Short Sale Realtor in collusion with buyer, is it legal.

[SD Realtor]

Just to clarify

DOM – Days on market is not anything a listing agent controls. When you enter a listing and the listing is active the clock ticks. Agents cannot stop the clock.

The “manipulation” you are speaking of is when properties appear new again due to being cancelled or expired.

****
As egregious as this may seem it is not even worthy of being called manipulation. Any agent can look at the listing history and see when tricks like this have occurred.
****

************************************************
Photo Deception – Yes if a home has 4 crappy rooms and 1 nice room why would anyone want to take pictures of the 4 crappy rooms? Most listing agents give the sellers a list of what should be done prior to taking pictures of the home. Guess how much of that work is usually done by sellers?

So how many people out there have gone to listings where the pictures were better then the homes?

***Lots of hands raised****

Now, how many of you feel you were victimized and manipulated, that you bought that home because the pictures were just so damn good that you could not pass on the home?

Now how many of you feel that if there were some other medium besides the MLS, and that this other medium allowed pictures to be posted, that the exact same thing would happen?

Maybe we should have the picture police come and audit every home on the market. You get fined if your pictures are not correct.

*********

Listing Status Deception –

There is not really such a thing. In the case that CAR brought up, there was nothing deceptive. The listing was contingent before it hit the MLS. I am not saying the example of what happened with the transaction was right or not right. I have had a listing pending before it hit the MLS before. I have had sellers who already had buyers they wanted to sell the home to. It goes on the MLS and is Active for a few seconds and then it is Pending. Why is this a crime and tell me what has been manipulated here? In fact, if you have a listing that is contingent or under contract, you can get in trouble if you leave it as Active.

************************************

If you wanna be bent be bent about the right things okay?

Common problems include innaccurate size description of the home. People include square footage that should be or should at least contain comments that parts of the square footage is for unpermitted work. Homes that are listed as Active and are really not active anymore.

The process is not great and can stand improvement yet I look around and see plenty of people (even bearish piggs) buying homes. Despite the claims that every short sale is rigged, that all the reos don’t work unless you do it yourself and go to the listing agent, despite claims that child support and deadbeat dads will cause your escrow to go south… despite all these claims of fraud and double ending and backdoor dealings…. somehow plenty of people still seem to be getting deals done.

Does bad stuff happen? Yes. You wanna let it jade you that is fine, nobody is forcing a gun to your head, don’t participate in the game.

[briansd1]

CAR, to carry over your argument from another thread, if human are herding animals, they will collude to hoard what they want with minimum effort.

[briansd1]

CAR, to carry over your argument from another thread, if human are herding animals, they will collude to hoard what they want with minimum effort.

[briansd1]

CAR, to carry over your argument from another thread, if human are herding animals, they will collude to hoard what they want with minimum effort.

[briansd1]

CAR, to carry over your argument from another thread, if human are herding animals, they will collude to hoard what they want with minimum effort.

[briansd1]

CAR, to carry over your argument from another thread, if human are herding animals, they will collude to hoard what they want with minimum effort.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Realtor]
There are the common double ended deals as well which are simply cases of agents being greedy and shielding or holding back offers.

It all kind of sucks. There is nothing preventing you from trying to find someone in distress and work out a deal with them. It is simply alot of time and effort and much harder and time consuming then it sound.

….

As we have discussed over and over the problem is the process. Regardless of whether it is a short sale or an reo, the dual agency problem is always going to be there.

…
It would be nice is there were some simple parameters added to the process. Simplistic ideas such as minimum advertising durations of say x number of days before an offer could be accepted in the case of an REO would be nice. Also in the case of multiple offers, the (pick a number) say 3 highest and best offers could all be submitted to the Asset manager with the realtors recommendation for which one to accept.

For short sales things get a bit more blurry because the damned processing time of the lender makes it harder. However something like the above suggestion for reos would go a long long way towards helping things out. Simply outlawing dual agency would not hurt either. Buyers may whine that they would rather keep the commission then have some agent they didn’t want representing them but there can be ways to work that out.

The MLS is simply an advertising tool. Realtors in fact are not required to use it and they can get a waiver signed by homeowners who do not want the home on the MLS and submit that waiver and the listing doesn’t have to go on the MLS. Saying the MLS is the problem is an ignorant statement.

The problem is that there are fundamental problems in the way short sales and reos MAY be handled. There are enough potential problems there that these types of sales need to have increased transparency and/or regulatory control.

…
[/quote]

Well put.
Amen brother.[/quote]

I’m presently “swamped” but concur with this entire post, SDR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Realtor]
There are the common double ended deals as well which are simply cases of agents being greedy and shielding or holding back offers.

It all kind of sucks. There is nothing preventing you from trying to find someone in distress and work out a deal with them. It is simply alot of time and effort and much harder and time consuming then it sound.

….

As we have discussed over and over the problem is the process. Regardless of whether it is a short sale or an reo, the dual agency problem is always going to be there.

…
It would be nice is there were some simple parameters added to the process. Simplistic ideas such as minimum advertising durations of say x number of days before an offer could be accepted in the case of an REO would be nice. Also in the case of multiple offers, the (pick a number) say 3 highest and best offers could all be submitted to the Asset manager with the realtors recommendation for which one to accept.

For short sales things get a bit more blurry because the damned processing time of the lender makes it harder. However something like the above suggestion for reos would go a long long way towards helping things out. Simply outlawing dual agency would not hurt either. Buyers may whine that they would rather keep the commission then have some agent they didn’t want representing them but there can be ways to work that out.

The MLS is simply an advertising tool. Realtors in fact are not required to use it and they can get a waiver signed by homeowners who do not want the home on the MLS and submit that waiver and the listing doesn’t have to go on the MLS. Saying the MLS is the problem is an ignorant statement.

The problem is that there are fundamental problems in the way short sales and reos MAY be handled. There are enough potential problems there that these types of sales need to have increased transparency and/or regulatory control.

…
[/quote]

Well put.
Amen brother.[/quote]

I’m presently “swamped” but concur with this entire post, SDR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Realtor]
There are the common double ended deals as well which are simply cases of agents being greedy and shielding or holding back offers.

It all kind of sucks. There is nothing preventing you from trying to find someone in distress and work out a deal with them. It is simply alot of time and effort and much harder and time consuming then it sound.

….

As we have discussed over and over the problem is the process. Regardless of whether it is a short sale or an reo, the dual agency problem is always going to be there.

…
It would be nice is there were some simple parameters added to the process. Simplistic ideas such as minimum advertising durations of say x number of days before an offer could be accepted in the case of an REO would be nice. Also in the case of multiple offers, the (pick a number) say 3 highest and best offers could all be submitted to the Asset manager with the realtors recommendation for which one to accept.

For short sales things get a bit more blurry because the damned processing time of the lender makes it harder. However something like the above suggestion for reos would go a long long way towards helping things out. Simply outlawing dual agency would not hurt either. Buyers may whine that they would rather keep the commission then have some agent they didn’t want representing them but there can be ways to work that out.

The MLS is simply an advertising tool. Realtors in fact are not required to use it and they can get a waiver signed by homeowners who do not want the home on the MLS and submit that waiver and the listing doesn’t have to go on the MLS. Saying the MLS is the problem is an ignorant statement.

The problem is that there are fundamental problems in the way short sales and reos MAY be handled. There are enough potential problems there that these types of sales need to have increased transparency and/or regulatory control.

…
[/quote]

Well put.
Amen brother.[/quote]

I’m presently “swamped” but concur with this entire post, SDR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Realtor]
There are the common double ended deals as well which are simply cases of agents being greedy and shielding or holding back offers.

It all kind of sucks. There is nothing preventing you from trying to find someone in distress and work out a deal with them. It is simply alot of time and effort and much harder and time consuming then it sound.

….

As we have discussed over and over the problem is the process. Regardless of whether it is a short sale or an reo, the dual agency problem is always going to be there.

…
It would be nice is there were some simple parameters added to the process. Simplistic ideas such as minimum advertising durations of say x number of days before an offer could be accepted in the case of an REO would be nice. Also in the case of multiple offers, the (pick a number) say 3 highest and best offers could all be submitted to the Asset manager with the realtors recommendation for which one to accept.

For short sales things get a bit more blurry because the damned processing time of the lender makes it harder. However something like the above suggestion for reos would go a long long way towards helping things out. Simply outlawing dual agency would not hurt either. Buyers may whine that they would rather keep the commission then have some agent they didn’t want representing them but there can be ways to work that out.

The MLS is simply an advertising tool. Realtors in fact are not required to use it and they can get a waiver signed by homeowners who do not want the home on the MLS and submit that waiver and the listing doesn’t have to go on the MLS. Saying the MLS is the problem is an ignorant statement.

The problem is that there are fundamental problems in the way short sales and reos MAY be handled. There are enough potential problems there that these types of sales need to have increased transparency and/or regulatory control.

…
[/quote]

Well put.
Amen brother.[/quote]

I’m presently “swamped” but concur with this entire post, SDR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Realtor]
There are the common double ended deals as well which are simply cases of agents being greedy and shielding or holding back offers.

It all kind of sucks. There is nothing preventing you from trying to find someone in distress and work out a deal with them. It is simply alot of time and effort and much harder and time consuming then it sound.

….

As we have discussed over and over the problem is the process. Regardless of whether it is a short sale or an reo, the dual agency problem is always going to be there.

…
It would be nice is there were some simple parameters added to the process. Simplistic ideas such as minimum advertising durations of say x number of days before an offer could be accepted in the case of an REO would be nice. Also in the case of multiple offers, the (pick a number) say 3 highest and best offers could all be submitted to the Asset manager with the realtors recommendation for which one to accept.

For short sales things get a bit more blurry because the damned processing time of the lender makes it harder. However something like the above suggestion for reos would go a long long way towards helping things out. Simply outlawing dual agency would not hurt either. Buyers may whine that they would rather keep the commission then have some agent they didn’t want representing them but there can be ways to work that out.

The MLS is simply an advertising tool. Realtors in fact are not required to use it and they can get a waiver signed by homeowners who do not want the home on the MLS and submit that waiver and the listing doesn’t have to go on the MLS. Saying the MLS is the problem is an ignorant statement.

The problem is that there are fundamental problems in the way short sales and reos MAY be handled. There are enough potential problems there that these types of sales need to have increased transparency and/or regulatory control.

…
[/quote]

Well put.
Amen brother.[/quote]

I’m presently “swamped” but concur with this entire post, SDR.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.

If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.

BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]

Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.

The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.

That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).

But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.

Logical framework:

1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.

Real life example:

I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.

Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.

As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.

I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.[/quote]

I don’t care if the house was properly listed and got an offer from an unrelated buyer. I DO care if the deal was made before the house hit the MLS/market, and it’s particularly unethical if the deal was made between related parties (including anyone related in any way to the agents involved).

Yes, if banks/regulators required a minimum marketing time, that would be of great help. It would also help if they did periodic audits to ensure agents weren’t ripping them (and the taxpayers) off.

BTW, not sure where you got the “uninformed conspiracy nut” part, but most of my predictions made many years ago have been spot-on from the very beginning. I might be a lot of things, but “uninformed” isn’t one of them, particularly about things I’m willing to debate about (you’ll never hear me argue about things I’m “uninformed” about…I listen and learn from those who know more, rather than debate and make myself look like an idiot). Perhaps you shouldn’t trust so easily.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.

If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.

BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]

Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.

The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.

That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).

But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.

Logical framework:

1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.

Real life example:

I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.

Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.

As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.

I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.[/quote]

I don’t care if the house was properly listed and got an offer from an unrelated buyer. I DO care if the deal was made before the house hit the MLS/market, and it’s particularly unethical if the deal was made between related parties (including anyone related in any way to the agents involved).

Yes, if banks/regulators required a minimum marketing time, that would be of great help. It would also help if they did periodic audits to ensure agents weren’t ripping them (and the taxpayers) off.

BTW, not sure where you got the “uninformed conspiracy nut” part, but most of my predictions made many years ago have been spot-on from the very beginning. I might be a lot of things, but “uninformed” isn’t one of them, particularly about things I’m willing to debate about (you’ll never hear me argue about things I’m “uninformed” about…I listen and learn from those who know more, rather than debate and make myself look like an idiot). Perhaps you shouldn’t trust so easily.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.

If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.

BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]

Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.

The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.

That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).

But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.

Logical framework:

1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.

Real life example:

I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.

Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.

As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.

I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.[/quote]

I don’t care if the house was properly listed and got an offer from an unrelated buyer. I DO care if the deal was made before the house hit the MLS/market, and it’s particularly unethical if the deal was made between related parties (including anyone related in any way to the agents involved).

Yes, if banks/regulators required a minimum marketing time, that would be of great help. It would also help if they did periodic audits to ensure agents weren’t ripping them (and the taxpayers) off.

BTW, not sure where you got the “uninformed conspiracy nut” part, but most of my predictions made many years ago have been spot-on from the very beginning. I might be a lot of things, but “uninformed” isn’t one of them, particularly about things I’m willing to debate about (you’ll never hear me argue about things I’m “uninformed” about…I listen and learn from those who know more, rather than debate and make myself look like an idiot). Perhaps you shouldn’t trust so easily.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=CA renter]

If the taxpayers are responsible for propping up the banks, you’d better believe this is unethical, and it should be illegal. This is defrauding the U.S. government/taxpayers.

If the lenders were personally taking the hit, I wouldn’t care one bit, but if the taxpayers are on the hook, this needs to be fought tooth and nail.

BTW, a lot of these deals go through because the agent lists the house as contingent the moment it hits the MLS. That is BS![/quote]

Dude, we have tangled about this before.
I take my agency relationship very seriously.
The banks have very clear requirements for short sales and I abide by them.
They generally do not want multiple offers in hand.
They want a single package.
So if a seller accepts an offer, they are required to stay with that offer unless the bank denies it.
To do otherwise would be illegal.
To switch buyers after accepting an offer is not allowed.
If I somehow caused a seller to do that, I could lose my license.

The real issue here is that the government should require
A: a speedy short sale review process
and
B: minimum market time and acceptance rules.

That would make short sales function more like regular deals and thus would remove a lot of the hurdles to completing them. They would function more within market fundamentals than they do now (and thus probably be more expensive).

But please remember that a lot of what you are complaining about is just a normal function of markets.

Logical framework:

1: Short sale properties are relatively less desirable than other properties.
2: To make up for this lack of desirability, sellers lower the price.
3: Low prices tend to attract more buyers more quickly.

Real life example:

I took a listing on Saturday.
I recommended a price point that was consistent with similar properties that were short sales in the neighborhood that closed in the last 6 months.
The seller concurred and priced it at $250,000
I received an offer yesterday midday.
If the seller accepts it, we will mark it contingent today.
At that point, we will be committed to the buyer, barring some curve ball.

Please tell me where you see the illegality or dishonesty here.

As with most of your conspiratorial rants, this one too will turn out to be nothing more than ignorant whiny nonsense.

I am a general fan of skepticism (maybe that is a contradiction) but being an uninformed conspiracy nut is just as bad as being a dumb dittohead follower.[/quote]

I don’t care if the house was properly listed and got an offer from an unrelated buyer. I DO care if the deal was made before the house hit the MLS/market, and it’s particularly unethical if the deal was made between related parties (including anyone related in any way to the agents involved).

Yes, if banks/regulators required a minimum marketing time, that would be of great help. It would also help if they did periodic audits to ensure agents weren’t ripping them (and the taxpayers) off.

BTW, not sure where you got the “uninformed conspiracy nut” part, but most of my predictions made many years ago have been spot-on from the very beginning. I might be a lot of things, but “uninformed” isn’t one of them, particularly about things I’m willing to debate about (you’ll never hear me argue about things I’m “uninformed” about…I listen and learn from those who know more, rather than debate and make myself look like an idiot). Perhaps you shouldn’t trust so easily.

[Author]

Posts