Toll Brothers - Hawthorn Woods - and Hawthorn Woods Real Estate and Luxury Home Communities

Toll Brothers - Hawthorn Woods Country Club development is especially flexible on their "quick delivery" homes and townhomes in this community. They have "Tournament Collection" Townhomes starting from the high 300's and single family homes- such as the "Signature Collection" starting in the low 700's, or the "Golf Villa Collection" (starting in the high 400's) - offering 3- and 4- bedroom home designs backing to the Arnold Palmer "signature golf course."

(Call us at 847-566-7558 or email: info@relocationadvisorsgroup.com to learn more..)

Golf membership initiation fees are in the mid 30's at the moment - and 2006 golf memebership monthly dues are $515 per month. Social Membership monthly dues are $225 per month. Guest fee is $70 (for a guest to golf). Cart fee - $20. Swim guest fee is $7. Annual locker rental is $240. (If you become our client - talk to us about having some of that stuff "thrown in")

There is a 25 meter swimming pool, three clay surface tennis courts, two platform tennis courts, a fitness center and aerobics room, and hiking and biking trails. Hawthorn Woods Country Club has a variety of social events.

Fees for the Signature collection are $295/month which includes $225/month for social membership and $70 per month for homeowners association dues. Golf Villa Colelction dues are $397/month with landscape maintenance and snow removal provided. ($225/mo for social membership and $172/mo for HOA dues) The Tournament Collection of townhomes also has landscape maintenance and snow removal as services - the $225/mo for social membership and $261/mo HOA dues.

If you are thinking about purchasing a luxury home in Chicago's Northwest Suburbs over one million dollars - talk to us.

Hawthorn Woods is really one of Chicago's best kept secrets. Many people haven't heard of the community - located between Mundelein and Lake Zurich. There are other great communities all over Hawthorn Woods - from Countryside Glen, White Birch Lakes, White Birch Meadows, Abbey Glen Estates, the Ridge of Hawthorn Woods, Countryside Meadows, Hawthorn Knolls, Pheasant Creek Estates, Copperfield, Hawthorn Grove, Rambling Hills West, Briarwood Estates, Walnut Creek, Camden Trace, The Summit, Lakewood Estates, Woodland Estates, Lakewood Meadow, Thornfield, Heather Highlands, Estates of Indian Creek, and Glennshire.

How Real Estate Firms and State Associations are Confusing the General Public

If your are a potential home buyer - please be aware that agents and their companies are prostituting the term "Exclusive" - by sometimes calling themselves an "Exclusive Buyer Agent" or having you enter into an "Exclusive Buyer Agreement"

The official definition from NAR back in the 1990s is that an Exclusive Buyer Agent never lists property for sale - nor does their company - to avoid the conflicts of interest that typical "buyer agents" have. The term "Exclusive" is critical - because the meaning is just that --- exclusively representing buyers.

A traditional buyer agent - can offer you no more than Exclusive Right to Represent Agreement (which means that they are the only agent that is representing you) - which is a far cry from an "Exclusive Buyer Agency Agreement" which means that you are working with an agent that is representing you, but that they and their office never represent sellers. BIG DIFFERENCE.

When they dilute the meaning of the term "Exclusive", and confuse the general public - no one can understand the difference in the type of representation that is offered.

In fact - under an Exclusive Right to Represent Agreement-- that agent may only be temporarily "designated" to represent you. If you become interested in one of their own listings- they suddenly don't represent you anymore -- either declare dual agency on you - or shuffle you off to another agent in their office for you to work with ("Designating them") -- who you may not want to work with at all.

At that point - that agent that WAS supposed to be representing you - is not supposed to tell the seller what they know about you...but at the same time, they are legally representing the seller and working in their best interest. So - as a consumer - can you see the problem here??

I hope so.

And what you - as a home buyer - aren't told - is that every other agent in that agent's office is your adversary....and that there could be overheard phone conversations, that there are shared fax machines and file cabinets, and that your agent may have biases towards showing more in-house listings or worse - their own listing -- because perhaps they get a bigger commission split if they push an "in-house" listing on you. Agents don't disclose these 'issues" to you.

When you understand that this can happen with a traditional agent - and that you get better representation from an Exclusive Buyer Agent for no extra cost (everything is built into the transaction) - using an Exclusive Buyer Agent when you are buying becomes a "no brainer."

Unfortunately - as a home buyer - you aren't told upfront what an Exclusive Right to Represent Agreement really means. And worse yet - most buyers in Illinois sign no agreement at all. This means that agents have carte blanche ability to deceive you. Across the US (and in Illinois) there is less than a 12% disclosure rate.

If you have no contract with an agent - they are supposed to disclose that they might suddenly not be representing you at one point -- upon first contact with you (or if you sign an Exclusive Right to Represent agreement with them - within that agreement) but since most buyers don't have a contract with an agent in Illinois - most of the agents are disclosing this fact way too late -- contract signing (which isn't legal).

Consumers deserve better...

Why Dual Agency and Designated Agency Are "Legal" Even Though They are Bad for the Consumer

Dual agency, designated agency, transaction broker, and facilitator are all efforts to undermine and circumvent the common law of agency. During the past ten years - The National Association of Realtors (NAR) issued instructions to all state and local associations to ask for new state laws that specifically abrogate the common law of agency.

The common law of agency dictates that the agent/firm must put the interests of the client/principal ahead of all others, including those of the agent/firm.

Agency disclosure in the late 1980s revealed that an in-house sale might be impossible if both sellers and buyers requested representation. The fact that dual agency was, and is, dangerous for the agent, and an oxymoron by definition, gave rise to possible alternatives to save the in-house sale and the 10 billion dollars it brings.

To get around the drawbacks of "dual agency" - states have been adopting "designated agency". The is the case in Illinois - and most recently - Wisconsin - where the employing broker designates one agent within his/her office to be an agent for the seller and another agent within her/his office to be the agent for the buyer. However - designated agency is really undisclosed "dual agency" - and not very good for the consumer. Unfortunately "designated agency" has been legalized in Wisconsin, Illinois and many other states - in order to assure that traditional Real Estate companies can maintain and legalize the "double dip" - despite all the conflicts of interest for the consumer. It is about greed - rather than what is best for the consumer.

Law firms don't allow you to hire an attorney while your adversary uses another attorney at the same firm. So why should this be legal in Real Estate? Greed. The buyer's information and negotiation power can be compromised in these offices.

As a buyer - if you have one agent in the office representing you - all the other agents in that same office are your adversaries. As a buyer - there is a good chance that your confidential information may be compromised through shared fax machines, file cabinets - overheard phone conversations etc.

So who is it then that benefits from these new real estate laws? Usually its the party that initiates new legislation that has the most to gain. NAR and state associations do the leg work because they are beholden to the membership - 99.9% of which represent "both sides" to get the double dip - and use the seller's money very inefficiently (print ads which are known to be less than 2% effective in helping sell the home (of course - no agent tells the seller that) - but generate "buyer leads" for the agent - using the seller's money. Nothing like free advertising on the seller's dime..) Who represents the public?

Unfortunately - the state real estate associations (with the exception of Ohio) do not disclose the existence of the consumer option of Exclusive Buyer Agency in their "Consumer Options" brochures. The board on the State Associations are typically members of the mega-brokers - who of course - advance their own interests to the detriment of the consumer - and they surely don't want the consumer to know about the existence of Exclusive Buyer Agents. (It would be a no-brainer to use them if the public knew.... so fostering disclosure of it it - would be a major threat to their business model.) Who wouldn't want a better form of buyer representation for the same price? (i.e. - nothing out of pocket to the buyer)

Though Exclusive Buyer Agency represents a much higher level of representation to the buyer - the clout and special interest groups and PAC money of the large brokerages ensure that the general public is left in the dark.

The fact that dual agency was, and is, dangerous for the agent, and an oxymoron by definition, gave rise to "designated agency" (which is really dual agency is sheep's clothing) to save the in-house sale and the 10 billion dollars it brings.

The Consumer Federation of America Comments on Real Estate

This isn't anything earth shattering to people who are educated about Real Estate - but unfortunately - the general public still doesn't understand how things work in the business...

The following (link text) should have said "agents" not brokers...though if the broker of a firm is also a "working agent" for a buyer well - it can apply of course. (Some brokers don't compete with their agents and only manage the agents in their office - while others also do business with clients on their own in addition to managing the office.)

Brokers"double dip," promoting their own listings or the listing of their firm over properties better suited for their clients.

The Consumer Federation also said:

"Traditional brokers who work with both seller and buyer in a home sale almost always function as facilitators. Brokers try to make sure a sale is completed (and they get paid), rather than as fiduciary agents acting in the best interests of their clients, as the brokers claim to do."

My comment is that this is for sure the case in dual agency situations or in states that legalize "facilitator" representation (such as Florida) - and again - this should say agents - not brokers. In Illinois - a buyer agent is presumed to be representing the buyer and is supposed to be a fiduciary to the buyer - but the problem is potentially promoting in-house listings or the current commission structure that is just accepting the "co-op" commission listed on the MLS sheet - which is is a flat percentage - meaning that the agent gets paid more when the buyers price goes up. So the tendency CAN BE that they work over their buyer to come up in price to get the deal done - rather than working harder to get the seller to come down. In that sense - even though they are SUPPOSED TO be representing their buyer client fully - the way their compensation is structured and the potential bias towards the seller when in-house listings are shown is really a hidden conflict of interest - and CAN make they way things really happen - lean a bit more towards facilitation.

Exclusive Buyer Brokerages (and their Exclusive Buyer Agents) - choose to not list property for sale - so that they may represent you 100% - 100% of the time without the conflicts of interest you may have if you use a "buyer agent" who lists property for sale (represents sellers). This is the main difference between an Exclusive Buyer Agent and a Buyer Agent.

Loan Rate Buy Downs - Working Well

We recently had a buyer client get a rate reduction from 6.25% to 5.5% by having the seller pay points, and we also had all their closing costs paid (& nothing out of pocket to us) - and nice "price off list"

Lets use an example.... For about $18,000, a seller can permanently buy down the interest rate of a $450,000, 30-year loan a full percentage point, shaving $289 a month off the buyer's mortgage payments. That assumes a 10 percent down payment on a $500,000 home, with a 6.5 percent interest rate before the buy-down. In order to give the buyer the equivalent savings through a price reduction, the seller would have to cut his/her price by $45,800.

As a rule of thumb, a seller would need twice the price reduction to equal the buy-down's advantage in savings per month for the buyer. Thus - it is a great thing for us to propose to sellers, for our buyer clients.

Once fairly commonplace, buy-downs all but disappeared during the boom years in the housing market, when interest rates were falling, prices were climbing, and sellers in many regions could count on receiving multiple offers.

You know - if you mention buy-downs to a group of Realtors or loan officers, half of them won't know what you're talking about. It's pretty funny. I guess that shows how long I've been around... Of course - I also remember when there were assumable loans :-)

I talk about buy-downs during our initial consultation with a buyer client. We can show the buyer the difference this makes to them in their monthly payment. We tell them - don't worry about rates in the 6's -- we can most likely get you rates in the 5's due to our negotiation abilities. We can magically "put you back to the time" when rates were the best.

Interest-rate buy-downs can be permanent or temporary. Sometimes - they are phased out over three years, while other times - they are phased out when you reach the time when the ARM will adjust.

Home Buyers Aren't Properly Educated or Informed About The Different Forms of Representation in Real Estate and Their Implications

Did you Know That 77% of Buyers Pick the Listing Agent of a Home They are Interested in (many times, on the Internet) to represent them for their purchase?
This is one of the WORST things a buyer could do! The buyer is typically raked over the coals by the listing agent. The agent gathers all the information they can about the buyer and their situation to give their seller the upper hand.

Listing agents are represent THE SELLER - not the buyer. Unfortunately - "agency disclosure" (letting the buyer know how they are really being represented (or not)) is being provided less than 12% of the time by agents across the USA.

The Consumer Federation of America states that the public needs to be more informed. I couldn't agree more..

And worse yet - only a couple states - Ohio and California - let buyers know that there is another option for them -- Exclusive Buyer Agency representation. A distinctly different form of representation than "buyer agency" (where the agent and their company list property for sale.) Here is the definition of an Exclusive Buyer Agent.

Joel Stern of Silver Spring, Maryland, filed a lawsuit against Weichert Realtors, reportedly one of the largest independent brokerage firms in the country, for failing to properly disclose that they represented the seller in connection with his recent aborted home purchase. Stern believes he was induced to sign a contract to buy the house at an excessive price because the agent that Stern thought represented him as a buyer's agent was in fact functioning as an agent for the seller.

Recent data released by the National Association of Realtors indicates that real estate agents are failing to disclose whom they represent in transactions at an alarming rate, even where state laws (such as Illinois' agency disclosure law) require them to do so in writing at their first substantive meeting with a potential client.

According to the author of this article, Kenneth Harney of the Washington Post, "You as a buyer or seller need to be alert. Demand a formal disclosure of representation before beginning any substantive discussions with an agent. Do not assume that you are working with a buyer's agent whose sole loyalty is to you."

Harney further cautions, "If it's not in writing, it doesn't exist. In the absence of a signed buyer-agent agreement or other disclosure to the contrary, your agent is almost certainly working for the seller and will squeeze the highest price possible out of you on the seller's behalf."