- This topic has 115 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
NotCranky.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM #302005November 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM #301576
PC
ParticipantThat location sucks because it is flanked by two big powerlines on each side (northwest to southeast direction).
November 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM #301935ParticipantThat location sucks because it is flanked by two big powerlines on each side (northwest to southeast direction).
November 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM #301942ParticipantThat location sucks because it is flanked by two big powerlines on each side (northwest to southeast direction).
November 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM #301959ParticipantThat location sucks because it is flanked by two big powerlines on each side (northwest to southeast direction).
November 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM #302016ParticipantThat location sucks because it is flanked by two big powerlines on each side (northwest to southeast direction).
November 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM #301591SD Realtor
Participant“Also, the highest and best routine is now the rule for asset managers and reo agents.”
I am not saying that is not true however about half of the REOs I have submitted on did indeed come back with counters, even if the counter was highest and best.
sdr – Yes the agents fiduciary responsibility is indeed to the seller, I understand that. However in the case you have illustrated assuming this is indeed this agent is very much not performing his fiduciary obligation. I should have clarified that better in my previous posting.
November 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM #301951Participant“Also, the highest and best routine is now the rule for asset managers and reo agents.”
I am not saying that is not true however about half of the REOs I have submitted on did indeed come back with counters, even if the counter was highest and best.
sdr – Yes the agents fiduciary responsibility is indeed to the seller, I understand that. However in the case you have illustrated assuming this is indeed this agent is very much not performing his fiduciary obligation. I should have clarified that better in my previous posting.
November 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM #301957Participant“Also, the highest and best routine is now the rule for asset managers and reo agents.”
I am not saying that is not true however about half of the REOs I have submitted on did indeed come back with counters, even if the counter was highest and best.
sdr – Yes the agents fiduciary responsibility is indeed to the seller, I understand that. However in the case you have illustrated assuming this is indeed this agent is very much not performing his fiduciary obligation. I should have clarified that better in my previous posting.
November 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM #301973Participant“Also, the highest and best routine is now the rule for asset managers and reo agents.”
I am not saying that is not true however about half of the REOs I have submitted on did indeed come back with counters, even if the counter was highest and best.
sdr – Yes the agents fiduciary responsibility is indeed to the seller, I understand that. However in the case you have illustrated assuming this is indeed this agent is very much not performing his fiduciary obligation. I should have clarified that better in my previous posting.
November 8, 2008 at 3:41 PM #302031Participant“Also, the highest and best routine is now the rule for asset managers and reo agents.”
I am not saying that is not true however about half of the REOs I have submitted on did indeed come back with counters, even if the counter was highest and best.
sdr – Yes the agents fiduciary responsibility is indeed to the seller, I understand that. However in the case you have illustrated assuming this is indeed this agent is very much not performing his fiduciary obligation. I should have clarified that better in my previous posting.
November 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM #301606CA renter
ParticipantNot sure how the FB is the “seller” when it’s the lender that is losing money. IMHO, if it’s determined that there is going to be a short sale (underwater mortgage with inevitable default), then the LA should be representing the lender, not the idiot who owes money to the lender.
As a lender, I’d be pi$$ed if I found out that an agent was not sending me ALL the offers (especially the highest price and best terms offers) until it is in escrow. Seriously, there should be some lawsuits there, if that’s happening.
What they should do is have a period of time when potential buyers can look at and formally inspect the house. After that period, they will accept ALL offers and look at them during a one or two-week period. At that point, they should take the highest price or best terms, whatever the LENDER or lender’s agent decides is best. Basically, an auction, but stretched out over weeks instead of hours.
This would help expedite sales and get honest offers from honest buyers, without any kickbacks or deals between sellers, agents, new buyers, etc.
Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.
November 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM #301966ParticipantNot sure how the FB is the “seller” when it’s the lender that is losing money. IMHO, if it’s determined that there is going to be a short sale (underwater mortgage with inevitable default), then the LA should be representing the lender, not the idiot who owes money to the lender.
As a lender, I’d be pi$$ed if I found out that an agent was not sending me ALL the offers (especially the highest price and best terms offers) until it is in escrow. Seriously, there should be some lawsuits there, if that’s happening.
What they should do is have a period of time when potential buyers can look at and formally inspect the house. After that period, they will accept ALL offers and look at them during a one or two-week period. At that point, they should take the highest price or best terms, whatever the LENDER or lender’s agent decides is best. Basically, an auction, but stretched out over weeks instead of hours.
This would help expedite sales and get honest offers from honest buyers, without any kickbacks or deals between sellers, agents, new buyers, etc.
Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.
November 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM #301972ParticipantNot sure how the FB is the “seller” when it’s the lender that is losing money. IMHO, if it’s determined that there is going to be a short sale (underwater mortgage with inevitable default), then the LA should be representing the lender, not the idiot who owes money to the lender.
As a lender, I’d be pi$$ed if I found out that an agent was not sending me ALL the offers (especially the highest price and best terms offers) until it is in escrow. Seriously, there should be some lawsuits there, if that’s happening.
What they should do is have a period of time when potential buyers can look at and formally inspect the house. After that period, they will accept ALL offers and look at them during a one or two-week period. At that point, they should take the highest price or best terms, whatever the LENDER or lender’s agent decides is best. Basically, an auction, but stretched out over weeks instead of hours.
This would help expedite sales and get honest offers from honest buyers, without any kickbacks or deals between sellers, agents, new buyers, etc.
Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.
November 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM #301988ParticipantNot sure how the FB is the “seller” when it’s the lender that is losing money. IMHO, if it’s determined that there is going to be a short sale (underwater mortgage with inevitable default), then the LA should be representing the lender, not the idiot who owes money to the lender.
As a lender, I’d be pi$$ed if I found out that an agent was not sending me ALL the offers (especially the highest price and best terms offers) until it is in escrow. Seriously, there should be some lawsuits there, if that’s happening.
What they should do is have a period of time when potential buyers can look at and formally inspect the house. After that period, they will accept ALL offers and look at them during a one or two-week period. At that point, they should take the highest price or best terms, whatever the LENDER or lender’s agent decides is best. Basically, an auction, but stretched out over weeks instead of hours.
This would help expedite sales and get honest offers from honest buyers, without any kickbacks or deals between sellers, agents, new buyers, etc.
Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
