[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]BTW more people than you think are “receiving forgiveness on 2nds en masse and, AND, AND, this is important now……. keeping the house”

AND, AND this is important now…..it is just one of MANY things being done to control/manipulate the real estate market. The free market will never reign supreme. There is too much at stake to ever let that happen.[/quote]
Thank God.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]BTW more people than you think are “receiving forgiveness on 2nds en masse and, AND, AND, this is important now……. keeping the house”

AND, AND this is important now…..it is just one of MANY things being done to control/manipulate the real estate market. The free market will never reign supreme. There is too much at stake to ever let that happen.[/quote]
Thank God.

[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.

[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).

[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).

[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).

[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).

[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).

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Squatter]

Don’t you think that listing prices are a little low then? [/quote]
Possibly.
Short sales are by definition less desirable in non-price terms.
It is generally necessary to lower the price to create interest.
[quote=SD Squatter]Is the goal here to get a bidding war going and close on the first day? [/quote]
That would be great but is, for the most part, impossible.
The bank needs to approve the purchase and usually takes months to do that.
Therefore opening escrow (let alone closing escrow) is usually months away.
[quote=SD Squatter]I’m just missing the logic here…, why the rush?[/quote]
It is important to get offers quickly because, as the agent (or short sale consultant), you need a buyer with an offer to even begin working the deal with the bank to get an approval and open escrow.

The concept of rushing just does not enter into it.

The irony is that these take months and are called “short” sales.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Squatter]

Don’t you think that listing prices are a little low then? [/quote]
Possibly.
Short sales are by definition less desirable in non-price terms.
It is generally necessary to lower the price to create interest.
[quote=SD Squatter]Is the goal here to get a bidding war going and close on the first day? [/quote]
That would be great but is, for the most part, impossible.
The bank needs to approve the purchase and usually takes months to do that.
Therefore opening escrow (let alone closing escrow) is usually months away.
[quote=SD Squatter]I’m just missing the logic here…, why the rush?[/quote]
It is important to get offers quickly because, as the agent (or short sale consultant), you need a buyer with an offer to even begin working the deal with the bank to get an approval and open escrow.

The concept of rushing just does not enter into it.

The irony is that these take months and are called “short” sales.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Squatter]

Don’t you think that listing prices are a little low then? [/quote]
Possibly.
Short sales are by definition less desirable in non-price terms.
It is generally necessary to lower the price to create interest.
[quote=SD Squatter]Is the goal here to get a bidding war going and close on the first day? [/quote]
That would be great but is, for the most part, impossible.
The bank needs to approve the purchase and usually takes months to do that.
Therefore opening escrow (let alone closing escrow) is usually months away.
[quote=SD Squatter]I’m just missing the logic here…, why the rush?[/quote]
It is important to get offers quickly because, as the agent (or short sale consultant), you need a buyer with an offer to even begin working the deal with the bank to get an approval and open escrow.

The concept of rushing just does not enter into it.

The irony is that these take months and are called “short” sales.

[Author]

Posts