[urbanrealtor]

At best you are talking about a very real mistake in communication.

Bad.

At worst, you are talking about a very real ethical lapse where the agent is colluding with the loan officer to try to obscure the actual cost of borrowing.

Much much worse.

More realistically, you are talking about an agent who works with a lender he trusts and they regularly quote loan prices in a way that is technically plausible but consistently the most favorable (so as to be appealing to potential customers).

That is bad but more opportunistically savvy than actually scheming.

Lending is less nuanced (in that the object of commerce is more interchangeable and the components of service are more completely disclosed) and for that reason it is easier to shop it.

Additionally, the government just changed some of the rules regarding disclosure to borrowers.

Were I you, I would ask the loan officer to give you a more current and accurate good faith estimate (GFE) and then take that to at least 2 other lenders. Ask for references.

When you show it to the other lenders, ask for them to advise you of any missing or hidden costs and then ask them if they can beat it. When you do this, bring their gfe’s to the other lenders.

If you can do better, then ask whichever lender to lock the loan immediately. This will prevent the loan officer from playing the loan market to try and eke out an additional quarter point on the back end.
Playing is as likely to cost you the loan as to get the LO an extra few thousand.

Anyhoo, thats my advice.

Good luck.

[urbanrealtor]

At best you are talking about a very real mistake in communication.

Bad.

At worst, you are talking about a very real ethical lapse where the agent is colluding with the loan officer to try to obscure the actual cost of borrowing.

Much much worse.

More realistically, you are talking about an agent who works with a lender he trusts and they regularly quote loan prices in a way that is technically plausible but consistently the most favorable (so as to be appealing to potential customers).

That is bad but more opportunistically savvy than actually scheming.

Lending is less nuanced (in that the object of commerce is more interchangeable and the components of service are more completely disclosed) and for that reason it is easier to shop it.

Additionally, the government just changed some of the rules regarding disclosure to borrowers.

Were I you, I would ask the loan officer to give you a more current and accurate good faith estimate (GFE) and then take that to at least 2 other lenders. Ask for references.

When you show it to the other lenders, ask for them to advise you of any missing or hidden costs and then ask them if they can beat it. When you do this, bring their gfe’s to the other lenders.

If you can do better, then ask whichever lender to lock the loan immediately. This will prevent the loan officer from playing the loan market to try and eke out an additional quarter point on the back end.
Playing is as likely to cost you the loan as to get the LO an extra few thousand.

Anyhoo, thats my advice.

Good luck.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]Why is that such a big deal, Zeit?

The Tea Party paid Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak at the Tea Party convention.

There are plenty of Republican operatives in the Tea Party.

BTW, Tea parties or Tea dances are gay events. They hold them every year Downtown and in Balboa Park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_dance%5B/quote%5D

Speaking as the only straight agent in my office:

Freakin Awesome.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]Why is that such a big deal, Zeit?

The Tea Party paid Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak at the Tea Party convention.

There are plenty of Republican operatives in the Tea Party.

BTW, Tea parties or Tea dances are gay events. They hold them every year Downtown and in Balboa Park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_dance%5B/quote%5D

Speaking as the only straight agent in my office:

Freakin Awesome.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]Why is that such a big deal, Zeit?

The Tea Party paid Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak at the Tea Party convention.

There are plenty of Republican operatives in the Tea Party.

BTW, Tea parties or Tea dances are gay events. They hold them every year Downtown and in Balboa Park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_dance%5B/quote%5D

Speaking as the only straight agent in my office:

Freakin Awesome.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]Why is that such a big deal, Zeit?

The Tea Party paid Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak at the Tea Party convention.

There are plenty of Republican operatives in the Tea Party.

BTW, Tea parties or Tea dances are gay events. They hold them every year Downtown and in Balboa Park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_dance%5B/quote%5D

Speaking as the only straight agent in my office:

Freakin Awesome.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=briansd1]Why is that such a big deal, Zeit?

The Tea Party paid Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak at the Tea Party convention.

There are plenty of Republican operatives in the Tea Party.

BTW, Tea parties or Tea dances are gay events. They hold them every year Downtown and in Balboa Park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_dance%5B/quote%5D

Speaking as the only straight agent in my office:

Freakin Awesome.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ybitz]Can you still tour a house and/or make an offer on a short-sale house that is in contingent status? Or is it already too late at that point?
[/quote]
Sort of.
Selling a negative equity property requires the consent of the seller (who has limited incentive to sell) and the bank (who also has limited incentive).
Offering more money will not benefit the seller (they get zero dollars unless the offer is MUCH higher) though it might benefit the agent (many of whom place greater importance upon the size of their commission–which is based on sale price–above the benefit to their client).
Considering the high percentage of closing failure in shorts (like 60%), your best bet is to keep reaching out to the seller’s side and mentioning you are still interested.
One other thing: the final price is decided by the bank. And they don’t negotiate. If the listing agent says “we need an offer for $450,000”, he means it.
Trying to offer at $425,000 will just eliminate your offer from realistic consideration.
[quote=ybitz]
What’s the consensus on buying short sales these days? Too much hassle for the slim chance of getting a good deal, or worth pursuing? [/quote]
In my opinion, its really all of the above.
Most of my practice is short sales.
Right now, I am in escrow for buyers who are getting something that I consider to be at least 10-15% below market. Still, it will mean an extra 3 months of waiting and worrying when its done. By “done” I mean approval from the bank to actually open escrow and do the deal.
[quote=ybitz] Will the new government program for short sale encourage more underwater owners to put their house up for sale?[/quote]
Probably. And it would be a good idea.
Short sales have the potential to be closer to normal sales than bank owned sales do. Therefore, they could help dramatically to normalize the market. If you think about it, short sales could be done with far less waste. The seller could keep making payments, the bank could approve them, the seller wouldn’t trash the house, etc.
A large component of the price drop is the multiplier factor that comes from abandon houses that banks are too busy to deal with and REO agents who gain reps as “slashers”. At an individual level, these factors function within the market. However, at a certain minimum market saturation, they BECOME the market.
My two bits…

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ybitz]Can you still tour a house and/or make an offer on a short-sale house that is in contingent status? Or is it already too late at that point?
[/quote]
Sort of.
Selling a negative equity property requires the consent of the seller (who has limited incentive to sell) and the bank (who also has limited incentive).
Offering more money will not benefit the seller (they get zero dollars unless the offer is MUCH higher) though it might benefit the agent (many of whom place greater importance upon the size of their commission–which is based on sale price–above the benefit to their client).
Considering the high percentage of closing failure in shorts (like 60%), your best bet is to keep reaching out to the seller’s side and mentioning you are still interested.
One other thing: the final price is decided by the bank. And they don’t negotiate. If the listing agent says “we need an offer for $450,000”, he means it.
Trying to offer at $425,000 will just eliminate your offer from realistic consideration.
[quote=ybitz]
What’s the consensus on buying short sales these days? Too much hassle for the slim chance of getting a good deal, or worth pursuing? [/quote]
In my opinion, its really all of the above.
Most of my practice is short sales.
Right now, I am in escrow for buyers who are getting something that I consider to be at least 10-15% below market. Still, it will mean an extra 3 months of waiting and worrying when its done. By “done” I mean approval from the bank to actually open escrow and do the deal.
[quote=ybitz] Will the new government program for short sale encourage more underwater owners to put their house up for sale?[/quote]
Probably. And it would be a good idea.
Short sales have the potential to be closer to normal sales than bank owned sales do. Therefore, they could help dramatically to normalize the market. If you think about it, short sales could be done with far less waste. The seller could keep making payments, the bank could approve them, the seller wouldn’t trash the house, etc.
A large component of the price drop is the multiplier factor that comes from abandon houses that banks are too busy to deal with and REO agents who gain reps as “slashers”. At an individual level, these factors function within the market. However, at a certain minimum market saturation, they BECOME the market.
My two bits…

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ybitz]Can you still tour a house and/or make an offer on a short-sale house that is in contingent status? Or is it already too late at that point?
[/quote]
Sort of.
Selling a negative equity property requires the consent of the seller (who has limited incentive to sell) and the bank (who also has limited incentive).
Offering more money will not benefit the seller (they get zero dollars unless the offer is MUCH higher) though it might benefit the agent (many of whom place greater importance upon the size of their commission–which is based on sale price–above the benefit to their client).
Considering the high percentage of closing failure in shorts (like 60%), your best bet is to keep reaching out to the seller’s side and mentioning you are still interested.
One other thing: the final price is decided by the bank. And they don’t negotiate. If the listing agent says “we need an offer for $450,000”, he means it.
Trying to offer at $425,000 will just eliminate your offer from realistic consideration.
[quote=ybitz]
What’s the consensus on buying short sales these days? Too much hassle for the slim chance of getting a good deal, or worth pursuing? [/quote]
In my opinion, its really all of the above.
Most of my practice is short sales.
Right now, I am in escrow for buyers who are getting something that I consider to be at least 10-15% below market. Still, it will mean an extra 3 months of waiting and worrying when its done. By “done” I mean approval from the bank to actually open escrow and do the deal.
[quote=ybitz] Will the new government program for short sale encourage more underwater owners to put their house up for sale?[/quote]
Probably. And it would be a good idea.
Short sales have the potential to be closer to normal sales than bank owned sales do. Therefore, they could help dramatically to normalize the market. If you think about it, short sales could be done with far less waste. The seller could keep making payments, the bank could approve them, the seller wouldn’t trash the house, etc.
A large component of the price drop is the multiplier factor that comes from abandon houses that banks are too busy to deal with and REO agents who gain reps as “slashers”. At an individual level, these factors function within the market. However, at a certain minimum market saturation, they BECOME the market.
My two bits…

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ybitz]Can you still tour a house and/or make an offer on a short-sale house that is in contingent status? Or is it already too late at that point?
[/quote]
Sort of.
Selling a negative equity property requires the consent of the seller (who has limited incentive to sell) and the bank (who also has limited incentive).
Offering more money will not benefit the seller (they get zero dollars unless the offer is MUCH higher) though it might benefit the agent (many of whom place greater importance upon the size of their commission–which is based on sale price–above the benefit to their client).
Considering the high percentage of closing failure in shorts (like 60%), your best bet is to keep reaching out to the seller’s side and mentioning you are still interested.
One other thing: the final price is decided by the bank. And they don’t negotiate. If the listing agent says “we need an offer for $450,000”, he means it.
Trying to offer at $425,000 will just eliminate your offer from realistic consideration.
[quote=ybitz]
What’s the consensus on buying short sales these days? Too much hassle for the slim chance of getting a good deal, or worth pursuing? [/quote]
In my opinion, its really all of the above.
Most of my practice is short sales.
Right now, I am in escrow for buyers who are getting something that I consider to be at least 10-15% below market. Still, it will mean an extra 3 months of waiting and worrying when its done. By “done” I mean approval from the bank to actually open escrow and do the deal.
[quote=ybitz] Will the new government program for short sale encourage more underwater owners to put their house up for sale?[/quote]
Probably. And it would be a good idea.
Short sales have the potential to be closer to normal sales than bank owned sales do. Therefore, they could help dramatically to normalize the market. If you think about it, short sales could be done with far less waste. The seller could keep making payments, the bank could approve them, the seller wouldn’t trash the house, etc.
A large component of the price drop is the multiplier factor that comes from abandon houses that banks are too busy to deal with and REO agents who gain reps as “slashers”. At an individual level, these factors function within the market. However, at a certain minimum market saturation, they BECOME the market.
My two bits…

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=ybitz]Can you still tour a house and/or make an offer on a short-sale house that is in contingent status? Or is it already too late at that point?
[/quote]
Sort of.
Selling a negative equity property requires the consent of the seller (who has limited incentive to sell) and the bank (who also has limited incentive).
Offering more money will not benefit the seller (they get zero dollars unless the offer is MUCH higher) though it might benefit the agent (many of whom place greater importance upon the size of their commission–which is based on sale price–above the benefit to their client).
Considering the high percentage of closing failure in shorts (like 60%), your best bet is to keep reaching out to the seller’s side and mentioning you are still interested.
One other thing: the final price is decided by the bank. And they don’t negotiate. If the listing agent says “we need an offer for $450,000”, he means it.
Trying to offer at $425,000 will just eliminate your offer from realistic consideration.
[quote=ybitz]
What’s the consensus on buying short sales these days? Too much hassle for the slim chance of getting a good deal, or worth pursuing? [/quote]
In my opinion, its really all of the above.
Most of my practice is short sales.
Right now, I am in escrow for buyers who are getting something that I consider to be at least 10-15% below market. Still, it will mean an extra 3 months of waiting and worrying when its done. By “done” I mean approval from the bank to actually open escrow and do the deal.
[quote=ybitz] Will the new government program for short sale encourage more underwater owners to put their house up for sale?[/quote]
Probably. And it would be a good idea.
Short sales have the potential to be closer to normal sales than bank owned sales do. Therefore, they could help dramatically to normalize the market. If you think about it, short sales could be done with far less waste. The seller could keep making payments, the bank could approve them, the seller wouldn’t trash the house, etc.
A large component of the price drop is the multiplier factor that comes from abandon houses that banks are too busy to deal with and REO agents who gain reps as “slashers”. At an individual level, these factors function within the market. However, at a certain minimum market saturation, they BECOME the market.
My two bits…

[urbanrealtor]

TG and sdr have a point.
However, an additional issue (it is connected but not redundant) is that those older, walkable areas tend to be located in historic centers of commerce and finance.
Detroit is also one of these.
However, unlike Manhattan or San Francisco, the financial center of that city was basically liquidated and the population pushed to the suburban and exurban periphery.

No matter how walkable Detroit is, it can’t escape its economic situation.

[urbanrealtor]

TG and sdr have a point.
However, an additional issue (it is connected but not redundant) is that those older, walkable areas tend to be located in historic centers of commerce and finance.
Detroit is also one of these.
However, unlike Manhattan or San Francisco, the financial center of that city was basically liquidated and the population pushed to the suburban and exurban periphery.

No matter how walkable Detroit is, it can’t escape its economic situation.

[urbanrealtor]

TG and sdr have a point.
However, an additional issue (it is connected but not redundant) is that those older, walkable areas tend to be located in historic centers of commerce and finance.
Detroit is also one of these.
However, unlike Manhattan or San Francisco, the financial center of that city was basically liquidated and the population pushed to the suburban and exurban periphery.

No matter how walkable Detroit is, it can’t escape its economic situation.

[Author]

Posts