sdr/SDR, how can this not be fraud???

[sdrealtor]

CA R
The one place where we do see the highest and best coming from the banks is on REO’s. I went and looked at about a dozen agents that have done at least 20 REO’s sales. I compared how many times one of the properties they sold in a traditional sale in the last 2 years had both ends in their brokerage with how many times their brokerage had both ends of an REO transaction. IN EVERY SINGLE CASE, they or someone that worked for them seemed to get both sides of the REO transactions at a far greater percentage. I’m sure they could explain every single case but the statisitics do not lie. I want to be clear. IT WAS IN EVERY SINGLE CASE including agents you would likely far beyond reproach if you know what I am getting at.

The REO agents are sitting in the garden of eden and the temptation to take a bite of the apple occassionally must be too great even for the best of them.

PS I have been closed a few dozen short sale transactions and could have taken both sides many times. I have had both sides only once in a closed sale. The buyer was the family of the disabled tenant that resided in the who knowingly paid above market to make sure the tenant would never get displaced. No one else would have paid what they paid. I did have one more in escrow with what was the clearly the best buyer that came to the table after a few months on the market but that buyer ultimately walked.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly, drboom.

CA Renter you are very naive. The lenders have enough problems analyzing a single offer. Each of their neogtiators is overwhelemed with about 500 files or more. I cant imagine if we had to present all offers. They would have to increase their staff at least 5 times to handle that and that is being very conservative. From what I can see the lenders are barely capable of tying their own shoes. You give them far too much credit. Additionally, I have never seen a single thing requiring “highest and best” offers on short sales. An offer is presented to the bank and that is that. I have had banks ask for more money but have never heard them ask how many offers there or to go back get highest and best offers. They just say what they will accept.

The level of fraud is far below what would justify increasing their staffing costs by 500%.[/quote]

If I’m naive, it’s only about the lack of competence among the lenders’ employees.

Again, this is NOT rocket science, and dr boom’s example does not negate what I’m saying. If the lenders don’t have employees who are capable of determining the “highest and best” offers, then they should fire their existing staff and hire more competent people.

I stand by my suggestion regarding a **government run and regulated** auction system. Any financial firm that is getting government money/guarantees of any sort should be forced to use the auction site for the sale or purchase of any and all assets. All buyers and sellers would be pre-qualifed and thoroughly screened before they can participate. All transactions would be completely transparent, and every buyer’s/seller’s transactions could be tracked.

Every sale would require that the asset be listed for a minimum number of days (30?), and all of the buyers’ terms would be noted with every bid. At the end of the auction period, the highest and best offer would be submitted — a computer model could offer different ways of calculating a “best offer” (mix of: best price, fewest contingencies, shortest escrow, highest down payment, etc.), and the buyers/sellers would be obligated to complete the transaction.

Almost everything could be automated, and it could be done in an extremely efficient manner, in addition to minimizing the potential for fraud.

Please explain why this would not work.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly, drboom.

CA Renter you are very naive. The lenders have enough problems analyzing a single offer. Each of their neogtiators is overwhelemed with about 500 files or more. I cant imagine if we had to present all offers. They would have to increase their staff at least 5 times to handle that and that is being very conservative. From what I can see the lenders are barely capable of tying their own shoes. You give them far too much credit. Additionally, I have never seen a single thing requiring “highest and best” offers on short sales. An offer is presented to the bank and that is that. I have had banks ask for more money but have never heard them ask how many offers there or to go back get highest and best offers. They just say what they will accept.

The level of fraud is far below what would justify increasing their staffing costs by 500%.[/quote]

If I’m naive, it’s only about the lack of competence among the lenders’ employees.

Again, this is NOT rocket science, and dr boom’s example does not negate what I’m saying. If the lenders don’t have employees who are capable of determining the “highest and best” offers, then they should fire their existing staff and hire more competent people.

I stand by my suggestion regarding a **government run and regulated** auction system. Any financial firm that is getting government money/guarantees of any sort should be forced to use the auction site for the sale or purchase of any and all assets. All buyers and sellers would be pre-qualifed and thoroughly screened before they can participate. All transactions would be completely transparent, and every buyer’s/seller’s transactions could be tracked.

Every sale would require that the asset be listed for a minimum number of days (30?), and all of the buyers’ terms would be noted with every bid. At the end of the auction period, the highest and best offer would be submitted — a computer model could offer different ways of calculating a “best offer” (mix of: best price, fewest contingencies, shortest escrow, highest down payment, etc.), and the buyers/sellers would be obligated to complete the transaction.

Almost everything could be automated, and it could be done in an extremely efficient manner, in addition to minimizing the potential for fraud.

Please explain why this would not work.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly, drboom.

CA Renter you are very naive. The lenders have enough problems analyzing a single offer. Each of their neogtiators is overwhelemed with about 500 files or more. I cant imagine if we had to present all offers. They would have to increase their staff at least 5 times to handle that and that is being very conservative. From what I can see the lenders are barely capable of tying their own shoes. You give them far too much credit. Additionally, I have never seen a single thing requiring “highest and best” offers on short sales. An offer is presented to the bank and that is that. I have had banks ask for more money but have never heard them ask how many offers there or to go back get highest and best offers. They just say what they will accept.

The level of fraud is far below what would justify increasing their staffing costs by 500%.[/quote]

If I’m naive, it’s only about the lack of competence among the lenders’ employees.

Again, this is NOT rocket science, and dr boom’s example does not negate what I’m saying. If the lenders don’t have employees who are capable of determining the “highest and best” offers, then they should fire their existing staff and hire more competent people.

I stand by my suggestion regarding a **government run and regulated** auction system. Any financial firm that is getting government money/guarantees of any sort should be forced to use the auction site for the sale or purchase of any and all assets. All buyers and sellers would be pre-qualifed and thoroughly screened before they can participate. All transactions would be completely transparent, and every buyer’s/seller’s transactions could be tracked.

Every sale would require that the asset be listed for a minimum number of days (30?), and all of the buyers’ terms would be noted with every bid. At the end of the auction period, the highest and best offer would be submitted — a computer model could offer different ways of calculating a “best offer” (mix of: best price, fewest contingencies, shortest escrow, highest down payment, etc.), and the buyers/sellers would be obligated to complete the transaction.

Almost everything could be automated, and it could be done in an extremely efficient manner, in addition to minimizing the potential for fraud.

Please explain why this would not work.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly, drboom.

CA Renter you are very naive. The lenders have enough problems analyzing a single offer. Each of their neogtiators is overwhelemed with about 500 files or more. I cant imagine if we had to present all offers. They would have to increase their staff at least 5 times to handle that and that is being very conservative. From what I can see the lenders are barely capable of tying their own shoes. You give them far too much credit. Additionally, I have never seen a single thing requiring “highest and best” offers on short sales. An offer is presented to the bank and that is that. I have had banks ask for more money but have never heard them ask how many offers there or to go back get highest and best offers. They just say what they will accept.

The level of fraud is far below what would justify increasing their staffing costs by 500%.[/quote]

If I’m naive, it’s only about the lack of competence among the lenders’ employees.

Again, this is NOT rocket science, and dr boom’s example does not negate what I’m saying. If the lenders don’t have employees who are capable of determining the “highest and best” offers, then they should fire their existing staff and hire more competent people.

I stand by my suggestion regarding a **government run and regulated** auction system. Any financial firm that is getting government money/guarantees of any sort should be forced to use the auction site for the sale or purchase of any and all assets. All buyers and sellers would be pre-qualifed and thoroughly screened before they can participate. All transactions would be completely transparent, and every buyer’s/seller’s transactions could be tracked.

Every sale would require that the asset be listed for a minimum number of days (30?), and all of the buyers’ terms would be noted with every bid. At the end of the auction period, the highest and best offer would be submitted — a computer model could offer different ways of calculating a “best offer” (mix of: best price, fewest contingencies, shortest escrow, highest down payment, etc.), and the buyers/sellers would be obligated to complete the transaction.

Almost everything could be automated, and it could be done in an extremely efficient manner, in addition to minimizing the potential for fraud.

Please explain why this would not work.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdrealtor]Exactly, drboom.

CA Renter you are very naive. The lenders have enough problems analyzing a single offer. Each of their neogtiators is overwhelemed with about 500 files or more. I cant imagine if we had to present all offers. They would have to increase their staff at least 5 times to handle that and that is being very conservative. From what I can see the lenders are barely capable of tying their own shoes. You give them far too much credit. Additionally, I have never seen a single thing requiring “highest and best” offers on short sales. An offer is presented to the bank and that is that. I have had banks ask for more money but have never heard them ask how many offers there or to go back get highest and best offers. They just say what they will accept.

The level of fraud is far below what would justify increasing their staffing costs by 500%.[/quote]

If I’m naive, it’s only about the lack of competence among the lenders’ employees.

Again, this is NOT rocket science, and dr boom’s example does not negate what I’m saying. If the lenders don’t have employees who are capable of determining the “highest and best” offers, then they should fire their existing staff and hire more competent people.

I stand by my suggestion regarding a **government run and regulated** auction system. Any financial firm that is getting government money/guarantees of any sort should be forced to use the auction site for the sale or purchase of any and all assets. All buyers and sellers would be pre-qualifed and thoroughly screened before they can participate. All transactions would be completely transparent, and every buyer’s/seller’s transactions could be tracked.

Every sale would require that the asset be listed for a minimum number of days (30?), and all of the buyers’ terms would be noted with every bid. At the end of the auction period, the highest and best offer would be submitted — a computer model could offer different ways of calculating a “best offer” (mix of: best price, fewest contingencies, shortest escrow, highest down payment, etc.), and the buyers/sellers would be obligated to complete the transaction.

Almost everything could be automated, and it could be done in an extremely efficient manner, in addition to minimizing the potential for fraud.

Please explain why this would not work.

[drboom]

[quote=CA renter]
Please explain why this would not work.
[/quote]

I wish it would.

I can think of a couple of practical difficulties:

– Who determines the model that determines “highest and best”? Politicians would get involved, and you’d have all kinds of idiocy baked into the model that favored one group over the other. You can bet that “highest and best” would have little to do with “what gets the most money”.

– If there’s one thing I know about big software projects, it’s that they get delivered late and seldom do what they’re supposed to. By the time a decent system came online, we’d be well into the next housing boom.

I see where you’re coming from, but building a whole new infrastructure around a temporary problem doesn’t make a lot of sense. Things will eventually return to business as usual.

[drboom]

[quote=CA renter]
Please explain why this would not work.
[/quote]

I wish it would.

I can think of a couple of practical difficulties:

– Who determines the model that determines “highest and best”? Politicians would get involved, and you’d have all kinds of idiocy baked into the model that favored one group over the other. You can bet that “highest and best” would have little to do with “what gets the most money”.

– If there’s one thing I know about big software projects, it’s that they get delivered late and seldom do what they’re supposed to. By the time a decent system came online, we’d be well into the next housing boom.

I see where you’re coming from, but building a whole new infrastructure around a temporary problem doesn’t make a lot of sense. Things will eventually return to business as usual.

[drboom]

[quote=CA renter]
Please explain why this would not work.
[/quote]

I wish it would.

I can think of a couple of practical difficulties:

– Who determines the model that determines “highest and best”? Politicians would get involved, and you’d have all kinds of idiocy baked into the model that favored one group over the other. You can bet that “highest and best” would have little to do with “what gets the most money”.

– If there’s one thing I know about big software projects, it’s that they get delivered late and seldom do what they’re supposed to. By the time a decent system came online, we’d be well into the next housing boom.

I see where you’re coming from, but building a whole new infrastructure around a temporary problem doesn’t make a lot of sense. Things will eventually return to business as usual.

[drboom]

[quote=CA renter]
Please explain why this would not work.
[/quote]

I wish it would.

I can think of a couple of practical difficulties:

– Who determines the model that determines “highest and best”? Politicians would get involved, and you’d have all kinds of idiocy baked into the model that favored one group over the other. You can bet that “highest and best” would have little to do with “what gets the most money”.

– If there’s one thing I know about big software projects, it’s that they get delivered late and seldom do what they’re supposed to. By the time a decent system came online, we’d be well into the next housing boom.

I see where you’re coming from, but building a whole new infrastructure around a temporary problem doesn’t make a lot of sense. Things will eventually return to business as usual.

[drboom]

[quote=CA renter]
Please explain why this would not work.
[/quote]

I wish it would.

I can think of a couple of practical difficulties:

– Who determines the model that determines “highest and best”? Politicians would get involved, and you’d have all kinds of idiocy baked into the model that favored one group over the other. You can bet that “highest and best” would have little to do with “what gets the most money”.

– If there’s one thing I know about big software projects, it’s that they get delivered late and seldom do what they’re supposed to. By the time a decent system came online, we’d be well into the next housing boom.

I see where you’re coming from, but building a whole new infrastructure around a temporary problem doesn’t make a lot of sense. Things will eventually return to business as usual.

[Zeitgeist]

Amen!

[Zeitgeist]

Amen!

[Zeitgeist]

Amen!

[Zeitgeist]

Amen!

[Author]

Posts