[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Squatter][quote=sdrealtor]Sd Squater
That would actually be counterproductive and not what someone would do in a short sale flip. In a short sale flip, an investor offers to pay cash in a below market transaction without it actually going on the market. The investor then puts it on the market as a free and clear property. Its never marketed as a short sale.[/quote]
Hmm, isn’t the realtor representing the bank under an obligation to put a property on the market and get the highest price possible? If he/she puts the property “on ice” in order to get an artificially low price from the bank through a scheme like this then everything appears legit from the outside. Not listing a property at all would seem like a breach of contract by the realtor.[/quote]
Okay.
The agent in a short sale listing is not representing the bank.
He is representing the seller (the fucked over dude who bought it a few years ago) or the buyer.
The agent has no contract with the bank.
He does not (and should not) give a shit about anyone but his client (the buyer or seller).[/quote]
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.
