deny any wrongdoing yet when I ask for their documentation to prove their position, they turn a deaf ear. Sherry of Cottage Grove MN (6/18/03): Sean of Alexandria VA (6/3/02): ACCOUNT IS PAID OFF, RIGHT? Unfortunately not. The O'briens call ditech.com to get a letter of satisfaction on June 1, 2002. O'briens are told there are no records of these transactions, the balance on their account is now $10,010. Hundreds of phone calls to ditech.com has produced no answers to the missing funds. I'll be suing, is anyone else up for it? Mimi of Sevierville TN (5/2/02): Yet another trip to town to get another copy and fax it! All to no avail, as they still said they'd only give me $92,000 and piggy-back a line of credit for $23,000 (remember I only wanted $100,000) at prime + 31/2% (!). Not only that, but they would hold back $10,000 until they "approved" of my finishing of my downstairs shower (I'm in the midst of having a beautiful leaded, beveled glass, shower-surround designed around the glass I already own), finish the wainscoating in my bathroom....there is none, it's stone paneling floor to cedar ceiling, and tile the sunken tub in my master suite. I'm currently making (I'm a potter) handcrafted 3D tile for this mini room....there's 240 sq. ft. and that will take me a little while.....at this point I became angry. I've lived here for 26 years, my house has 40 stained glass windows installed, 15 double palladian windows in the livingroom, a wine cellar, and this is not good enough for them? I finally figured out what they were trying to pull; let me hang for 3 months, then not let me have the money I need unless I'm stupid enough, to pay the high rate for the piggy-backed new line of equity. I told Dennis I wanted my $500 back because I didn't like their offer, and they said I could get it back if the appraisal didn't come up to the requested loan amount. It has taken a while, but they did refund it....along with a letter saying my loan had been refused for "condition of property". The piece next to mine just sold for $10,000, and it's less than 1 acre! Now I have to start all over. Jerry of Buena Park CA writes (2/24/01): On top of that, he said you have three days to make a decision to go forward with this transaction. I told him "How can I make a decision if I don't have copies of documents we that we just signed." He then "Well, if you don't want to continue, just call this number or fax a written statement before midnight on December 29th." I finally received the copies of the documents we signed on December 29th when we got home from work. Because we just came home from work with 2 kids and holiday season, it really didn't give us time to study ALL pages of the 1st and 2nd mortgage documents. Fine! We went ahead and proceeded with the loan. On Jan 24, 2001, I received a call from Randall (the loan processor) and told me that the check their Escrow department sent to my supposed to-be-former second mortgage holder (Household Financial Services) was returned because it was short $647.00 and I should pay this difference. So I told him "How could you make a mistake specially when you're in loan business?" So, I asked what were the figures in the Payoff Demand so I can do some research, he said something about Ditech being paperless and that the Demand was already erased. I told him that I'll look for the Settlement Statement that weekend. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find the statement that weekend. I called him again to inform him about the statement. So, I asked him to produce and send me a copy of figures that came from Household Financial Services. This time he said OK. On Jan 20, I found out that my supposed-to-be-former second mortgagor (Household) collected another $360.62 from my checking account. That means I paid two 2nd mortgages for the month of January and February this year (not to mention the pre-paid interest from Dec 29th, 2000 through Jan31, 2001 that Ditech already collected from my 2nd mortgage. I have contacted Household Finance Services and found out that they returned the funds that they received from Ditech on Dec. 29th because it was short $318.69. Household also said that they faxed the payoff demand same day. Last week, I spoke to Randall and he informed me that his manager (Mike B) is now handling my loan papers. I have called Mr. B and left a message. I called Household on Feb. 20 and found out that Ditech still haven't paid off the 2nd mortgage from Household. ... It has been 57 days (almost 2 months) and they still have the money on their possession and still holding the funds to pay off the balance on Household Finance. I'm paying one 1st mortgage, two 2nd mortgages that I don't need, didn't ask for and that are COSTING me a bundle of money in interest payments. Stephen of Orcutt, CA, writes: Tina of Lumberton NC (10/13/00): Jessica of Walnut Creek, CA, writes (8/3/05): back to the web site ask a question? | ||||||||||||||||||
What Forbes says about 
