anything wrong with this SFH in 92011 ?

[urbanrealtor]

[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.

[Eugene]

What would be a fair price for that one?

Also who’s the buyer’s agent? I want to hire him.

[Eugene]

What would be a fair price for that one?

Also who’s the buyer’s agent? I want to hire him.

[Eugene]

What would be a fair price for that one?

Also who’s the buyer’s agent? I want to hire him.

[Eugene]

What would be a fair price for that one?

Also who’s the buyer’s agent? I want to hire him.

[Eugene]

What would be a fair price for that one?

Also who’s the buyer’s agent? I want to hire him.

[CA renter]

Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.
—————–

That it would be advertised before any purchase offer is accepted, so other potential buyers would know about the listing well before a decision is made.

That the other potential buyers would have the same information and opportunity to purchase, and so the “seller” and listing agent are not able to choose a “preferred” buyer prior to the home being made available to the general public (artificially low cost basis, enabling them to flip and split the profits).

This way, the lender is more likely to get a price that more accurately reflects market value…because all buyers have the same opportunity to purchase, and all offers are presented according to a lender’s preferences (highest price, shortest escrow, best qualified). The lender can also line-up back-up offers. Escrows can be shorter if buyers are required to get the inspection BEFORE making an offer. Sales should be made “as is” with no additional changes after the offers are made, and all offers are binding with a 5% deposit (or something of that nature).

The banks should be in charge of the entire process. Sorry, but if the “seller” isn’t losing or gaining anything, they have no skin in the game. The only entity that matters at that point is the lender (not saying those are the current rules, but they should be, IMHO).

It would be much more efficient and less open to fraud, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.
—————–

That it would be advertised before any purchase offer is accepted, so other potential buyers would know about the listing well before a decision is made.

That the other potential buyers would have the same information and opportunity to purchase, and so the “seller” and listing agent are not able to choose a “preferred” buyer prior to the home being made available to the general public (artificially low cost basis, enabling them to flip and split the profits).

This way, the lender is more likely to get a price that more accurately reflects market value…because all buyers have the same opportunity to purchase, and all offers are presented according to a lender’s preferences (highest price, shortest escrow, best qualified). The lender can also line-up back-up offers. Escrows can be shorter if buyers are required to get the inspection BEFORE making an offer. Sales should be made “as is” with no additional changes after the offers are made, and all offers are binding with a 5% deposit (or something of that nature).

The banks should be in charge of the entire process. Sorry, but if the “seller” isn’t losing or gaining anything, they have no skin in the game. The only entity that matters at that point is the lender (not saying those are the current rules, but they should be, IMHO).

It would be much more efficient and less open to fraud, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.
—————–

That it would be advertised before any purchase offer is accepted, so other potential buyers would know about the listing well before a decision is made.

That the other potential buyers would have the same information and opportunity to purchase, and so the “seller” and listing agent are not able to choose a “preferred” buyer prior to the home being made available to the general public (artificially low cost basis, enabling them to flip and split the profits).

This way, the lender is more likely to get a price that more accurately reflects market value…because all buyers have the same opportunity to purchase, and all offers are presented according to a lender’s preferences (highest price, shortest escrow, best qualified). The lender can also line-up back-up offers. Escrows can be shorter if buyers are required to get the inspection BEFORE making an offer. Sales should be made “as is” with no additional changes after the offers are made, and all offers are binding with a 5% deposit (or something of that nature).

The banks should be in charge of the entire process. Sorry, but if the “seller” isn’t losing or gaining anything, they have no skin in the game. The only entity that matters at that point is the lender (not saying those are the current rules, but they should be, IMHO).

It would be much more efficient and less open to fraud, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.
—————–

That it would be advertised before any purchase offer is accepted, so other potential buyers would know about the listing well before a decision is made.

That the other potential buyers would have the same information and opportunity to purchase, and so the “seller” and listing agent are not able to choose a “preferred” buyer prior to the home being made available to the general public (artificially low cost basis, enabling them to flip and split the profits).

This way, the lender is more likely to get a price that more accurately reflects market value…because all buyers have the same opportunity to purchase, and all offers are presented according to a lender’s preferences (highest price, shortest escrow, best qualified). The lender can also line-up back-up offers. Escrows can be shorter if buyers are required to get the inspection BEFORE making an offer. Sales should be made “as is” with no additional changes after the offers are made, and all offers are binding with a 5% deposit (or something of that nature).

The banks should be in charge of the entire process. Sorry, but if the “seller” isn’t losing or gaining anything, they have no skin in the game. The only entity that matters at that point is the lender (not saying those are the current rules, but they should be, IMHO).

It would be much more efficient and less open to fraud, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Again not sure what is dishonest that your version would be fixing.
—————–

That it would be advertised before any purchase offer is accepted, so other potential buyers would know about the listing well before a decision is made.

That the other potential buyers would have the same information and opportunity to purchase, and so the “seller” and listing agent are not able to choose a “preferred” buyer prior to the home being made available to the general public (artificially low cost basis, enabling them to flip and split the profits).

This way, the lender is more likely to get a price that more accurately reflects market value…because all buyers have the same opportunity to purchase, and all offers are presented according to a lender’s preferences (highest price, shortest escrow, best qualified). The lender can also line-up back-up offers. Escrows can be shorter if buyers are required to get the inspection BEFORE making an offer. Sales should be made “as is” with no additional changes after the offers are made, and all offers are binding with a 5% deposit (or something of that nature).

The banks should be in charge of the entire process. Sorry, but if the “seller” isn’t losing or gaining anything, they have no skin in the game. The only entity that matters at that point is the lender (not saying those are the current rules, but they should be, IMHO).

It would be much more efficient and less open to fraud, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Again, to clarify…the lender is now the taxpayer, and the old rules should not apply.

First and foremost, we need to be accountable to the taxpayers. The lenders and borrowers made tremendous mistakes, and their rights do not trump those of the taxpayers.

If it were only the lenders losing money (and they weren’t asking us for bailouts), I couldn’t care less what they gained or lost, but they are not the ones ultimately responsible anymore. The taxpayers are the ones taking the hit, so our duty is to protect them at all costs.

[CA renter]

Again, to clarify…the lender is now the taxpayer, and the old rules should not apply.

First and foremost, we need to be accountable to the taxpayers. The lenders and borrowers made tremendous mistakes, and their rights do not trump those of the taxpayers.

If it were only the lenders losing money (and they weren’t asking us for bailouts), I couldn’t care less what they gained or lost, but they are not the ones ultimately responsible anymore. The taxpayers are the ones taking the hit, so our duty is to protect them at all costs.

[CA renter]

Again, to clarify…the lender is now the taxpayer, and the old rules should not apply.

First and foremost, we need to be accountable to the taxpayers. The lenders and borrowers made tremendous mistakes, and their rights do not trump those of the taxpayers.

If it were only the lenders losing money (and they weren’t asking us for bailouts), I couldn’t care less what they gained or lost, but they are not the ones ultimately responsible anymore. The taxpayers are the ones taking the hit, so our duty is to protect them at all costs.

[CA renter]

Again, to clarify…the lender is now the taxpayer, and the old rules should not apply.

First and foremost, we need to be accountable to the taxpayers. The lenders and borrowers made tremendous mistakes, and their rights do not trump those of the taxpayers.

If it were only the lenders losing money (and they weren’t asking us for bailouts), I couldn’t care less what they gained or lost, but they are not the ones ultimately responsible anymore. The taxpayers are the ones taking the hit, so our duty is to protect them at all costs.

[Author]

Posts