short sale tale

[DWCAP]

I think Xbox is onto something. The banks already tell everyone who will listen that they are overwhelmed and dont have the staff inplace to do all that the GOV wants.

Well, denying you, even at the injury of the company’s balance sheet, lessened the workload at the overworked servicers/modifing dept. This allows them to pass your file on, and work on the cases that may gain them some political traction. If they work with the people the bleeding hearts in congress are hearing from, they get less flack from congress and less political pressure. Congress doesnt care about you, they only care about the people who CANT afford to stay in the home but want to. (Those are the people who are complaining.)

Maybe in some sick way they are acting in the best interest of the bank, just in its political interest and not its financial one. Considering that the GOV owns alot of alot of different companies ( I think Chase got out from under their thumb a few weeks ago) it certainly is a good thing for the company to remain in political good graces. Besides they can always get more money from Unky Ben and the FED if they run out. I am sure he will take your soon to be foreclosed loan as good face value collateral.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=murf2222]Ditto!

Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.

If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!

murf2222[/quote]

This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.

The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.

The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.

The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.

Good luck dude.

PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=murf2222]Ditto!

Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.

If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!

murf2222[/quote]

This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.

The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.

The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.

The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.

Good luck dude.

PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=murf2222]Ditto!

Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.

If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!

murf2222[/quote]

This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.

The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.

The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.

The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.

Good luck dude.

PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=murf2222]Ditto!

Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.

If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!

murf2222[/quote]

This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.

The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.

The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.

The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.

Good luck dude.

PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=murf2222]Ditto!

Hell, if depreciation were the sole criteria for jumping ship, then a very high percentage of new car buyers (like 100% of em) would bail out too.

If you can afford the payment then quit your bitchin and do it!

murf2222[/quote]

This retarded horseshit is what every negotiator at Wamu said right before the bank collapsed. It is also what everybody at what is left of HSBC still says. I know because I spent (and spend) a lot of time on the phone with them.

The common thread:
Unrealistic expectations of irrational borrower morality is what led these banks to make poor risk management decisions and poorer attempts at reform.

The seller’s best option is to pursue a short. The bank’s best financial bet is to approve the short. However, an arrogant or cavalier letter pisses off a negotiator and he denies it. Considering how many he has on his desk, it is unlikely anything bad will ever happen to him (the negotiator) as a result of the denial. The negotiator is satisfied,the bank loses an additional $40k they did not need to lose and all is right with the world. This is what Alan Greenspan described in his “basic misunderstanding of how the world works” (his words). This is also the basic irony of capitalism. Action based on individual self interest does not equate to group benefit or even self benefit.

The best way out is just to re-apply for the short.
Get a different person on the line, call the executive offices, ask for a supervisor, or just start again. If your agent won’t do this, then fire him (or her) and get a new one. We are paid for performance and you owe them nothing if they don’t perform.

Good luck dude.

PS:
Also, try not to sound like a tool when/if you talk with the bank. Again, good luck to you sir.

[larrylujack]

[quote=sdybob]I turn to think the underline reason of the seemingly stupid decisions is the result of the recent accounting rule change, which allows banks to use non-realistic valuation for the assets they hold. Banks pushed congress for the change and achieved their intended consequences, i.e. they can now hold bad assets as they were good assets. As such, they would rather hold onto those assets, so their books look better than they are actually are. Short sale will realize the loss and their books will look worse. Same for the pace of foreclosures, they have no urgency to get the loans off the books, instead they like them to stay in, so they do not have to look for new capitals.[/quote]

PRECISELY, they have no big interest in doing a short sale as they will have to book the loss.

[larrylujack]

[quote=sdybob]I turn to think the underline reason of the seemingly stupid decisions is the result of the recent accounting rule change, which allows banks to use non-realistic valuation for the assets they hold. Banks pushed congress for the change and achieved their intended consequences, i.e. they can now hold bad assets as they were good assets. As such, they would rather hold onto those assets, so their books look better than they are actually are. Short sale will realize the loss and their books will look worse. Same for the pace of foreclosures, they have no urgency to get the loans off the books, instead they like them to stay in, so they do not have to look for new capitals.[/quote]

PRECISELY, they have no big interest in doing a short sale as they will have to book the loss.

[larrylujack]

[quote=sdybob]I turn to think the underline reason of the seemingly stupid decisions is the result of the recent accounting rule change, which allows banks to use non-realistic valuation for the assets they hold. Banks pushed congress for the change and achieved their intended consequences, i.e. they can now hold bad assets as they were good assets. As such, they would rather hold onto those assets, so their books look better than they are actually are. Short sale will realize the loss and their books will look worse. Same for the pace of foreclosures, they have no urgency to get the loans off the books, instead they like them to stay in, so they do not have to look for new capitals.[/quote]

PRECISELY, they have no big interest in doing a short sale as they will have to book the loss.

[larrylujack]

[quote=sdybob]I turn to think the underline reason of the seemingly stupid decisions is the result of the recent accounting rule change, which allows banks to use non-realistic valuation for the assets they hold. Banks pushed congress for the change and achieved their intended consequences, i.e. they can now hold bad assets as they were good assets. As such, they would rather hold onto those assets, so their books look better than they are actually are. Short sale will realize the loss and their books will look worse. Same for the pace of foreclosures, they have no urgency to get the loans off the books, instead they like them to stay in, so they do not have to look for new capitals.[/quote]

PRECISELY, they have no big interest in doing a short sale as they will have to book the loss.

[larrylujack]

[quote=sdybob]I turn to think the underline reason of the seemingly stupid decisions is the result of the recent accounting rule change, which allows banks to use non-realistic valuation for the assets they hold. Banks pushed congress for the change and achieved their intended consequences, i.e. they can now hold bad assets as they were good assets. As such, they would rather hold onto those assets, so their books look better than they are actually are. Short sale will realize the loss and their books will look worse. Same for the pace of foreclosures, they have no urgency to get the loans off the books, instead they like them to stay in, so they do not have to look for new capitals.[/quote]

PRECISELY, they have no big interest in doing a short sale as they will have to book the loss.

[murf2222]

Urbanrealtor

show me where in a buyers loan contract it says *all-bets-are-off* if the property drops in value?

Am I living in some kinda bizarro-world here? Does signing your name and giving your word not mean ANYTHING anymore?

Let’s try and forget for a moment that all parties involved (with buying) were naive and/or greedy. The buyer, the realtor and the bank, but that’s not the point.

The point is………….oh crap, I forgot my point, but it probably had something to do with sucking it up and staying within the boundaries of the “spirit of the contract”.

Remember the context of the original post here. The loan holder CAN afford the payment.

murf2222

[murf2222]

Urbanrealtor

show me where in a buyers loan contract it says *all-bets-are-off* if the property drops in value?

Am I living in some kinda bizarro-world here? Does signing your name and giving your word not mean ANYTHING anymore?

Let’s try and forget for a moment that all parties involved (with buying) were naive and/or greedy. The buyer, the realtor and the bank, but that’s not the point.

The point is………….oh crap, I forgot my point, but it probably had something to do with sucking it up and staying within the boundaries of the “spirit of the contract”.

Remember the context of the original post here. The loan holder CAN afford the payment.

murf2222

[murf2222]

Urbanrealtor

show me where in a buyers loan contract it says *all-bets-are-off* if the property drops in value?

Am I living in some kinda bizarro-world here? Does signing your name and giving your word not mean ANYTHING anymore?

Let’s try and forget for a moment that all parties involved (with buying) were naive and/or greedy. The buyer, the realtor and the bank, but that’s not the point.

The point is………….oh crap, I forgot my point, but it probably had something to do with sucking it up and staying within the boundaries of the “spirit of the contract”.

Remember the context of the original post here. The loan holder CAN afford the payment.

murf2222

[murf2222]

Urbanrealtor

show me where in a buyers loan contract it says *all-bets-are-off* if the property drops in value?

Am I living in some kinda bizarro-world here? Does signing your name and giving your word not mean ANYTHING anymore?

Let’s try and forget for a moment that all parties involved (with buying) were naive and/or greedy. The buyer, the realtor and the bank, but that’s not the point.

The point is………….oh crap, I forgot my point, but it probably had something to do with sucking it up and staying within the boundaries of the “spirit of the contract”.

Remember the context of the original post here. The loan holder CAN afford the payment.

murf2222

[Author]

Posts