[urbanrealtor]

I have a possible reason that reflects my current cynicism with much of the managed rental pool in town. Your unit may be one the management company considers to be at high risk of foreclosure.

If the property gets repo’d, the tenant’s deposit (if held by the original landlord) is gone and the tenant may ask the management company to cover it. Also, the management fees may end up delinquent and unrecoverable.

I recently saw management company freeze a landlord’s account when the NOD showed up. They announced that they would be escrowing the deposit for return to the renter if the property was taken by the bank. This is not just altruism. Some of these situations end up in court.

[urbanrealtor]

I have a possible reason that reflects my current cynicism with much of the managed rental pool in town. Your unit may be one the management company considers to be at high risk of foreclosure.

If the property gets repo’d, the tenant’s deposit (if held by the original landlord) is gone and the tenant may ask the management company to cover it. Also, the management fees may end up delinquent and unrecoverable.

I recently saw management company freeze a landlord’s account when the NOD showed up. They announced that they would be escrowing the deposit for return to the renter if the property was taken by the bank. This is not just altruism. Some of these situations end up in court.

[urbanrealtor]

SD, give me your read on this.

It has been my experience of late that the common threads in shorts dying have been:

-Irritation/lack of attention on the part of listing agents. They don’t stay on top of the lender or they stop caring, or, as in your example, they piss off the buyers/buyer agent by not communicating their goals or action properly.

-Delay by lender. The lenders in my listings state that they need 30-60 business days to consider a listings. 3 months is an unreasonable time to leave a buyer wondering. Also, the buyer/buyer agent is left wondering if the listing agent is actually moving forward and staying on top of the lender.

-Impatience by the buyer. This is directly related to the last issue.

-Prejudice by all parties. Shorts have such a negative rep in the industry now that many agents have stated that they will not handle them anymore. Some offices have a policy that their agents are not permitted to handle them. The horror stories that abound right now are also creating a largely derisive folk knowledge among the buying public themselves. Recently, I saw a pre-approved fast track short listing. The seller was an asset manager or wholesale loan rep for a major lender (yes ironic). It took the agents months to get any offers. Now this is the kind of short where the owner’s office mate or former coworker is approving it. Still popular opinion drives down demand heavily.

Anyone with inside or useful info, sound off.

I would like to really construct a model of short sale dysfunction. Maybe we could learn how to address it better.

[urbanrealtor]

SD, give me your read on this.

It has been my experience of late that the common threads in shorts dying have been:

-Irritation/lack of attention on the part of listing agents. They don’t stay on top of the lender or they stop caring, or, as in your example, they piss off the buyers/buyer agent by not communicating their goals or action properly.

-Delay by lender. The lenders in my listings state that they need 30-60 business days to consider a listings. 3 months is an unreasonable time to leave a buyer wondering. Also, the buyer/buyer agent is left wondering if the listing agent is actually moving forward and staying on top of the lender.

-Impatience by the buyer. This is directly related to the last issue.

-Prejudice by all parties. Shorts have such a negative rep in the industry now that many agents have stated that they will not handle them anymore. Some offices have a policy that their agents are not permitted to handle them. The horror stories that abound right now are also creating a largely derisive folk knowledge among the buying public themselves. Recently, I saw a pre-approved fast track short listing. The seller was an asset manager or wholesale loan rep for a major lender (yes ironic). It took the agents months to get any offers. Now this is the kind of short where the owner’s office mate or former coworker is approving it. Still popular opinion drives down demand heavily.

Anyone with inside or useful info, sound off.

I would like to really construct a model of short sale dysfunction. Maybe we could learn how to address it better.

[urbanrealtor]

SD, give me your read on this.

It has been my experience of late that the common threads in shorts dying have been:

-Irritation/lack of attention on the part of listing agents. They don’t stay on top of the lender or they stop caring, or, as in your example, they piss off the buyers/buyer agent by not communicating their goals or action properly.

-Delay by lender. The lenders in my listings state that they need 30-60 business days to consider a listings. 3 months is an unreasonable time to leave a buyer wondering. Also, the buyer/buyer agent is left wondering if the listing agent is actually moving forward and staying on top of the lender.

-Impatience by the buyer. This is directly related to the last issue.

-Prejudice by all parties. Shorts have such a negative rep in the industry now that many agents have stated that they will not handle them anymore. Some offices have a policy that their agents are not permitted to handle them. The horror stories that abound right now are also creating a largely derisive folk knowledge among the buying public themselves. Recently, I saw a pre-approved fast track short listing. The seller was an asset manager or wholesale loan rep for a major lender (yes ironic). It took the agents months to get any offers. Now this is the kind of short where the owner’s office mate or former coworker is approving it. Still popular opinion drives down demand heavily.

Anyone with inside or useful info, sound off.

I would like to really construct a model of short sale dysfunction. Maybe we could learn how to address it better.

[urbanrealtor]

SD, give me your read on this.

It has been my experience of late that the common threads in shorts dying have been:

-Irritation/lack of attention on the part of listing agents. They don’t stay on top of the lender or they stop caring, or, as in your example, they piss off the buyers/buyer agent by not communicating their goals or action properly.

-Delay by lender. The lenders in my listings state that they need 30-60 business days to consider a listings. 3 months is an unreasonable time to leave a buyer wondering. Also, the buyer/buyer agent is left wondering if the listing agent is actually moving forward and staying on top of the lender.

-Impatience by the buyer. This is directly related to the last issue.

-Prejudice by all parties. Shorts have such a negative rep in the industry now that many agents have stated that they will not handle them anymore. Some offices have a policy that their agents are not permitted to handle them. The horror stories that abound right now are also creating a largely derisive folk knowledge among the buying public themselves. Recently, I saw a pre-approved fast track short listing. The seller was an asset manager or wholesale loan rep for a major lender (yes ironic). It took the agents months to get any offers. Now this is the kind of short where the owner’s office mate or former coworker is approving it. Still popular opinion drives down demand heavily.

Anyone with inside or useful info, sound off.

I would like to really construct a model of short sale dysfunction. Maybe we could learn how to address it better.

[urbanrealtor]

SD, give me your read on this.

It has been my experience of late that the common threads in shorts dying have been:

-Irritation/lack of attention on the part of listing agents. They don’t stay on top of the lender or they stop caring, or, as in your example, they piss off the buyers/buyer agent by not communicating their goals or action properly.

-Delay by lender. The lenders in my listings state that they need 30-60 business days to consider a listings. 3 months is an unreasonable time to leave a buyer wondering. Also, the buyer/buyer agent is left wondering if the listing agent is actually moving forward and staying on top of the lender.

-Impatience by the buyer. This is directly related to the last issue.

-Prejudice by all parties. Shorts have such a negative rep in the industry now that many agents have stated that they will not handle them anymore. Some offices have a policy that their agents are not permitted to handle them. The horror stories that abound right now are also creating a largely derisive folk knowledge among the buying public themselves. Recently, I saw a pre-approved fast track short listing. The seller was an asset manager or wholesale loan rep for a major lender (yes ironic). It took the agents months to get any offers. Now this is the kind of short where the owner’s office mate or former coworker is approving it. Still popular opinion drives down demand heavily.

Anyone with inside or useful info, sound off.

I would like to really construct a model of short sale dysfunction. Maybe we could learn how to address it better.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Okay I shouldn’t say ALOT of unscrupulous activity but there are 2 back to back transactions that simultaneously had very suspicious behavior of listing agents with short sales and low and behold they have buyers who either are represented by them or someone in thier office. [/quote]

First, I would like to preface that I don’t know as I write this what the sketchiness in your situation was. My purpose here is not to justify the actions of agents with poor integrity. My only point is to enumerate some of the differences in the ethical calculus as it relates to short sales, short pays, and distressed markets in general.

Short sales are weird. They put the listing agent into a position that does not conform to the usual incentive structures. For example, I have 2 short listings right now. Since my only goal with these is to help my seller avoid foreclosure, I have zero interest in securing the highest possible sale price. I am only interested in the contract price insofar as it is something that can be supported by comps. If there is comp support for 500, then I will show anything within 15% of that amount. I might even show less if I felt there was a case to be made for approval by the lender. The implication (which is generally born out in practice) is that current offers are not secret. I want as many offers as possible (since the lender delays may mean lots of buyers will drop out) and if telling prospective bueyrs that I have 4 offers below asking and 2 at asking will incent them to offer, then I am acting in my buyers best interest (and ethically) by disclosing the antecedent offers to those potential buyers.
Regarding dual agency, the usual factors are still not at play. In a non-distress situation, there is an inherent conflict (in dual agency) because the buyer wants to pay as little as possible and the seller wants as much as possible. This conflict is why I (to my colleagues’ dismay) advocate referring out double-ends to another agent to protect a buyer’s interest. Since, in a short the seller is indifferent to the buyer’s wants and has only one non-secret want himself, this conflict model does not hold. I feel much more comfortable double-ending on these because buyer and seller desires are generally harmonious and often have no conflict.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Okay I shouldn’t say ALOT of unscrupulous activity but there are 2 back to back transactions that simultaneously had very suspicious behavior of listing agents with short sales and low and behold they have buyers who either are represented by them or someone in thier office. [/quote]

First, I would like to preface that I don’t know as I write this what the sketchiness in your situation was. My purpose here is not to justify the actions of agents with poor integrity. My only point is to enumerate some of the differences in the ethical calculus as it relates to short sales, short pays, and distressed markets in general.

Short sales are weird. They put the listing agent into a position that does not conform to the usual incentive structures. For example, I have 2 short listings right now. Since my only goal with these is to help my seller avoid foreclosure, I have zero interest in securing the highest possible sale price. I am only interested in the contract price insofar as it is something that can be supported by comps. If there is comp support for 500, then I will show anything within 15% of that amount. I might even show less if I felt there was a case to be made for approval by the lender. The implication (which is generally born out in practice) is that current offers are not secret. I want as many offers as possible (since the lender delays may mean lots of buyers will drop out) and if telling prospective bueyrs that I have 4 offers below asking and 2 at asking will incent them to offer, then I am acting in my buyers best interest (and ethically) by disclosing the antecedent offers to those potential buyers.
Regarding dual agency, the usual factors are still not at play. In a non-distress situation, there is an inherent conflict (in dual agency) because the buyer wants to pay as little as possible and the seller wants as much as possible. This conflict is why I (to my colleagues’ dismay) advocate referring out double-ends to another agent to protect a buyer’s interest. Since, in a short the seller is indifferent to the buyer’s wants and has only one non-secret want himself, this conflict model does not hold. I feel much more comfortable double-ending on these because buyer and seller desires are generally harmonious and often have no conflict.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Okay I shouldn’t say ALOT of unscrupulous activity but there are 2 back to back transactions that simultaneously had very suspicious behavior of listing agents with short sales and low and behold they have buyers who either are represented by them or someone in thier office. [/quote]

First, I would like to preface that I don’t know as I write this what the sketchiness in your situation was. My purpose here is not to justify the actions of agents with poor integrity. My only point is to enumerate some of the differences in the ethical calculus as it relates to short sales, short pays, and distressed markets in general.

Short sales are weird. They put the listing agent into a position that does not conform to the usual incentive structures. For example, I have 2 short listings right now. Since my only goal with these is to help my seller avoid foreclosure, I have zero interest in securing the highest possible sale price. I am only interested in the contract price insofar as it is something that can be supported by comps. If there is comp support for 500, then I will show anything within 15% of that amount. I might even show less if I felt there was a case to be made for approval by the lender. The implication (which is generally born out in practice) is that current offers are not secret. I want as many offers as possible (since the lender delays may mean lots of buyers will drop out) and if telling prospective bueyrs that I have 4 offers below asking and 2 at asking will incent them to offer, then I am acting in my buyers best interest (and ethically) by disclosing the antecedent offers to those potential buyers.
Regarding dual agency, the usual factors are still not at play. In a non-distress situation, there is an inherent conflict (in dual agency) because the buyer wants to pay as little as possible and the seller wants as much as possible. This conflict is why I (to my colleagues’ dismay) advocate referring out double-ends to another agent to protect a buyer’s interest. Since, in a short the seller is indifferent to the buyer’s wants and has only one non-secret want himself, this conflict model does not hold. I feel much more comfortable double-ending on these because buyer and seller desires are generally harmonious and often have no conflict.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Okay I shouldn’t say ALOT of unscrupulous activity but there are 2 back to back transactions that simultaneously had very suspicious behavior of listing agents with short sales and low and behold they have buyers who either are represented by them or someone in thier office. [/quote]

First, I would like to preface that I don’t know as I write this what the sketchiness in your situation was. My purpose here is not to justify the actions of agents with poor integrity. My only point is to enumerate some of the differences in the ethical calculus as it relates to short sales, short pays, and distressed markets in general.

Short sales are weird. They put the listing agent into a position that does not conform to the usual incentive structures. For example, I have 2 short listings right now. Since my only goal with these is to help my seller avoid foreclosure, I have zero interest in securing the highest possible sale price. I am only interested in the contract price insofar as it is something that can be supported by comps. If there is comp support for 500, then I will show anything within 15% of that amount. I might even show less if I felt there was a case to be made for approval by the lender. The implication (which is generally born out in practice) is that current offers are not secret. I want as many offers as possible (since the lender delays may mean lots of buyers will drop out) and if telling prospective bueyrs that I have 4 offers below asking and 2 at asking will incent them to offer, then I am acting in my buyers best interest (and ethically) by disclosing the antecedent offers to those potential buyers.
Regarding dual agency, the usual factors are still not at play. In a non-distress situation, there is an inherent conflict (in dual agency) because the buyer wants to pay as little as possible and the seller wants as much as possible. This conflict is why I (to my colleagues’ dismay) advocate referring out double-ends to another agent to protect a buyer’s interest. Since, in a short the seller is indifferent to the buyer’s wants and has only one non-secret want himself, this conflict model does not hold. I feel much more comfortable double-ending on these because buyer and seller desires are generally harmonious and often have no conflict.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Okay I shouldn’t say ALOT of unscrupulous activity but there are 2 back to back transactions that simultaneously had very suspicious behavior of listing agents with short sales and low and behold they have buyers who either are represented by them or someone in thier office. [/quote]

First, I would like to preface that I don’t know as I write this what the sketchiness in your situation was. My purpose here is not to justify the actions of agents with poor integrity. My only point is to enumerate some of the differences in the ethical calculus as it relates to short sales, short pays, and distressed markets in general.

Short sales are weird. They put the listing agent into a position that does not conform to the usual incentive structures. For example, I have 2 short listings right now. Since my only goal with these is to help my seller avoid foreclosure, I have zero interest in securing the highest possible sale price. I am only interested in the contract price insofar as it is something that can be supported by comps. If there is comp support for 500, then I will show anything within 15% of that amount. I might even show less if I felt there was a case to be made for approval by the lender. The implication (which is generally born out in practice) is that current offers are not secret. I want as many offers as possible (since the lender delays may mean lots of buyers will drop out) and if telling prospective bueyrs that I have 4 offers below asking and 2 at asking will incent them to offer, then I am acting in my buyers best interest (and ethically) by disclosing the antecedent offers to those potential buyers.
Regarding dual agency, the usual factors are still not at play. In a non-distress situation, there is an inherent conflict (in dual agency) because the buyer wants to pay as little as possible and the seller wants as much as possible. This conflict is why I (to my colleagues’ dismay) advocate referring out double-ends to another agent to protect a buyer’s interest. Since, in a short the seller is indifferent to the buyer’s wants and has only one non-secret want himself, this conflict model does not hold. I feel much more comfortable double-ending on these because buyer and seller desires are generally harmonious and often have no conflict.

[urbanrealtor]

Dude thats just not fair.

We need some kind of anecdote.

Something.

Okay I have one. Its pretty vanilla though.

My best friend is house hunting. I am his agent and he likes to free-range it at open houses.

He went to one the other day at a place we had looked at 2 weeks ago.

The agent hosting asked him if he was brokered up.

When he said that he was, the hosting agent kept saying “well I could represent you on this property”. I means seriously, this is not illegal and I am not sure that this is even something that rises to the level of board violation but Jesus that is rude. I mean aside from the ethical situation, it just makes our industry look more like Cal Worthington than we already do.

BTW. As I write this I am sitting at my wife’s bedside in the hospital. She had our first kid last night. Addiction is a terrible thing.

[urbanrealtor]

Dude thats just not fair.

We need some kind of anecdote.

Something.

Okay I have one. Its pretty vanilla though.

My best friend is house hunting. I am his agent and he likes to free-range it at open houses.

He went to one the other day at a place we had looked at 2 weeks ago.

The agent hosting asked him if he was brokered up.

When he said that he was, the hosting agent kept saying “well I could represent you on this property”. I means seriously, this is not illegal and I am not sure that this is even something that rises to the level of board violation but Jesus that is rude. I mean aside from the ethical situation, it just makes our industry look more like Cal Worthington than we already do.

BTW. As I write this I am sitting at my wife’s bedside in the hospital. She had our first kid last night. Addiction is a terrible thing.

[urbanrealtor]

Dude thats just not fair.

We need some kind of anecdote.

Something.

Okay I have one. Its pretty vanilla though.

My best friend is house hunting. I am his agent and he likes to free-range it at open houses.

He went to one the other day at a place we had looked at 2 weeks ago.

The agent hosting asked him if he was brokered up.

When he said that he was, the hosting agent kept saying “well I could represent you on this property”. I means seriously, this is not illegal and I am not sure that this is even something that rises to the level of board violation but Jesus that is rude. I mean aside from the ethical situation, it just makes our industry look more like Cal Worthington than we already do.

BTW. As I write this I am sitting at my wife’s bedside in the hospital. She had our first kid last night. Addiction is a terrible thing.

[Author]

Posts