Buyer is a crafty liar. Buyer has no plan to live up to the contract terms.

Buyer's agent is subject to professional censure and, perhaps, loss of license because the agent is complicit in the preparation and presentation of a fraudulent contract.

As a listing agent, I would advise my client to decline the offer from a liar - actually two liars - because what starts badly is likely to end badly.

If I have proof of the deception, I would file an ethics complaint with my Board or file a complaint with the Department of Real Estate or both.

I had to laugh about the number of times I've seen this shady action during the days of 07 to 10 when every investor (or not investor) was trying to buy up a lot of homes.  Cash.....right?  Proof of funds - as in real proof of funds buster!  Gotta smoke em out.   As for the buyers agents....not wise.  I was always LA so no way will I let that get by me.

 To me that would change the whole structure of the contract! There is a difference between a Cash Offer and Finance... So I would say Shady on part of the Buyer's Agent trying to misrepresent the Buyer's intent... 

In our region our contracts allow us to call it a "cash offer", but with the right to get financing.

But we are upfront about it.  Our contract is not contingent on our ability to get a mortgage... even though we're getting one.

Is it a wrap loan?  Or is it someone who offers cash and then 3 days in changes their mind and goes for a loan?  Out here in Cali the seller is under no obligation to accept the new terms (per CAR legal).  Had something similar happen once when a conventional loan turned FHA because they couldn't qualify conventional.  Cash usually gets preferential treatment over loans, sometimes better terms or it just gets their offer accepted.  Might be time to renegotiate the contract and I'd likely have little trust of either party going forward.

Definitely shady. It is a legal contract they have written, legally they have to come up with the cash. I wouldn't trust the agent to do a deal with again. S/He is suppose to be advising his/her clients what they are doing is not according to the legal contract they have written.

The listing agent could vet this out with due diligence before the seller accepts the offer. 

Buyer and the agent ... beyond shady. 

Can they move forward without a loan?

There is no financing contingency for a cash buyer, and they need to show proof of funds that they can close without financing! Did they and can they?

The buyer could pay cash but can also take a loan as long as it did not cost the seller anything. As a listing agent, I would want to know!!!

SHADY

For the listing agent:

Be not overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:21 KJV (Listing with the Lord edition)

That is definitely shady, the old bait and switch.

As long as they want to take the risk of not including a financing contingency, and they are sure to have funds at closing I am okay with it.

Anyone who lies on an offer is shady (at a minimum, I'd use stronger words).

End of story.

Tricky-tricky! No treat for the buyer who must close on time without using the financing/appraisal deadline. Why even do that?

I was the listing agent on a transaction where the buyer was going to get a loan - then pay cash - then get a loan again. It closed on time and all parties were happy.

Shady. Buyer can refinance right after close and get same product. Listing agent will find out when appraiser calls, and lender starts asking title/escrow/attorney for paperwork. Seller may have nominal more costs with a loan.  

Dishonest and shady.  

If there is no proof of funds by date in contract *and there is one with a cash offer, we'll send a cure notice, if they can't seller can terminate.

No matter the side I'm on,  it's either a cash deal or a financed deal. End of Story. Soooo...SHADY

As we have to have proof of funds for cash or approval for the mortgage, it would be difficult here.

Shady for sure but not necessarily a deal breaker.  Our goals is to get our listings sold and leave our ego and hurt feelings out of it.  Not looking to end a legitimate offer even if the buyer and their agent deceived us as long as they can close on time and the terms are still acceptable.

The 'shady' is in the intent.

If they decided they wanted to change and could demonstrate to seller that it will be transparent and seamless, and seller approves it . . . fine.

But this sounds like it was designed to deceive for an 'upper hand'.

I'd reject outright.

I'd reject outright.

Not shady, they are making an offer without a financing contingency.  The Buyers are risking their deposit if they default.

Buyers with financing contingencies don't always close and often times tie up a property while a less than honorable mortgage person keeps requesting extra time and then ultimately issue a loan denial.  To me, that is more shady.

Invalid question.
The question is presented and biased to imply deceit.
The reality is, BUYERS do have choices that are often affected by the situation of the property AND/OR information revealed later regarding their options. (financing is less expensive than liquidating holdings during that 60 day period)
The only thing really in question here is the professionalism if the agent representing the SELLER. 
The prime objective of the listing agent is the PROTECT THEIR CLIENT.
What can go wrong with a cash offer?  It is the listing agents job to know what can go wrong and PROTECT THEIR CLIENT.
All cash offers are shady when someone fails to do their job.

It is shady if the buyer's agent has knowledge. Hopefully the earnest money deposit is large. A possible grievance could be filed at the board by the seller or the managing broker of the listing office.

If the seller's agent has knowledge, he should advise his coustomers that if they proceed they should require a large deposit and make the closing date time is of the essence.

The problem occurs when the buyer gets a mortgage but may miss the closing date by a few days. Equity abhors forfeiture and liberal judges may forgive the buyer.

I can think of a few words besides shady that apply here to the buyer and the buyer agent.

How do you really know they are intending to use financing? How well do you know your clients?  I would not want to second guess anyone.  

I can't really make a judgment without knowing the personalities.  I am not really convinced that cash is king these days.  Sellers for the most part are interested in getting top dollar for their properties and the idea of a quick close for a low cash offer might not be of interest.  

Definitely shady, and we do see it often, especially when there are multiple offers.

NOT shady...read the contract...what does the small print say?

In Florida the contract (line 82) does allow the buyer to claim to pay cash and at the same time go for financing.

The difference is that there is then no contingency.

Eve

I used to know agents that did this & our contract was re-written so this didn't happen. Also where is the POF? They won't be in the bank but they could be.

Still to me it's not honest on the part of the BA. This is why LA's need to be on their toes.

Our contract asks multiple times - hey where's that money at now? Are you going to still get a loan? It is written a few different ways.

In our state, if there is a change to the financing terms, the seller needs to accept them. The buyer's agent should have written the offer as a financing purchase. Failure to do this is being dishonest and can open the agent up to disciplinary action if he/she knew.

Bad advice. They will need to comply with the terms of the contract.

Depends on what you mean by "financing". If it's a traditional mortgage loan, then it's not cash and the issue will be exposed. If it's a borrowing from a line of credit, say a home equity line on another property (or some other kind of unsecured line of credit) and then using that cash to purchase a home, then it's cash as far as the seller is concerned. So, please clarify what the proposed deal entails.

I would say that 95% of my offers are structured that way although not before confirmation that "cash" is on hand to close if need be. By the same token where financing is necessary the offer will state "subject to financing".

Shady, but contracts vary by state. Cash offers should include a bank statement showing they have funds in their account(s).

That's beyond shady. Just sayin' (both as a listing and a buyer agent).

How people perform as long as they perform remains the end result

In my view it is shady if the buyer does not have the true ability to make an all cash offer, which can easily be proven with copies of bank statements to support the source of funds. A buyer can seek to obtain financing during the contract period so long as all deadlines and criteria are met. It would only be shady if the buyer did not have the funds readily available for the cash purchase. A seller can counter the buyer's offer with a request for a larger earnest money deposit, that can be non-refundable, as an option.