Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › anything wrong with this SFH in 92011 ?

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 8
  • Author
    Posts
  • November 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM #302045
    CA renter
    Participant

    Not 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 7:35 PM #301647
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Maybe the cynicism is deserved in some cases and in others it isn’t. Just browsing a couple of zips today I saw similiar pricing improvement in many short sale offerings. Maybe it’s time to re-think short sales as an alternative to REO’s because the quality and upkeep is often better.Seems like it had to/has to get better sooner or later. It doesn’t hurt to try(patiently) as long as the home is active.

    November 8, 2008 at 7:35 PM #302006
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Maybe the cynicism is deserved in some cases and in others it isn’t. Just browsing a couple of zips today I saw similiar pricing improvement in many short sale offerings. Maybe it’s time to re-think short sales as an alternative to REO’s because the quality and upkeep is often better.Seems like it had to/has to get better sooner or later. It doesn’t hurt to try(patiently) as long as the home is active.

    November 8, 2008 at 7:35 PM #302012
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Maybe the cynicism is deserved in some cases and in others it isn’t. Just browsing a couple of zips today I saw similiar pricing improvement in many short sale offerings. Maybe it’s time to re-think short sales as an alternative to REO’s because the quality and upkeep is often better.Seems like it had to/has to get better sooner or later. It doesn’t hurt to try(patiently) as long as the home is active.

    November 8, 2008 at 7:35 PM #302030
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Maybe the cynicism is deserved in some cases and in others it isn’t. Just browsing a couple of zips today I saw similiar pricing improvement in many short sale offerings. Maybe it’s time to re-think short sales as an alternative to REO’s because the quality and upkeep is often better.Seems like it had to/has to get better sooner or later. It doesn’t hurt to try(patiently) as long as the home is active.

    November 8, 2008 at 7:35 PM #302085
    NotCranky
    Participant

    Maybe the cynicism is deserved in some cases and in others it isn’t. Just browsing a couple of zips today I saw similiar pricing improvement in many short sale offerings. Maybe it’s time to re-think short sales as an alternative to REO’s because the quality and upkeep is often better.Seems like it had to/has to get better sooner or later. It doesn’t hurt to try(patiently) as long as the home is active.

    November 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM #301693
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    I had a nice little run with short sales over the summer but then the last two I had ended very badly. Each client had a vested interest for many months. One client went through hell as the LA strung us along forever and is still doing it today. The other short sale actually had accepted our offer but during inspection we found alot of issues and resubmitted an addendum for a price change and the lender punted.

    Still though, I do agree with your point Rus. As a buyer I would try any and all means.

    November 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM #302049
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    I had a nice little run with short sales over the summer but then the last two I had ended very badly. Each client had a vested interest for many months. One client went through hell as the LA strung us along forever and is still doing it today. The other short sale actually had accepted our offer but during inspection we found alot of issues and resubmitted an addendum for a price change and the lender punted.

    Still though, I do agree with your point Rus. As a buyer I would try any and all means.

    November 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM #302057
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    I had a nice little run with short sales over the summer but then the last two I had ended very badly. Each client had a vested interest for many months. One client went through hell as the LA strung us along forever and is still doing it today. The other short sale actually had accepted our offer but during inspection we found alot of issues and resubmitted an addendum for a price change and the lender punted.

    Still though, I do agree with your point Rus. As a buyer I would try any and all means.

    November 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM #302076
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    I had a nice little run with short sales over the summer but then the last two I had ended very badly. Each client had a vested interest for many months. One client went through hell as the LA strung us along forever and is still doing it today. The other short sale actually had accepted our offer but during inspection we found alot of issues and resubmitted an addendum for a price change and the lender punted.

    Still though, I do agree with your point Rus. As a buyer I would try any and all means.

    November 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM #302130
    SD Realtor
    Participant

    I had a nice little run with short sales over the summer but then the last two I had ended very badly. Each client had a vested interest for many months. One client went through hell as the LA strung us along forever and is still doing it today. The other short sale actually had accepted our offer but during inspection we found alot of issues and resubmitted an addendum for a price change and the lender punted.

    Still though, I do agree with your point Rus. As a buyer I would try any and all means.

    November 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM #301931
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Not 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.
    [/quote]
    That would be illegal.

    We have fiduciary duty to the client who is current owner of record.
    The lender’s permission is required and they have their own representatives. Their rights are pretty well (if dumbly) represented.

    [quote=CA renter]

    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.

    [/quote]
    I agree.
    If they were actually asking us for other offers, we would (or at least I would) give them.
    However, the bank is so swamped that they sometimes explicitly tell us to keep it simple and not to change things.
    Typically, though, as with most real estate transactions, the seller (and lender) stays with the tentatively accepted offer. If, prior to transfer of title another offer comes in, it is held as an alternate in case the existing offer dies.
    [quote=CA renter]
    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.
    [/quote]
    Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.

    That being said, an expedited process would be more than welcome. Currently, I can expect a minimum of 4 weeks between signing offers and opening escrow.
    The problem with your version, though, is that it assumes that the lender’s are acting as rational entities. Bear in mind they already lent this money stupidly. They are mitigating their loss even more stupidly. Also, most buyers will not wait for weeks for a response.

    However, if you would like a contact in the JP Morgan Chase executive offices, I will give you the info for the exec secretary I have been dealing with.

    [quote=CA renter]

    Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.[/quote]

    Right. Lots of fraud.

    November 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM #302289
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Not 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.
    [/quote]
    That would be illegal.

    We have fiduciary duty to the client who is current owner of record.
    The lender’s permission is required and they have their own representatives. Their rights are pretty well (if dumbly) represented.

    [quote=CA renter]

    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.

    [/quote]
    I agree.
    If they were actually asking us for other offers, we would (or at least I would) give them.
    However, the bank is so swamped that they sometimes explicitly tell us to keep it simple and not to change things.
    Typically, though, as with most real estate transactions, the seller (and lender) stays with the tentatively accepted offer. If, prior to transfer of title another offer comes in, it is held as an alternate in case the existing offer dies.
    [quote=CA renter]
    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.
    [/quote]
    Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.

    That being said, an expedited process would be more than welcome. Currently, I can expect a minimum of 4 weeks between signing offers and opening escrow.
    The problem with your version, though, is that it assumes that the lender’s are acting as rational entities. Bear in mind they already lent this money stupidly. They are mitigating their loss even more stupidly. Also, most buyers will not wait for weeks for a response.

    However, if you would like a contact in the JP Morgan Chase executive offices, I will give you the info for the exec secretary I have been dealing with.

    [quote=CA renter]

    Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.[/quote]

    Right. Lots of fraud.

    November 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM #302297
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Not 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.
    [/quote]
    That would be illegal.

    We have fiduciary duty to the client who is current owner of record.
    The lender’s permission is required and they have their own representatives. Their rights are pretty well (if dumbly) represented.

    [quote=CA renter]

    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.

    [/quote]
    I agree.
    If they were actually asking us for other offers, we would (or at least I would) give them.
    However, the bank is so swamped that they sometimes explicitly tell us to keep it simple and not to change things.
    Typically, though, as with most real estate transactions, the seller (and lender) stays with the tentatively accepted offer. If, prior to transfer of title another offer comes in, it is held as an alternate in case the existing offer dies.
    [quote=CA renter]
    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.
    [/quote]
    Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.

    That being said, an expedited process would be more than welcome. Currently, I can expect a minimum of 4 weeks between signing offers and opening escrow.
    The problem with your version, though, is that it assumes that the lender’s are acting as rational entities. Bear in mind they already lent this money stupidly. They are mitigating their loss even more stupidly. Also, most buyers will not wait for weeks for a response.

    However, if you would like a contact in the JP Morgan Chase executive offices, I will give you the info for the exec secretary I have been dealing with.

    [quote=CA renter]

    Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.[/quote]

    Right. Lots of fraud.

    November 9, 2008 at 1:35 PM #302315
    urbanrealtor
    Participant

    [quote=CA renter]Not 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.
    [/quote]
    That would be illegal.

    We have fiduciary duty to the client who is current owner of record.
    The lender’s permission is required and they have their own representatives. Their rights are pretty well (if dumbly) represented.

    [quote=CA renter]

    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.

    [/quote]
    I agree.
    If they were actually asking us for other offers, we would (or at least I would) give them.
    However, the bank is so swamped that they sometimes explicitly tell us to keep it simple and not to change things.
    Typically, though, as with most real estate transactions, the seller (and lender) stays with the tentatively accepted offer. If, prior to transfer of title another offer comes in, it is held as an alternate in case the existing offer dies.
    [quote=CA renter]
    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.
    [/quote]
    Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.

    That being said, an expedited process would be more than welcome. Currently, I can expect a minimum of 4 weeks between signing offers and opening escrow.
    The problem with your version, though, is that it assumes that the lender’s are acting as rational entities. Bear in mind they already lent this money stupidly. They are mitigating their loss even more stupidly. Also, most buyers will not wait for weeks for a response.

    However, if you would like a contact in the JP Morgan Chase executive offices, I will give you the info for the exec secretary I have been dealing with.

    [quote=CA renter]

    Too much room for fraud the way it’s set up now, IMO.[/quote]

    Right. Lots of fraud.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 116 total)
1 2 3 … 5 6 7 8
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.