[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]George Bush doesn’t care about black Friday!![/quote]
Okay….

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=afx114]George Bush doesn’t care about black Friday!![/quote]
Okay….

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO, a permanent principal reduction is a new sale to the current borrower. The price he’s paying for the house is completely different from what he initially agreed to — and completely different from what’s been publicly recorded.

If you were going to buy in a neighborhood where all the sales this year were for $600K, wouldn’t you want to know if those borrowers were literally willing and able to pay those prices? How would you feel if you paid $600K, then found out that all your neighbors who paid $600K had their balances permanently reduced to $350K? Still think that’s not a material fact? I do.[/quote]

I would totally want to know.
But again 2 problems:

1: Banks reduce in proportion to the market.

A bank will not reduce a balance to 60% of the market value (to take your example).
If every house on the block just sold for $600k, then the distressed borrower could sell his for $600k.
Then there would be no incentive to modify.
There would just be an incentive to foreclose or force a sale (even a short sale).
If every house just sold for $600k two years ago, then modified it to $350k last month (this reduction being based on recent sales), then it is incredibly unlikely that there are current sales at $600k.
If there are such sales then its time to call the UT and the FBI and find out if Brent Wilkes is the buyer.
I had a guy who stated to me the other day that his house was appraised at $700k in 2005 and that is what he would accept for it now.
I advised that he would probably not be selling any time soon. The same principle applies here.
Principal reductions are based on recent comps. So are new sales.

2: Modifications are not public record nor are they part of a public market.

Only the security for the original lending contract is public.
The lending contract itself (and any modifications thereof) are private.
The modification market is not an open or competitive one.
There is only one seller of the money and only one buyer of the money.
If I have a loan with Citi, I can’t shop a mod to Wells.

@CAR:
Dude, between your “fraud” posts and the discussion of how we need to change the nature of private property, talking with you is getting more and more like talking to a member of the Green Party.
This one is shining example.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO, a permanent principal reduction is a new sale to the current borrower. The price he’s paying for the house is completely different from what he initially agreed to — and completely different from what’s been publicly recorded.

If you were going to buy in a neighborhood where all the sales this year were for $600K, wouldn’t you want to know if those borrowers were literally willing and able to pay those prices? How would you feel if you paid $600K, then found out that all your neighbors who paid $600K had their balances permanently reduced to $350K? Still think that’s not a material fact? I do.[/quote]

I would totally want to know.
But again 2 problems:

1: Banks reduce in proportion to the market.

A bank will not reduce a balance to 60% of the market value (to take your example).
If every house on the block just sold for $600k, then the distressed borrower could sell his for $600k.
Then there would be no incentive to modify.
There would just be an incentive to foreclose or force a sale (even a short sale).
If every house just sold for $600k two years ago, then modified it to $350k last month (this reduction being based on recent sales), then it is incredibly unlikely that there are current sales at $600k.
If there are such sales then its time to call the UT and the FBI and find out if Brent Wilkes is the buyer.
I had a guy who stated to me the other day that his house was appraised at $700k in 2005 and that is what he would accept for it now.
I advised that he would probably not be selling any time soon. The same principle applies here.
Principal reductions are based on recent comps. So are new sales.

2: Modifications are not public record nor are they part of a public market.

Only the security for the original lending contract is public.
The lending contract itself (and any modifications thereof) are private.
The modification market is not an open or competitive one.
There is only one seller of the money and only one buyer of the money.
If I have a loan with Citi, I can’t shop a mod to Wells.

@CAR:
Dude, between your “fraud” posts and the discussion of how we need to change the nature of private property, talking with you is getting more and more like talking to a member of the Green Party.
This one is shining example.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO, a permanent principal reduction is a new sale to the current borrower. The price he’s paying for the house is completely different from what he initially agreed to — and completely different from what’s been publicly recorded.

If you were going to buy in a neighborhood where all the sales this year were for $600K, wouldn’t you want to know if those borrowers were literally willing and able to pay those prices? How would you feel if you paid $600K, then found out that all your neighbors who paid $600K had their balances permanently reduced to $350K? Still think that’s not a material fact? I do.[/quote]

I would totally want to know.
But again 2 problems:

1: Banks reduce in proportion to the market.

A bank will not reduce a balance to 60% of the market value (to take your example).
If every house on the block just sold for $600k, then the distressed borrower could sell his for $600k.
Then there would be no incentive to modify.
There would just be an incentive to foreclose or force a sale (even a short sale).
If every house just sold for $600k two years ago, then modified it to $350k last month (this reduction being based on recent sales), then it is incredibly unlikely that there are current sales at $600k.
If there are such sales then its time to call the UT and the FBI and find out if Brent Wilkes is the buyer.
I had a guy who stated to me the other day that his house was appraised at $700k in 2005 and that is what he would accept for it now.
I advised that he would probably not be selling any time soon. The same principle applies here.
Principal reductions are based on recent comps. So are new sales.

2: Modifications are not public record nor are they part of a public market.

Only the security for the original lending contract is public.
The lending contract itself (and any modifications thereof) are private.
The modification market is not an open or competitive one.
There is only one seller of the money and only one buyer of the money.
If I have a loan with Citi, I can’t shop a mod to Wells.

@CAR:
Dude, between your “fraud” posts and the discussion of how we need to change the nature of private property, talking with you is getting more and more like talking to a member of the Green Party.
This one is shining example.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO, a permanent principal reduction is a new sale to the current borrower. The price he’s paying for the house is completely different from what he initially agreed to — and completely different from what’s been publicly recorded.

If you were going to buy in a neighborhood where all the sales this year were for $600K, wouldn’t you want to know if those borrowers were literally willing and able to pay those prices? How would you feel if you paid $600K, then found out that all your neighbors who paid $600K had their balances permanently reduced to $350K? Still think that’s not a material fact? I do.[/quote]

I would totally want to know.
But again 2 problems:

1: Banks reduce in proportion to the market.

A bank will not reduce a balance to 60% of the market value (to take your example).
If every house on the block just sold for $600k, then the distressed borrower could sell his for $600k.
Then there would be no incentive to modify.
There would just be an incentive to foreclose or force a sale (even a short sale).
If every house just sold for $600k two years ago, then modified it to $350k last month (this reduction being based on recent sales), then it is incredibly unlikely that there are current sales at $600k.
If there are such sales then its time to call the UT and the FBI and find out if Brent Wilkes is the buyer.
I had a guy who stated to me the other day that his house was appraised at $700k in 2005 and that is what he would accept for it now.
I advised that he would probably not be selling any time soon. The same principle applies here.
Principal reductions are based on recent comps. So are new sales.

2: Modifications are not public record nor are they part of a public market.

Only the security for the original lending contract is public.
The lending contract itself (and any modifications thereof) are private.
The modification market is not an open or competitive one.
There is only one seller of the money and only one buyer of the money.
If I have a loan with Citi, I can’t shop a mod to Wells.

@CAR:
Dude, between your “fraud” posts and the discussion of how we need to change the nature of private property, talking with you is getting more and more like talking to a member of the Green Party.
This one is shining example.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=CA renter]

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. IMHO, a permanent principal reduction is a new sale to the current borrower. The price he’s paying for the house is completely different from what he initially agreed to — and completely different from what’s been publicly recorded.

If you were going to buy in a neighborhood where all the sales this year were for $600K, wouldn’t you want to know if those borrowers were literally willing and able to pay those prices? How would you feel if you paid $600K, then found out that all your neighbors who paid $600K had their balances permanently reduced to $350K? Still think that’s not a material fact? I do.[/quote]

I would totally want to know.
But again 2 problems:

1: Banks reduce in proportion to the market.

A bank will not reduce a balance to 60% of the market value (to take your example).
If every house on the block just sold for $600k, then the distressed borrower could sell his for $600k.
Then there would be no incentive to modify.
There would just be an incentive to foreclose or force a sale (even a short sale).
If every house just sold for $600k two years ago, then modified it to $350k last month (this reduction being based on recent sales), then it is incredibly unlikely that there are current sales at $600k.
If there are such sales then its time to call the UT and the FBI and find out if Brent Wilkes is the buyer.
I had a guy who stated to me the other day that his house was appraised at $700k in 2005 and that is what he would accept for it now.
I advised that he would probably not be selling any time soon. The same principle applies here.
Principal reductions are based on recent comps. So are new sales.

2: Modifications are not public record nor are they part of a public market.

Only the security for the original lending contract is public.
The lending contract itself (and any modifications thereof) are private.
The modification market is not an open or competitive one.
There is only one seller of the money and only one buyer of the money.
If I have a loan with Citi, I can’t shop a mod to Wells.

@CAR:
Dude, between your “fraud” posts and the discussion of how we need to change the nature of private property, talking with you is getting more and more like talking to a member of the Green Party.
This one is shining example.

[urbanrealtor]

I rented 2 movies.
-Bruno
and
-Gran Torino

Basically just hung around the house and did some real estate.

Though, on the buying front:
I am emailing the owners of a pre-foreclosure because I like their appliances. Since they still own them for the next couple of months…

[urbanrealtor]

I rented 2 movies.
-Bruno
and
-Gran Torino

Basically just hung around the house and did some real estate.

Though, on the buying front:
I am emailing the owners of a pre-foreclosure because I like their appliances. Since they still own them for the next couple of months…

[urbanrealtor]

I rented 2 movies.
-Bruno
and
-Gran Torino

Basically just hung around the house and did some real estate.

Though, on the buying front:
I am emailing the owners of a pre-foreclosure because I like their appliances. Since they still own them for the next couple of months…

[urbanrealtor]

I rented 2 movies.
-Bruno
and
-Gran Torino

Basically just hung around the house and did some real estate.

Though, on the buying front:
I am emailing the owners of a pre-foreclosure because I like their appliances. Since they still own them for the next couple of months…

[urbanrealtor]

I rented 2 movies.
-Bruno
and
-Gran Torino

Basically just hung around the house and did some real estate.

Though, on the buying front:
I am emailing the owners of a pre-foreclosure because I like their appliances. Since they still own them for the next couple of months…

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=bsrsharma]One more supporter of Rt.66 strategy (who successfully bought a REO recently using that exact logic). Double dipping + high cash (to reduce uncertainty of closing) + few contingencies (+ government/public as the ultimate bag holder in many cases) can work wonders when greed is the basic lubricant. Just remember one other formula: you can reduce purchase price offer almost in proportion to cash you bring to table. Sometimes the proportion can be dramatic, like $ for $ i.e. $400,000 cash = $800,000 loan; A Bird in hand is truly worth two in a Bush for REOs!. That is why all cash offers always win out in the end.[/quote]

I don’t dispute that playing on greed can be effective but I think we would do well to look at some actual examples.

Would any of the supporters of going unrepresented care to share their address and contract details?

My suspicion (though I am not certain) is that the disadvantage of not having professional representation will show.

But I am open to being convinced.

Please share.
Contract PDF’s would be appreciated.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=bsrsharma]One more supporter of Rt.66 strategy (who successfully bought a REO recently using that exact logic). Double dipping + high cash (to reduce uncertainty of closing) + few contingencies (+ government/public as the ultimate bag holder in many cases) can work wonders when greed is the basic lubricant. Just remember one other formula: you can reduce purchase price offer almost in proportion to cash you bring to table. Sometimes the proportion can be dramatic, like $ for $ i.e. $400,000 cash = $800,000 loan; A Bird in hand is truly worth two in a Bush for REOs!. That is why all cash offers always win out in the end.[/quote]

I don’t dispute that playing on greed can be effective but I think we would do well to look at some actual examples.

Would any of the supporters of going unrepresented care to share their address and contract details?

My suspicion (though I am not certain) is that the disadvantage of not having professional representation will show.

But I am open to being convinced.

Please share.
Contract PDF’s would be appreciated.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=bsrsharma]One more supporter of Rt.66 strategy (who successfully bought a REO recently using that exact logic). Double dipping + high cash (to reduce uncertainty of closing) + few contingencies (+ government/public as the ultimate bag holder in many cases) can work wonders when greed is the basic lubricant. Just remember one other formula: you can reduce purchase price offer almost in proportion to cash you bring to table. Sometimes the proportion can be dramatic, like $ for $ i.e. $400,000 cash = $800,000 loan; A Bird in hand is truly worth two in a Bush for REOs!. That is why all cash offers always win out in the end.[/quote]

I don’t dispute that playing on greed can be effective but I think we would do well to look at some actual examples.

Would any of the supporters of going unrepresented care to share their address and contract details?

My suspicion (though I am not certain) is that the disadvantage of not having professional representation will show.

But I am open to being convinced.

Please share.
Contract PDF’s would be appreciated.

[Author]

Posts