If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.
If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.
BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]
Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.
The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.
That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).
But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.
Logical framework:
1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.
Real life example:
I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.
Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.
As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.
I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.[/quote]
I don’t care if the house was properly listed and got an offer from an unrelated buyer. I DO care if the deal was made before the house hit the MLS/market, and it’s particularly unethical if the deal was made between related parties (including anyone related in any way to the agents involved).
Yes, if banks/regulators required a minimum marketing time, that would be of great help. It would also help if they did periodic audits to ensure agents weren’t ripping them (and the taxpayers) off.
BTW, not sure where you got the “uninformed conspiracy nut” part, but most of my predictions made many years ago have been spot-on from the very beginning. I might be a lot of things, but “uninformed” isn’t one of them, particularly about things I’m willing to debate about (you’ll never hear me argue about things I’m “uninformed” about…I listen and learn from those who know more, rather than debate and make myself look like an idiot). Perhaps you shouldn’t trust so easily.
