[urbanrealtor]

I personally am convinced that SD, in collusion with the UN, was the builder, buyer, foreclosing owner, trustee, and locksmith of said house.

Further, I saw him doing all of these things while following him using my weather satellite.

Also, I am fairly sure he is from Arizona.

Clearly he is evil.

Look, unless you have actual evidence of fraud or malfeasance, asserting bad acts is stupid and irresponsible.

Lots of people with almost no actual info keep asserting fraud or cheating where none is evident.

This reminds me of waiting tables during college when some folks would claim discrimination for service they considered unacceptable. The more simple explanation (that the waiter was slow or the kitchen was slow) was not considered.

[urbanrealtor]

I personally am convinced that SD, in collusion with the UN, was the builder, buyer, foreclosing owner, trustee, and locksmith of said house.

Further, I saw him doing all of these things while following him using my weather satellite.

Also, I am fairly sure he is from Arizona.

Clearly he is evil.

Look, unless you have actual evidence of fraud or malfeasance, asserting bad acts is stupid and irresponsible.

Lots of people with almost no actual info keep asserting fraud or cheating where none is evident.

This reminds me of waiting tables during college when some folks would claim discrimination for service they considered unacceptable. The more simple explanation (that the waiter was slow or the kitchen was slow) was not considered.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a lit piece.

I think “politics” is a mislabel.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a lit piece.

I think “politics” is a mislabel.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a lit piece.

I think “politics” is a mislabel.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a lit piece.

I think “politics” is a mislabel.

[urbanrealtor]

This is a lit piece.

I think “politics” is a mislabel.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]In reality there is nothing “new” about this form of fraud. The only thing now is that we see many listings with substantially more detached “sellers” so to speak. [/quote]

I am not clear that the description given in the original post constitutes fraud.

I have 2 short sale listings currently.

The seller “accepted” (in quotes because the bank has to ratify it) the first offer on each. This was not terribly surprising because the asking prices were compelling.

The banks have been working with those offers for weeks. They have asked for more money on one (which was agreed to by the buyer) and taken the other offer at face value. That was because the offer price was 15k above the broker price opinion (bpo).

It would not be in my client’s best interest to submit the other offers to the bank and start the short sale process working again. I have expressed both in the listing as well as verbally, that the newer offers (some of which are higher) will be taken as back up offers only (and will therefore not be address unless or until the live offers die).

Further, the bank is not interested in taking a new offer to the relevant investors and committees.

So that newer offers are not a waste of buyers’ time, I even disclose the numbers on the other offers (though I vetted this part past counsel). Two subsequent offers have been higher.

Bearing in mind that I am open to hearing opposing points of view, I cannot fathom what is fraudulent in such a situation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]In reality there is nothing “new” about this form of fraud. The only thing now is that we see many listings with substantially more detached “sellers” so to speak. [/quote]

I am not clear that the description given in the original post constitutes fraud.

I have 2 short sale listings currently.

The seller “accepted” (in quotes because the bank has to ratify it) the first offer on each. This was not terribly surprising because the asking prices were compelling.

The banks have been working with those offers for weeks. They have asked for more money on one (which was agreed to by the buyer) and taken the other offer at face value. That was because the offer price was 15k above the broker price opinion (bpo).

It would not be in my client’s best interest to submit the other offers to the bank and start the short sale process working again. I have expressed both in the listing as well as verbally, that the newer offers (some of which are higher) will be taken as back up offers only (and will therefore not be address unless or until the live offers die).

Further, the bank is not interested in taking a new offer to the relevant investors and committees.

So that newer offers are not a waste of buyers’ time, I even disclose the numbers on the other offers (though I vetted this part past counsel). Two subsequent offers have been higher.

Bearing in mind that I am open to hearing opposing points of view, I cannot fathom what is fraudulent in such a situation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]In reality there is nothing “new” about this form of fraud. The only thing now is that we see many listings with substantially more detached “sellers” so to speak. [/quote]

I am not clear that the description given in the original post constitutes fraud.

I have 2 short sale listings currently.

The seller “accepted” (in quotes because the bank has to ratify it) the first offer on each. This was not terribly surprising because the asking prices were compelling.

The banks have been working with those offers for weeks. They have asked for more money on one (which was agreed to by the buyer) and taken the other offer at face value. That was because the offer price was 15k above the broker price opinion (bpo).

It would not be in my client’s best interest to submit the other offers to the bank and start the short sale process working again. I have expressed both in the listing as well as verbally, that the newer offers (some of which are higher) will be taken as back up offers only (and will therefore not be address unless or until the live offers die).

Further, the bank is not interested in taking a new offer to the relevant investors and committees.

So that newer offers are not a waste of buyers’ time, I even disclose the numbers on the other offers (though I vetted this part past counsel). Two subsequent offers have been higher.

Bearing in mind that I am open to hearing opposing points of view, I cannot fathom what is fraudulent in such a situation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]In reality there is nothing “new” about this form of fraud. The only thing now is that we see many listings with substantially more detached “sellers” so to speak. [/quote]

I am not clear that the description given in the original post constitutes fraud.

I have 2 short sale listings currently.

The seller “accepted” (in quotes because the bank has to ratify it) the first offer on each. This was not terribly surprising because the asking prices were compelling.

The banks have been working with those offers for weeks. They have asked for more money on one (which was agreed to by the buyer) and taken the other offer at face value. That was because the offer price was 15k above the broker price opinion (bpo).

It would not be in my client’s best interest to submit the other offers to the bank and start the short sale process working again. I have expressed both in the listing as well as verbally, that the newer offers (some of which are higher) will be taken as back up offers only (and will therefore not be address unless or until the live offers die).

Further, the bank is not interested in taking a new offer to the relevant investors and committees.

So that newer offers are not a waste of buyers’ time, I even disclose the numbers on the other offers (though I vetted this part past counsel). Two subsequent offers have been higher.

Bearing in mind that I am open to hearing opposing points of view, I cannot fathom what is fraudulent in such a situation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]In reality there is nothing “new” about this form of fraud. The only thing now is that we see many listings with substantially more detached “sellers” so to speak. [/quote]

I am not clear that the description given in the original post constitutes fraud.

I have 2 short sale listings currently.

The seller “accepted” (in quotes because the bank has to ratify it) the first offer on each. This was not terribly surprising because the asking prices were compelling.

The banks have been working with those offers for weeks. They have asked for more money on one (which was agreed to by the buyer) and taken the other offer at face value. That was because the offer price was 15k above the broker price opinion (bpo).

It would not be in my client’s best interest to submit the other offers to the bank and start the short sale process working again. I have expressed both in the listing as well as verbally, that the newer offers (some of which are higher) will be taken as back up offers only (and will therefore not be address unless or until the live offers die).

Further, the bank is not interested in taking a new offer to the relevant investors and committees.

So that newer offers are not a waste of buyers’ time, I even disclose the numbers on the other offers (though I vetted this part past counsel). Two subsequent offers have been higher.

Bearing in mind that I am open to hearing opposing points of view, I cannot fathom what is fraudulent in such a situation.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]Urbanrealtor,
The agent has both sides. I know this because it is my business to know these things in this area. It is very easy for an agent to underprice and bring a low offer to the bank of his/her own. Even if the bank turns it down, they stand a good chance of getting a rock bottom price to give to their buyer.

[/quote]

Yeah. I have not experienced that at all.
However, your area may function a touch differently.

I have found that the bank does not differentiate whether or not the thing is double-ended.

How does the underpricing get a better number for their buyer if the lender turns it down?
(not to say it can’t but I don’t see the connection)
Perhaps you are implying that it lowers the expectations on the part of the lender?

Also, aren’t the approvals generally governed by BPO’s?
(that’s what I am seeing)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]Urbanrealtor,
The agent has both sides. I know this because it is my business to know these things in this area. It is very easy for an agent to underprice and bring a low offer to the bank of his/her own. Even if the bank turns it down, they stand a good chance of getting a rock bottom price to give to their buyer.

[/quote]

Yeah. I have not experienced that at all.
However, your area may function a touch differently.

I have found that the bank does not differentiate whether or not the thing is double-ended.

How does the underpricing get a better number for their buyer if the lender turns it down?
(not to say it can’t but I don’t see the connection)
Perhaps you are implying that it lowers the expectations on the part of the lender?

Also, aren’t the approvals generally governed by BPO’s?
(that’s what I am seeing)

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sdrealtor]Urbanrealtor,
The agent has both sides. I know this because it is my business to know these things in this area. It is very easy for an agent to underprice and bring a low offer to the bank of his/her own. Even if the bank turns it down, they stand a good chance of getting a rock bottom price to give to their buyer.

[/quote]

Yeah. I have not experienced that at all.
However, your area may function a touch differently.

I have found that the bank does not differentiate whether or not the thing is double-ended.

How does the underpricing get a better number for their buyer if the lender turns it down?
(not to say it can’t but I don’t see the connection)
Perhaps you are implying that it lowers the expectations on the part of the lender?

Also, aren’t the approvals generally governed by BPO’s?
(that’s what I am seeing)

[Author]

Posts