[quote=CA renter]
And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.
Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.[/quote]
Dude.
Do you not get tired of this conversation?
Starting again:
It would be nice if the banks were more interested or willing.
This is especially true since they stand to lose a great deal more if they foreclose.
Their loss (which is common) is necessarily a taxpayer loss.
The problem is that they are unwilling to put the pieces in place to make them efficient and are uninterested in being proactive about facilitating or encouraging them prior to a repo.
With regard to your question of involvement.
The property is sold only by its owner.
The bank has merely a security interest (not an ownership interest) in the property.
That gives them a legally very limited role.
The idea that the borrower is just some supplicant asking for mercy is facile and uninformed. In a purely theoretic way, communism makes sense. However, it has about as much likelihood of being successful as your idea of how things “should” be.
