No, because as much as we try, it is difficult to convince every Buyer to provide this information up front.  And on listings, I think the best way to sell is to get as many showings as possible.I saw one case where a Buyer wanted to see homes the weekend after she met with one of my agents and was unable to provide a preapproval letter in that time frame.  In my opinion, the home she missed was perfect  -- but she found another and bought it.  The good home sat on the market much longer and even went through one price reduction before selling.  To me, it was a big mistake on the part of the Seller.

No, I don't think that is reasonable at all/.

I think it's a bit over the top for a seller to request a POF or preapproval letter. I sure like seeing that with an offer, but it's not necessary for a showing. 

Consumers are much more careful about having their financial information out there. It's to the benefit of buyers agents to self-control whom they take on showings.  On that topic, I presume the sellers would not allow an "open house". And that reminds me of a seller who wanted me to get copies of drivers licenses before letting someone in. I refused because of liability for myself and my client. What if someone's identity gets ripped off afterwards? The same could be true for handing out "proof of funds" all over the place.  

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but if I'm a seller and somebody wants to buy my property, then SHOW ME THE MONEY! Otherwise you're just wasting my time.

No, if required chances are I will move on to another property! I do not show property to buyers not qualified!

Good morning Debbie.It is a little crazy, but can't tell you that I have not seen the request. I would not send a copy of a 401K statement.

This would likely reduce the marketability of the property since a smaller buyer base will be willing to jump through the hoops to just see the property.

Debbie - I think we need to trust that the buyer's agent is doing their job and getting a preapproval letter, or they have a proof of funds letter before they ever go out showing their clients properties. If we trust our fellow agents, then the seller and/or seller's agent would not need this information prior to having a buyer's agent show their listing.

If we can't trust our fellow agents then no wonder our industry is such a mess. Let the buyer's agent do their job, and let the listing agent do theirs.

If I were a buyer, I would not want to have to show proof I could afford a home before I even walked through it. After all, I may drive up to the property and not even go in because it is not what I expected.

For luxury homes, that is a different story.

I don't think it should be necessary.

That is going too far Debbie. I would talk my buyer client into skipping a listing if they had these rules. Why show them all this private data when you do not even know if they are interested in the property yet.

I think requiring documentation from another agent is a little over the top, but it sounds like these sellers may be extremely "high maintenance".

Certainly the sellers can require it, but they will limit showings, I don't think many of my buyers would do that without a high end property. 

Debbie Reynolds that's going little too far, I guess. I can understand if it was luxury home.

I check with my clients and if they are comfortable sharing the information and the home is worth taking a look, may be, yes.

Debbie, that sounds a little, well, rude!

No. I try to make it as easy as possible for the house to be shown. Its when an offer is made that I ask for pre approvals etc. to accompany the offer.

I don't think showing a pre-approval letter and/or POF should be required to show a property, but certainly for offering on one.

Having to show pre-approval and/or POF slows things down and may inspire the agent and prospective buyer to move on to the next property because they think the seller and listing agent are going to be a pain in the butt throughout the entire transaction. 

Debbie,

Personally, the whole idea infuriates me to no end.  When we looking for our first home, not a single agent asked us for a proof or funds, nor a prequal letter.  And, we had spoken with our accountant and knew exactly what we could afford.  When we wrote our offer and gave them a check, we still did not get asked for that.   

One never knows who they are really dealing with.  I worked with someone whose budget to lease a place was small.  We passed one of our listings on famed Melrose Avenue, and she said I want to be there...and I said, "can we show the landlord a financial statement that would back up your ability to pay the rent for 10 years?  Without hesitation, she said yes..."I am the heiress to ________,"  Let's give people the benefit of the doubt.  A

No ....I normally know all the agents who are showing my properties and I know they don't work with buyers who can not buy! I know it's different in larger areas.

They cannot dictate where the funds come from, only a lender can.  I've only seen pre-qual and POF for offers.  Why put an obstacle infront of someone for a showing?  Most agents out here would skip right by that listing.

Debbie Reynolds It's the buyer's agent's job to insure their client is qualified to purchase the home. I don't think it is the seller's right to see any financial information until there is an offer on the table.

If there is a buyer's agent, we should rely on them to some extent to bring us a qualified buyer. I would not insist on proof of funds for a first showing, especially if it's not a multi-million-dollar property. I think 401K funds might be time-consuming due to the way the release of the funds is structured. 

It's ridiculous! And it's not any of the seller's business what the buyer's situation is until/unless they have made an offer.

I think that is a seller's decision.

No.

I think sellers can have this requirement.  I find it "too much", but we can't always stop our sellers.

Debbie,
Give me a break. I would call the listing agents broker and ask why.

I have only had to do that on high end properties.  The sellers have no business whether or not it is in a 401K, in my opinion.  It is whether or not they can pull it out in a timely manner.

It would cut down on the number of times the seller has to vacate for a buyer who is not very serious.

With TRID and the restrictions on what a lender can do this will be a problem unless I am interpreting this wrong about tying an address to the approval letter or even being able to ask for supporting documents.

I have required it at times.  If I feel that there may be an issue with the buyer

Why would anyone want to open up their home to a buyer who does not have either a full pre-approval or proof of funds!  And why would a Realtor waste time with a buyer who cannot show full pre-approval or proof of funds?

Anything else is a waste of everyone's time.

No, I think having the preapproval on file with the buyers agent should be good enough. 

Yes, I think a seller is entitled to know a buyer CAN pay for their home, because in the end, if they WANT to pay for it is a moot point if they can't pay for it.

Re: the 401k fund, I would correct them --- a 401k, WITH terms of withdrawal (showing a buyer has access to the funds, and perhaps even the timeline to retrieve those funds) is just as good as a liquid account. (provided the wait period to access funds isn't extremely long)