The new flipping: short sales

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Squatter][quote=sdrealtor]Sd Squater
That would actually be counterproductive and not what someone would do in a short sale flip. In a short sale flip, an investor offers to pay cash in a below market transaction without it actually going on the market. The investor then puts it on the market as a free and clear property. Its never marketed as a short sale.[/quote]

Hmm, isn’t the realtor representing the bank under an obligation to put a property on the market and get the highest price possible? If he/she puts the property “on ice” in order to get an artificially low price from the bank through a scheme like this then everything appears legit from the outside. Not listing a property at all would seem like a breach of contract by the realtor.[/quote]

Okay.
The agent in a short sale listing is not representing the bank.
He is representing the seller (the fucked over dude who bought it a few years ago) or the buyer.

The agent has no contract with the bank.
He does not (and should not) give a shit about anyone but his client (the buyer or seller).

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Squatter][quote=sdrealtor]Sd Squater
That would actually be counterproductive and not what someone would do in a short sale flip. In a short sale flip, an investor offers to pay cash in a below market transaction without it actually going on the market. The investor then puts it on the market as a free and clear property. Its never marketed as a short sale.[/quote]

Hmm, isn’t the realtor representing the bank under an obligation to put a property on the market and get the highest price possible? If he/she puts the property “on ice” in order to get an artificially low price from the bank through a scheme like this then everything appears legit from the outside. Not listing a property at all would seem like a breach of contract by the realtor.[/quote]

Okay.
The agent in a short sale listing is not representing the bank.
He is representing the seller (the fucked over dude who bought it a few years ago) or the buyer.

The agent has no contract with the bank.
He does not (and should not) give a shit about anyone but his client (the buyer or seller).[/quote]

And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Squatter][quote=sdrealtor]Sd Squater
That would actually be counterproductive and not what someone would do in a short sale flip. In a short sale flip, an investor offers to pay cash in a below market transaction without it actually going on the market. The investor then puts it on the market as a free and clear property. Its never marketed as a short sale.[/quote]

Hmm, isn’t the realtor representing the bank under an obligation to put a property on the market and get the highest price possible? If he/she puts the property “on ice” in order to get an artificially low price from the bank through a scheme like this then everything appears legit from the outside. Not listing a property at all would seem like a breach of contract by the realtor.[/quote]

Okay.
The agent in a short sale listing is not representing the bank.
He is representing the seller (the fucked over dude who bought it a few years ago) or the buyer.

The agent has no contract with the bank.
He does not (and should not) give a shit about anyone but his client (the buyer or seller).[/quote]

And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Squatter][quote=sdrealtor]Sd Squater
That would actually be counterproductive and not what someone would do in a short sale flip. In a short sale flip, an investor offers to pay cash in a below market transaction without it actually going on the market. The investor then puts it on the market as a free and clear property. Its never marketed as a short sale.[/quote]

Hmm, isn’t the realtor representing the bank under an obligation to put a property on the market and get the highest price possible? If he/she puts the property “on ice” in order to get an artificially low price from the bank through a scheme like this then everything appears legit from the outside. Not listing a property at all would seem like a breach of contract by the realtor.[/quote]

Okay.
The agent in a short sale listing is not representing the bank.
He is representing the seller (the fucked over dude who bought it a few years ago) or the buyer.

The agent has no contract with the bank.
He does not (and should not) give a shit about anyone but his client (the buyer or seller).[/quote]

And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Squatter][quote=sdrealtor]Sd Squater
That would actually be counterproductive and not what someone would do in a short sale flip. In a short sale flip, an investor offers to pay cash in a below market transaction without it actually going on the market. The investor then puts it on the market as a free and clear property. Its never marketed as a short sale.[/quote]

Hmm, isn’t the realtor representing the bank under an obligation to put a property on the market and get the highest price possible? If he/she puts the property “on ice” in order to get an artificially low price from the bank through a scheme like this then everything appears legit from the outside. Not listing a property at all would seem like a breach of contract by the realtor.[/quote]

Okay.
The agent in a short sale listing is not representing the bank.
He is representing the seller (the fucked over dude who bought it a few years ago) or the buyer.

The agent has no contract with the bank.
He does not (and should not) give a shit about anyone but his client (the buyer or seller).[/quote]

And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.

[CA renter]

[quote=urbanrealtor][quote=SD Squatter][quote=sdrealtor]Sd Squater
That would actually be counterproductive and not what someone would do in a short sale flip. In a short sale flip, an investor offers to pay cash in a below market transaction without it actually going on the market. The investor then puts it on the market as a free and clear property. Its never marketed as a short sale.[/quote]

Hmm, isn’t the realtor representing the bank under an obligation to put a property on the market and get the highest price possible? If he/she puts the property “on ice” in order to get an artificially low price from the bank through a scheme like this then everything appears legit from the outside. Not listing a property at all would seem like a breach of contract by the realtor.[/quote]

Okay.
The agent in a short sale listing is not representing the bank.
He is representing the seller (the fucked over dude who bought it a few years ago) or the buyer.

The agent has no contract with the bank.
He does not (and should not) give a shit about anyone but his client (the buyer or seller).[/quote]

And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]
And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.[/quote]

Dude.
Do you not get tired of this conversation?
Starting again:
It would be nice if the banks were more interested or willing.
This is especially true since they stand to lose a great deal more if they foreclose.
Their loss (which is common) is necessarily a taxpayer loss.
The problem is that they are unwilling to put the pieces in place to make them efficient and are uninterested in being proactive about facilitating or encouraging them prior to a repo.

With regard to your question of involvement.
The property is sold only by its owner.
The bank has merely a security interest (not an ownership interest) in the property.
That gives them a legally very limited role.

The idea that the borrower is just some supplicant asking for mercy is facile and uninformed. In a purely theoretic way, communism makes sense. However, it has about as much likelihood of being successful as your idea of how things “should” be.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]
And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.[/quote]

Dude.
Do you not get tired of this conversation?
Starting again:
It would be nice if the banks were more interested or willing.
This is especially true since they stand to lose a great deal more if they foreclose.
Their loss (which is common) is necessarily a taxpayer loss.
The problem is that they are unwilling to put the pieces in place to make them efficient and are uninterested in being proactive about facilitating or encouraging them prior to a repo.

With regard to your question of involvement.
The property is sold only by its owner.
The bank has merely a security interest (not an ownership interest) in the property.
That gives them a legally very limited role.

The idea that the borrower is just some supplicant asking for mercy is facile and uninformed. In a purely theoretic way, communism makes sense. However, it has about as much likelihood of being successful as your idea of how things “should” be.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]
And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.[/quote]

Dude.
Do you not get tired of this conversation?
Starting again:
It would be nice if the banks were more interested or willing.
This is especially true since they stand to lose a great deal more if they foreclose.
Their loss (which is common) is necessarily a taxpayer loss.
The problem is that they are unwilling to put the pieces in place to make them efficient and are uninterested in being proactive about facilitating or encouraging them prior to a repo.

With regard to your question of involvement.
The property is sold only by its owner.
The bank has merely a security interest (not an ownership interest) in the property.
That gives them a legally very limited role.

The idea that the borrower is just some supplicant asking for mercy is facile and uninformed. In a purely theoretic way, communism makes sense. However, it has about as much likelihood of being successful as your idea of how things “should” be.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]
And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.[/quote]

Dude.
Do you not get tired of this conversation?
Starting again:
It would be nice if the banks were more interested or willing.
This is especially true since they stand to lose a great deal more if they foreclose.
Their loss (which is common) is necessarily a taxpayer loss.
The problem is that they are unwilling to put the pieces in place to make them efficient and are uninterested in being proactive about facilitating or encouraging them prior to a repo.

With regard to your question of involvement.
The property is sold only by its owner.
The bank has merely a security interest (not an ownership interest) in the property.
That gives them a legally very limited role.

The idea that the borrower is just some supplicant asking for mercy is facile and uninformed. In a purely theoretic way, communism makes sense. However, it has about as much likelihood of being successful as your idea of how things “should” be.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]
And this is exactly where the problem lies. The person/entity who stands to lose money should be the ONLY entity involved in the transaction. If a “seller” wants to do a short sale, part of the deal should be that the lender alone is involved in the selling transaction (choosing the listing agent, title company, etc.) — especially when taxpayers are expected to cover their losses.

Sorry, but the “sellers” have no business in these transactions. The lenders are doing the borrowers a favor if they allow them to sell short. If the “sellers” have a problem with that, then the lenders should just foreclose on them.[/quote]

Dude.
Do you not get tired of this conversation?
Starting again:
It would be nice if the banks were more interested or willing.
This is especially true since they stand to lose a great deal more if they foreclose.
Their loss (which is common) is necessarily a taxpayer loss.
The problem is that they are unwilling to put the pieces in place to make them efficient and are uninterested in being proactive about facilitating or encouraging them prior to a repo.

With regard to your question of involvement.
The property is sold only by its owner.
The bank has merely a security interest (not an ownership interest) in the property.
That gives them a legally very limited role.

The idea that the borrower is just some supplicant asking for mercy is facile and uninformed. In a purely theoretic way, communism makes sense. However, it has about as much likelihood of being successful as your idea of how things “should” be.

[CA renter]

Based on what I’m seeing, it’s not necessarily true that they will take a greater loss in foreclosure. With all the pre-arranged short sales, I think they might do better with foreclosure.

Sorry, the sellers might have the “legal” right to sell for now, but I think that might change in the future WRT short sales.

Dude,

No I do not get tired of this conversation, and think we’d be much closer to a bottom if the PTB mandated that all foreclosed properties (for which taxpayers will somehow be liable) be listed on a govt-run auction site — with national exposure — for a minimum number of days. The GSEs would pre-qualify the bidders, and every sale/purchase would be tracked. That way, the entire process could be transparent, and the taxpayers would be better protected.

So there! 😉

[CA renter]

Based on what I’m seeing, it’s not necessarily true that they will take a greater loss in foreclosure. With all the pre-arranged short sales, I think they might do better with foreclosure.

Sorry, the sellers might have the “legal” right to sell for now, but I think that might change in the future WRT short sales.

Dude,

No I do not get tired of this conversation, and think we’d be much closer to a bottom if the PTB mandated that all foreclosed properties (for which taxpayers will somehow be liable) be listed on a govt-run auction site — with national exposure — for a minimum number of days. The GSEs would pre-qualify the bidders, and every sale/purchase would be tracked. That way, the entire process could be transparent, and the taxpayers would be better protected.

So there! 😉

[CA renter]

Based on what I’m seeing, it’s not necessarily true that they will take a greater loss in foreclosure. With all the pre-arranged short sales, I think they might do better with foreclosure.

Sorry, the sellers might have the “legal” right to sell for now, but I think that might change in the future WRT short sales.

Dude,

No I do not get tired of this conversation, and think we’d be much closer to a bottom if the PTB mandated that all foreclosed properties (for which taxpayers will somehow be liable) be listed on a govt-run auction site — with national exposure — for a minimum number of days. The GSEs would pre-qualify the bidders, and every sale/purchase would be tracked. That way, the entire process could be transparent, and the taxpayers would be better protected.

So there! 😉

[CA renter]

Based on what I’m seeing, it’s not necessarily true that they will take a greater loss in foreclosure. With all the pre-arranged short sales, I think they might do better with foreclosure.

Sorry, the sellers might have the “legal” right to sell for now, but I think that might change in the future WRT short sales.

Dude,

No I do not get tired of this conversation, and think we’d be much closer to a bottom if the PTB mandated that all foreclosed properties (for which taxpayers will somehow be liable) be listed on a govt-run auction site — with national exposure — for a minimum number of days. The GSEs would pre-qualify the bidders, and every sale/purchase would be tracked. That way, the entire process could be transparent, and the taxpayers would be better protected.

So there! 😉

[Author]

Posts