San Diego Short Sales: Who is in charge during a short sale?
Eastlake, Chula Vista CA – Many home buyers think that the short sale lender is in charge during a short sale. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The short sale lender can only veto short sale offers. They can’t put the property up for sale or decide who to sell it to. Only the home owner can do that. Why is that?
Discover how other sellers successfully did a short sale to avoid foreclosure by clicking here.
Until the lender forecloses on the home the home owner is in the driver’s seat. They “own” the property until the lender forecloses.
We have had many buyers get angry that a home owner would not accept their lowball offer. “You have to submit my offer to the lender. If you don’t then that would be fraud”, they tell the home owner.
You, the home owner are in charge. That means that you can make the following decisions.
You are allowed to pick the buyer’s offer that you think the lender will be most likely to accept.
You are allowed to turn down offers that you don’t like for whatever reason. (Maybe the buyers are too picky about the home and want you to make repairs.)
You are allowed to turn down offers if the buyer is not pre-approved for a loan. In addition, you can ask the buyer to inspect the property before they write a contract.
You are allowed to ask for an earnest money deposit to make sure the buyer is serious about the house.
It is your right to do these things for as long as you own the property. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Thinking about a short sale?
I can help you short sale your property and never pay the bank another penny. Send me an e-mail at henry@houseinsandiego.com. I will contact you for a free consultation.
When we talk, I will explain how the process works in detail and answer any questions you may have. Or, if you prefer, you can call me at 619-517-6791
Discover how other sellers successfully completed a short sale and request a free consultation by clicking here.
Thinking about a loan modification? Our Eastlake loan modification kit has the instructions you will need to get a loan modification approved with your bank. Click here to request a copy.
Thanks for reading this, Henry Pailles.
Henry is a Real Estate Broker at houseinsandiego Realty. Eastlake Short Sales Realtor:
Phone: 619-517-6791. henry@houseinsandiego.com.
Are you at risk of losing your home? ...We can help!
View My homes for sale at http://www.houseinsandiego.com/.
Henry Pailles Moore specialize in loan modification assistance and short sales in Eastlake California. Eastlake Loan Modification Help, Eastlake Short Sales. Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Chula Vista CA Loan Modification Help, Chula Vista CA Short Sales. Chula Vista CA Short Sale Realtor. , Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Eastlake CA Short Sales. Eastlake Realtor.
Copyright 2010 SFI Marketing Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved. This is not intended as legal, technical, or tax advice. Please speak with a licensed professional before making any decision. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed as of the date of writing. The views expressed here are Henry Pailles's personal views and do not reflect the views of houseinsandiego Realty.
This information on Eastlake Short Sales: Who is in charge during a short sale? is provided as a courtesy to our viewers to help them make informed decisions.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Seven Ways You Benefit From A Short Sale
Eastlake CA – A home owner thinking of a short sale recently asked us why they should short sale versus just walking away and letting their lender foreclose on the home. We gave them the normal answer: “It’s much better for your credit.”
That was the first thing that popped into our head. But, I knew there are more benefits to a home owner than simply better credit. So I put together the entire list and here they are.
Discover how other sellers successfully did a short sale to avoid foreclosure by clicking here.
1. The upside down debt is erased in most cases. If you are selling because of a financial hardship, then the upside down debt will be automatically erased in most cases. Is your loan is owned or insured by the following agencies: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, and or VA? If you are short selling because of a financial hardship, their policies state that your debt will be erased.
2. You are eligible to buy another home much sooner compared to a foreclosure. The most common loan program, Fannie Mae, stipulates that you can buy another home under their program in 2 years. FHA, a popular low down payment loan program stipulates that you can qualify for an FHA loan within 3 years.
3. No Cost To You. That is right. A short sale costs you nothing. All of the expenses are paid for by your lender. That includes the title insurance, any county taxes or fees on the sale, attorney fees, and the Real Estate Agent. If the lender foreclosed on the house and then tried to sell it, they would have to pay all the costs. So why not pay the costs with a short sale?
4. Your credit suffers less damage. Most people think that a short sale will be the kiss of death to their credit. That is the one big advantage of a short sale over a foreclosure.
Upon completion of the short sale, your credit score will drop between 50 and 100 points. However it will rebound fairly quickly. The other benefit is that you will have less debt. (A lot of debt hurts your credit score.) You will have a lower debt to income ratio, which will boost your credit.
In a couple of years your credit will be back to normal and you can buy another home. In addition, anything and everything bad on your credit can be fixed thru the dispute process.
5. You can often rent a comparable house for less than your former mortgage payment. In one example, a homeowner in foreclosure found a larger home. It even had a fenced backyard for their kid and a garage. Their prior mortgage payment was $1,500. They rented the nicer, bigger house for $850 a month.
6. You avoid the humiliation of a foreclosure.
7. You don’t have to pay rent during the short sale process. A short sale can take up to 6 or 9 months. Not all of them do. But, some do. If you aren’t concerned about your credit, then you can stop making your mortgage payments during the short sale. You can use the savings for the deposit on a rental.
Thinking about a short sale? I can help you short sale your property and never pay the bank another penny. Send me an e-mail at henry@houseinsandiego.com. I will contact you for a free consultation.
When we talk, I will explain how the process works in detail and answer any questions you may have. Or, if you prefer, you can call me at 619-517-6791
Discover how other sellers successfully completed a short sale and request a free consultation by clicking here.
Thinking about a loan modification? Our Eastlake loan modification kit has the instructions you will need to get a loan modification approved with your bank. Click here to request a copy.
Thanks for reading this, Henry Pailles.
Henry is a Real Estate Broker at houseinsandiego Realty. Eastlake Short Sales Realtor:
Phone: 619-517-6791. henry@houseinsandiego.com.
Are you at risk of losing your home? ...We can help!
View My homes for sale at http://www.houseinsandiego.com/.
Henry Pailles Moore specialize in loan modification assistance and short sales in Eastlake California. Eastlake Loan Modification Help, Eastlake Short Sales. Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Chula Vista CA Loan Modification Help, Chula Vista CA Short Sales. Chula Vista CA Short Sale Realtor. , Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Eastlake CA Short Sales. Eastlake Realtor.
Copyright 2010 SFI Marketing Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved. This is not intended as legal, technical, or tax advice. Please speak with a licensed professional before making any decision. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed as of the date of writing. The views expressed here are Henry Pailles's personal views and do not reflect the views of houseinsandiego Realty.
This information on Seven Ways You Benefit From A Eastlake Short Sale is provided as a courtesy to our viewers to help them make informed decisions.
Eastlake CA – A home owner thinking of a short sale recently asked us why they should short sale versus just walking away and letting their lender foreclose on the home. We gave them the normal answer: “It’s much better for your credit.”That was the first thing that popped into our head. But, I knew there are more benefits to a home owner than simply better credit. So I put together the entire list and here they are.
Discover how other sellers successfully did a short sale to avoid foreclosure by clicking here.
1. The upside down debt is erased in most cases. If you are selling because of a financial hardship, then the upside down debt will be automatically erased in most cases. Is your loan is owned or insured by the following agencies: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, and or VA? If you are short selling because of a financial hardship, their policies state that your debt will be erased.
2. You are eligible to buy another home much sooner compared to a foreclosure. The most common loan program, Fannie Mae, stipulates that you can buy another home under their program in 2 years. FHA, a popular low down payment loan program stipulates that you can qualify for an FHA loan within 3 years.
3. No Cost To You. That is right. A short sale costs you nothing. All of the expenses are paid for by your lender. That includes the title insurance, any county taxes or fees on the sale, attorney fees, and the Real Estate Agent. If the lender foreclosed on the house and then tried to sell it, they would have to pay all the costs. So why not pay the costs with a short sale?
4. Your credit suffers less damage. Most people think that a short sale will be the kiss of death to their credit. That is the one big advantage of a short sale over a foreclosure.
Upon completion of the short sale, your credit score will drop between 50 and 100 points. However it will rebound fairly quickly. The other benefit is that you will have less debt. (A lot of debt hurts your credit score.) You will have a lower debt to income ratio, which will boost your credit.
In a couple of years your credit will be back to normal and you can buy another home. In addition, anything and everything bad on your credit can be fixed thru the dispute process.
5. You can often rent a comparable house for less than your former mortgage payment. In one example, a homeowner in foreclosure found a larger home. It even had a fenced backyard for their kid and a garage. Their prior mortgage payment was $1,500. They rented the nicer, bigger house for $850 a month.
6. You avoid the humiliation of a foreclosure.
7. You don’t have to pay rent during the short sale process. A short sale can take up to 6 or 9 months. Not all of them do. But, some do. If you aren’t concerned about your credit, then you can stop making your mortgage payments during the short sale. You can use the savings for the deposit on a rental.
Thinking about a short sale? I can help you short sale your property and never pay the bank another penny. Send me an e-mail at henry@houseinsandiego.com. I will contact you for a free consultation.
When we talk, I will explain how the process works in detail and answer any questions you may have. Or, if you prefer, you can call me at 619-517-6791
Discover how other sellers successfully completed a short sale and request a free consultation by clicking here.
Thinking about a loan modification? Our Eastlake loan modification kit has the instructions you will need to get a loan modification approved with your bank. Click here to request a copy.
Thanks for reading this, Henry Pailles.
Henry is a Real Estate Broker at houseinsandiego Realty. Eastlake Short Sales Realtor:
Phone: 619-517-6791. henry@houseinsandiego.com.
Are you at risk of losing your home? ...We can help!
View My homes for sale at http://www.houseinsandiego.com/.
Henry Pailles Moore specialize in loan modification assistance and short sales in Eastlake California. Eastlake Loan Modification Help, Eastlake Short Sales. Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Chula Vista CA Loan Modification Help, Chula Vista CA Short Sales. Chula Vista CA Short Sale Realtor. , Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Eastlake CA Short Sales. Eastlake Realtor.
Copyright 2010 SFI Marketing Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved. This is not intended as legal, technical, or tax advice. Please speak with a licensed professional before making any decision. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed as of the date of writing. The views expressed here are Henry Pailles's personal views and do not reflect the views of houseinsandiego Realty.
This information on Seven Ways You Benefit From A Eastlake Short Sale is provided as a courtesy to our viewers to help them make informed decisions.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
It is likely that up to 40% of all homeowners with a mortgage are upside down!
According to Nouriel Roubini (who predicted the housing crash) in an Interview by Steve Forbes:
In regards to residential real estate:
1) He believes that prices are at the bottom. He is expecting another 5% drop in values on a national level.
2) 12,000,000 homes are currently underwater…negative equity…they owe too much.
3) Added to the 12,000,000 are another 8,000,000 who are nearly underwater…they owe almost what the house is worth. (Taken together, thats potentially 20,000,000 underwater owners) What does this mean….
4) If prices do indeed fall another 5% (as he and many others are expecting) that means there will be (as mentioned in #3) 20,000,000 underwater owners. Translated: There are 50,000,000 homeowners WITH a mortgage. So, if there is indeed another 5% loss in property value 40% of ALL OWNERS WITH A MORTGAGE WILL BE UPSIDE DOWN.
5) Roubini suggests that the only real solution to ending this housing crisis…is….negative equity forgiveness. What we are calling a ‘Radical Refinance’. Read Professor Roubini’s proposal..and share your thoughts..
Forbes: You mentioned housing. Commercial real estate has been a shoe that people have been expecting to drop now for over two years. Is that going to drop? Or are the banks going to find a way to absorb that?
Roubini: In some sense, the problems of the commercial real estate have not been resolved, either. Price-wise, actually, commercial real estate has fallen in price level more than housing. It’s 40%, as opposed to 30%, based on what is the index of commercial real estate prices.
Many properties are also deeply underwater. You have about $2 trillion of mortgages or exposure, half of it has been securitized. Most banks are holding this stuff, still 100 cents on the dollar, on their books, even it’s worth more like 50, 60 at best. And the Fed has decided to use regulatory forbearance to fudge it, to pray and delay, extend and pretend.
Forbes: Right.
Roubini: And these problems have not been resolved. A lot of this exposure, actually, is among the smaller banks or the medium sized regional banks. And if they’re to write down these assets, the capital losses will be significant. So for the time being, it’s kicking the can down the road and hoping that maybe prices start realizing the recovery. But there is such a glut of capacity throughout the country that I think that, you know, we’re going to stay in this slump for quite a while.
Get Out Of The Slump
Forbes: What would it take to get out of the slump?
Roubini: Well, in the case of residential real estate, I would say prices and quantities have fallen so much from the peak, that probably they are close to the bottom. But the trouble is that you have millions of houses that are deeply underwater. 12 million of them already underwater today. And about another 8 million have a mortgage with a loan to value ratio between 95 to 100%.
That means that the 5% correction in national home price–something that I expect–is going to put another 8 million houses underwater. That means 20 million out of the 50 that have a mortgage, or 40% of houses with a mortgage, are going to be underwater.
And I think that a good chunk of the household sector is effectively insolvent–is buried under a mountain of mortgage debt, credit cards, auto loans, student loans, personal loans. And once you have such a massive problem, you cannot resolve it case by case, household by household. You need to have something of an across the board reduction of that burden to restructure just the face value of these mortgages.
Now you can convert, like we do for corporate restructuring, some of that debt into equity if you reduce the face value and then you make the creditor effectively a shareholder in the house by giving them the upside to warrants. So maybe a solution would be like in corporate restructuring, to convert some of these debt into equity so that at least if the prices rise again, there’ll be some of the upside for the creditors. But we need to do something more significant than we’ve done so far.
Forbes: Why have the government efforts to do something about housing been such a failure so far?
Roubini: Well, in some sense, we’ve done too much, in some sense, we’ve done too little. You know, if you need an across-the-board reduction in the face value of the mortgages, some legislative action has to be taken to induce banks or induce the creditors to take these kind of losses. I think that the government has been partly resistant because of a moral hazard problem.
If you start giving debt forgiving to some households and maybe incentivize others who are paying their mortgages now to talk away from them. So I think that some people senior in the White House have told me that that’s their concern, that you have a moral hazard problem that you have to deal with.
I think there are ways of dealing with that. You could say anybody who has defaulted up to a certain date will get his debt reduction, after that, not. You can make it mean tested. And there are ways to limit that moral hazard problem. But back in the thirties we create an institution that took over all the mortgages that reduce the face value, converted them into longer term, lower interest rate debt, and people stayed in their homes. And they were able, eventually, to pay it back. If we don’t do something radical probably we’ll have this kind of case by case process are going to take decades to resolve. And the cancer in the housing is going to stay with us.
According to Nouriel Roubini (who predicted the housing crash) in an Interview by Steve Forbes:
In regards to residential real estate:
1) He believes that prices are at the bottom. He is expecting another 5% drop in values on a national level.
2) 12,000,000 homes are currently underwater…negative equity…they owe too much.
3) Added to the 12,000,000 are another 8,000,000 who are nearly underwater…they owe almost what the house is worth. (Taken together, thats potentially 20,000,000 underwater owners) What does this mean….
4) If prices do indeed fall another 5% (as he and many others are expecting) that means there will be (as mentioned in #3) 20,000,000 underwater owners. Translated: There are 50,000,000 homeowners WITH a mortgage. So, if there is indeed another 5% loss in property value 40% of ALL OWNERS WITH A MORTGAGE WILL BE UPSIDE DOWN.
5) Roubini suggests that the only real solution to ending this housing crisis…is….negative equity forgiveness. What we are calling a ‘Radical Refinance’. Read Professor Roubini’s proposal..and share your thoughts..
Forbes: You mentioned housing. Commercial real estate has been a shoe that people have been expecting to drop now for over two years. Is that going to drop? Or are the banks going to find a way to absorb that?
Roubini: In some sense, the problems of the commercial real estate have not been resolved, either. Price-wise, actually, commercial real estate has fallen in price level more than housing. It’s 40%, as opposed to 30%, based on what is the index of commercial real estate prices.
Many properties are also deeply underwater. You have about $2 trillion of mortgages or exposure, half of it has been securitized. Most banks are holding this stuff, still 100 cents on the dollar, on their books, even it’s worth more like 50, 60 at best. And the Fed has decided to use regulatory forbearance to fudge it, to pray and delay, extend and pretend.
Forbes: Right.
Roubini: And these problems have not been resolved. A lot of this exposure, actually, is among the smaller banks or the medium sized regional banks. And if they’re to write down these assets, the capital losses will be significant. So for the time being, it’s kicking the can down the road and hoping that maybe prices start realizing the recovery. But there is such a glut of capacity throughout the country that I think that, you know, we’re going to stay in this slump for quite a while.
Get Out Of The Slump
Forbes: What would it take to get out of the slump?
Roubini: Well, in the case of residential real estate, I would say prices and quantities have fallen so much from the peak, that probably they are close to the bottom. But the trouble is that you have millions of houses that are deeply underwater. 12 million of them already underwater today. And about another 8 million have a mortgage with a loan to value ratio between 95 to 100%.
That means that the 5% correction in national home price–something that I expect–is going to put another 8 million houses underwater. That means 20 million out of the 50 that have a mortgage, or 40% of houses with a mortgage, are going to be underwater.
And I think that a good chunk of the household sector is effectively insolvent–is buried under a mountain of mortgage debt, credit cards, auto loans, student loans, personal loans. And once you have such a massive problem, you cannot resolve it case by case, household by household. You need to have something of an across the board reduction of that burden to restructure just the face value of these mortgages.
Now you can convert, like we do for corporate restructuring, some of that debt into equity if you reduce the face value and then you make the creditor effectively a shareholder in the house by giving them the upside to warrants. So maybe a solution would be like in corporate restructuring, to convert some of these debt into equity so that at least if the prices rise again, there’ll be some of the upside for the creditors. But we need to do something more significant than we’ve done so far.
Forbes: Why have the government efforts to do something about housing been such a failure so far?
Roubini: Well, in some sense, we’ve done too much, in some sense, we’ve done too little. You know, if you need an across-the-board reduction in the face value of the mortgages, some legislative action has to be taken to induce banks or induce the creditors to take these kind of losses. I think that the government has been partly resistant because of a moral hazard problem.
If you start giving debt forgiving to some households and maybe incentivize others who are paying their mortgages now to talk away from them. So I think that some people senior in the White House have told me that that’s their concern, that you have a moral hazard problem that you have to deal with.
I think there are ways of dealing with that. You could say anybody who has defaulted up to a certain date will get his debt reduction, after that, not. You can make it mean tested. And there are ways to limit that moral hazard problem. But back in the thirties we create an institution that took over all the mortgages that reduce the face value, converted them into longer term, lower interest rate debt, and people stayed in their homes. And they were able, eventually, to pay it back. If we don’t do something radical probably we’ll have this kind of case by case process are going to take decades to resolve. And the cancer in the housing is going to stay with us.
Monday, January 24, 2011
THE DOLLAR IS DROPPING, THE DOLLAR IS DROPPING!
"Bet your bottom Dollar?" These days the more appropriate question is: Where is the bottom of the Dollar? That's because the US Dollar is starting 2011 in very poor fashion, with its value dropping relative to other currencies.
Let's take a look at why... and what this could mean for home loan rates!
1. Some of the Dollar's drop is attributed to the recent strength in the Euro, which has gotten a boost from some positive stories of late, like Spain and Portugal's ability to sell debt in the Bond market without crisis. But the question is...have Europe's problems gone away? No - there will be more problems ahead for the region and as they emerge, we should see a reversal in the Euro's strength along with improvement in the US Dollar.
2. Another reason for the Dollar's weakness is the Fed's Quantitative Easing (known as QE2). Remember, while it would never be officially stated, one of the implicit aims of QE2 is to devalue the US Dollar in order to boost our exports and thus GDP.
At this point, the weakening US Dollar hasn't had a big negative effect on the US Bond market, but should the Dollar materially weaken, it could make US denominated assets like US Bonds less valuable and desirable amongst global investors...and it has been these foreign investors, like China, who have supported the US Bond market for years by purchasing our debt. Remember, home loan rates are tied to Mortgage Backed Securities, which are a type of Bond. So negative news for Bonds would also be bad news for home loan rates.
In housing news last week, Existing Home Sales for December were reported much better than expected. The jump in sales is likely attributed in part to the recent trend of rising home loan rates, which has prompted many homebuyers to take advantage of the still low home loan rates. Building Permits - which signal future construction - also came in better than expected last week, surging 17% in December.
Relatively speaking, 2011 looks to be a good year for the housing industry. There will still be some areas that suffer price declines and those will be where foreclosure backlogs overhang and where unemployment rates are even higher than the national average. But housing has bottomed out in many areas and should see more of a pick up in the second half of 2011. And although home loan rates will likely rise slightly as the year progresses, they are still near all-time lows right now. That means homebuyers still have a tremendous opportunity in front of them.
If you or someone you know is considering purchasing a home, the combination of low home loan rates and affordable home prices make this an ideal time. Call or email today to discuss how you can benefit from the current situation. henry@houseinsandiego.com Direct: 619-517-6791
"Bet your bottom Dollar?" These days the more appropriate question is: Where is the bottom of the Dollar? That's because the US Dollar is starting 2011 in very poor fashion, with its value dropping relative to other currencies.
Let's take a look at why... and what this could mean for home loan rates!
1. Some of the Dollar's drop is attributed to the recent strength in the Euro, which has gotten a boost from some positive stories of late, like Spain and Portugal's ability to sell debt in the Bond market without crisis. But the question is...have Europe's problems gone away? No - there will be more problems ahead for the region and as they emerge, we should see a reversal in the Euro's strength along with improvement in the US Dollar.
2. Another reason for the Dollar's weakness is the Fed's Quantitative Easing (known as QE2). Remember, while it would never be officially stated, one of the implicit aims of QE2 is to devalue the US Dollar in order to boost our exports and thus GDP.
At this point, the weakening US Dollar hasn't had a big negative effect on the US Bond market, but should the Dollar materially weaken, it could make US denominated assets like US Bonds less valuable and desirable amongst global investors...and it has been these foreign investors, like China, who have supported the US Bond market for years by purchasing our debt. Remember, home loan rates are tied to Mortgage Backed Securities, which are a type of Bond. So negative news for Bonds would also be bad news for home loan rates.
In housing news last week, Existing Home Sales for December were reported much better than expected. The jump in sales is likely attributed in part to the recent trend of rising home loan rates, which has prompted many homebuyers to take advantage of the still low home loan rates. Building Permits - which signal future construction - also came in better than expected last week, surging 17% in December.
Relatively speaking, 2011 looks to be a good year for the housing industry. There will still be some areas that suffer price declines and those will be where foreclosure backlogs overhang and where unemployment rates are even higher than the national average. But housing has bottomed out in many areas and should see more of a pick up in the second half of 2011. And although home loan rates will likely rise slightly as the year progresses, they are still near all-time lows right now. That means homebuyers still have a tremendous opportunity in front of them.
If you or someone you know is considering purchasing a home, the combination of low home loan rates and affordable home prices make this an ideal time. Call or email today to discuss how you can benefit from the current situation. henry@houseinsandiego.com Direct: 619-517-6791
Is 2011 the year of the Housing Bottom?
U.S. home resales jumped more than expected in December despite bad weather as sellers cut prices, offering some hope for a sector that has been struggling to recover from its worst slump in modern history.
Existing home sales soared 12.3 percent to an annual rate of 5.28 million units, the National Association of Realtors said on Thursday, far surpassing forecasts for a rise to 4.85 million.
Sales were down 2.9 percent compared to a year earlier.
A jump in mortgage rates may have forced some buyers into the market by raising concern of even further increases, said Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the NAR.
Yun said he expects 2011 sales to total around 5.2 million units, with prices remaining stable.
Sales peaked above 7 million units in September 2005, as the housing bubble reached fever pitch.
They hit a 15-year low below 4 million units in mid-2010 after the market collapsed, triggering a widespread financial crisis.
Median home prices fell to $168,800, down from $170,200 in November and the lowest since February 2010.
That was in part because properties considered “distressed” accounted for 36 percent of sales, up from 33 percent in November.
The U.S. economy has been growing for over a year, having emerged from its deepest recession in generations in the summer of 2009.
Gross domestic product expanded 2.6 percent in the third quarter, not enough to put a significant dent on the nation’s elevated 9.4 percent jobless rate.
A weak job market could thwart housing activity further by denting consumer confidence.
U.S. home resales jumped more than expected in December despite bad weather as sellers cut prices, offering some hope for a sector that has been struggling to recover from its worst slump in modern history.
Existing home sales soared 12.3 percent to an annual rate of 5.28 million units, the National Association of Realtors said on Thursday, far surpassing forecasts for a rise to 4.85 million.
Sales were down 2.9 percent compared to a year earlier.
A jump in mortgage rates may have forced some buyers into the market by raising concern of even further increases, said Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the NAR.
Yun said he expects 2011 sales to total around 5.2 million units, with prices remaining stable.
Sales peaked above 7 million units in September 2005, as the housing bubble reached fever pitch.
They hit a 15-year low below 4 million units in mid-2010 after the market collapsed, triggering a widespread financial crisis.
Median home prices fell to $168,800, down from $170,200 in November and the lowest since February 2010.
That was in part because properties considered “distressed” accounted for 36 percent of sales, up from 33 percent in November.
The U.S. economy has been growing for over a year, having emerged from its deepest recession in generations in the summer of 2009.
Gross domestic product expanded 2.6 percent in the third quarter, not enough to put a significant dent on the nation’s elevated 9.4 percent jobless rate.
A weak job market could thwart housing activity further by denting consumer confidence.
WHY did Housing Crash ???….
….we ask you, who is to blame?
What follows is an article that incapsulates my evolution of thinking about the ‘foreclosure crisis’.
Had you ask me years ago if someone should ever consider a strategic default (or strategic short sale) I would of said…”you made the decision to take on the responsibility of that mortgage…now, man (or woman) up and deal with the ramifications…you have a moral obligation”. I am guessing if you are 35 years old and from the mid-west your mindset was (or maybe still is) the same.
What has caused my quantum shift in attitude about a homeowners true moral obligation towards paying their mortgage?
Reality.
The reality of the true human costs that have come as a result of the collapse in the housing industry. The cost to families, communities, the economy…and to the real estate profession will last for decades to come. Far reaching? Think again.
THIS housing crash is now officially more severe..causing more devastation than even The Great Depression. Putting numbers to it, homes have lost MORE value during this ‘Great Recession’ than any other real estate crash…in record history.
Who is to blame?
All of to a certain extent. But, maybe to a lesser extent than the banks.
Read this article and share your thoughts.
As the foreclosure crisis has escalated over the past several months, one overarching debate has been about who bears the most blame: homeowners or banks?
After everything I’ve learned and written about the foreclosure mess, my verdict is: The banks are responsible for 90% of the problem, troubled homeowners 10%.
Yes, every foreclosure involves a homeowner not paying his mortgage. But every foreclosure also involves a bank that made the loan. And usually another bank, or several more, that profited from securitizing the loan. And still another bank, or several, that profited from servicing the loan. Together, those banks have done three things that created the massive glut of foreclosures choking America’s legal systems and laying waste to its real estate markets:
What Happened to Underwriting?
Getting a mortgage isn’t supposed to be as easy as getting cash from an ATM. Banks are supposed to make applicants prove they can repay loans before giving them. The process is called underwriting, and it’s one of the most basic in banking.
Yet during the housing bubble, banks largely stopped underwriting in any reasonable way. Indeed, if the banks had been underwriting throughout, the bubble could never have inflated so much.
If you want to get a vivid and entertaining overview of the dynamics that eliminated underwriting, listen to Planet Money’s interviews of people at every stage of the process, from making the home loan through its ultimate securitization.
The mortgages made without underwriting have lots of names: Low-doc loans (the borrower stated her income without proof, but proved the assets she claimed to own, or vice versa), no-doc loans (borrower stated both income and assets without proving either), NINJA loans (no proof of income, job or assets). They’re all known as liar’s loans. According to a recent Forbes article, in 2006 and 2007 liar’s loans accounted for 40% of new mortgages, and more than 50% of new subprime mortgages.
The Banks Knew Mortgage Applications Were Fraudulent
Now here’s the thing: No one forced the banks to make those loans, even if the applicants were lying about their ability to repay.
People shouldn’t be sympathetic to banks that effectively say: “Hey, we knew the applicants were lying and wouldn’t be able to repay the loans. We didn’t care because we didn’t hold onto the loans. We offloaded the risk to investors through the securitization process. But so what? Blame the deadbeat borrowers for the volume of foreclosures today.”
Why is it fair to say the banks knew they were being lied to? Well, beyond the obvious — everybody in the business used the term liar’s loan — the FBI warned about mortgage fraud back in 2004. And take a look at this 2006 fact sheet from the Mortgage Brokers Association for Responsible Lending that analyzed data from 2004 and 2005. By doing a quick check, the group found that 90 out of 100 stated-income loans exaggerated the applicant’s income, and 54 of those loans inflated it by more than 50%.
Or consider this Chase loan officer’s email acknowledging that he had made up an inflated income amount to make a borrower’s debt-to-income ratio “work.”
By 2007, the FBI reported that industry insiders — loan officers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, appraisers and lawyers — not wannabe homeowners — were involved in some 80% of mortgage fraud. The FBI calls that “fraud for profit” as opposed to “fraud for housing,” which is when a homeowner lies to get a house he can’t afford. As Calculated Risk’s Tanta showed in 2007, that distinction started breaking down as the absence of underwriting by the banks enabled both types of fraudsters to join forces.
Tanta also explained that in addition to being directly complicit in mortgage fraud, lenders engaged in massive cost-cutting efforts that gutted their ability to underwrite loans:
So many of the business practices that help fraud succeed — thinning backoffice staff, hiring untrained temps to replace retiring (and pricey) veterans, speeding up review processes, cutting back on due diligence sampling, accepting more and more copies, faxes, and phone calls instead of original ink-signed documents — threw off so much money that no one wanted to believe that the eventual cost of the fraud would eat it all up, and possibly more.
Beyond the idea that the banks knew, in real time, that they were making loans that couldn’t be repaid, evidence shows that banks went a step further and tried to conceal that information from others.
Banks Hid Fraud by Shopping for AAA Ratings
Banks weren’t the only entities to stop evaluating risk. Their key allies were the big three ratings agencies, Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch. The ratings agencies put AAA ratings on securities that didn’t come close to deserving that golden grade, in part by using outdated risk models that their own analysts complained inflated ratings. But why weren’t the agencies worried about their professional reputations?
In 2009, professor and former financial regulator William K. Black used a paper from S&P to discuss how the banks and the raters chose not to look at the documents used to make the loans they were securitizing. Then Black cited a 2007 paper from Fitch to show why it mattered that no one was looking at the loan files, why it was at minimum willful blindness. (Willful blindness is trying hard to not know that the law holds you accountable for knowing.)
What was going on? According to 2010 testimony from former ratings agency executives and their emails, the agencies capitulated to demands from banks for AAA ratings on mortgage-backed securities even though they knew those ratings weren’t deserved.
The banks had the leverage to get the AAA ratings they wanted because rating “structured finance products” — mortgage backed securities and the like — had become really profitable for the ratings agencies, and compared to other types of rated securities, very few clients issued them. So if those clients — the big banks — weren’t pleased, they could simply “ratings shop” — that is, go from one agency to another until they got the desired rating.
In short, a large proportion of the foreclosures drowning the courts and the real estate market are a direct consequence of the banks’ failure to effectively underwrite loans during the bubble. Those borrowers should have had — and today would have had — their loan applications rejected.
Servicers Get Paid to Foreclose, Not Modify
But wait, you might point out, it’s not just the dodgy liar’s loans going bust. Foreclosures have spread widely throughout the “prime” mortgage market as well. Surely, the Great Recession, not the banks, is to blame for many of those foreclosures.
You’d be only partly right.
What’s generating many recession-induced foreclosures is the relatively new model of mortgage servicing. Prior to the mass securitization of mortgages, the bank that made a mortgage was the same bank that serviced it. As a result, the servicing bank made its money from the mortgage interest, and the long-term repayment of the mortgage was key to its profit. So, a bank was typically willing to work out a mortgage modification with the homeowner to keep that income stream intact.
Of course, sometimes the homeowner was in such trouble that foreclosure made more sense. Foreclosures do happen even in real estate markets filled only with solidly underwritten loans serviced by the bank that made the loan. That’s because bad things do happen to prevent a once-creditworthy borrower from repaying.
How many forecloses result from financial incentive and how many from incompetence isn’t clear, but it’s also irrelevant. The point is that a good chunk of foreclosures shouldn’t happen because modifications make more money for the people the mortgage is owed to (usually, the investors in the mortgage-backed securities).
Simply put, if the banks had kept up normal underwriting and had modified mortgages (or approved more short sales) every time it made sense to do so, we wouldn’t have the foreclosure volume, and thus delays, that we currently face.
The “Paperwork” Problems Aren’t Meaningless
Now you might ask, in addition to volume-related delays, with so many foreclosures in the system, aren’t defaulted homeowners to blame for gumming up the process? Aren’t they just citing meaningless problems with the banks’ paperwork so that they can stay in their homes for free, hurting everyone else in the process?
No.
While it’s true that foreclosure defense attorneys want to slow the process to give their clients more time to relocate, that doesn’t mean the “paperwork” problems they’re raising are meaningless.
For example, the banks’ carelessness with the securitization of Massachusetts mortgages has clouded the title to thousands of properties. Foreclosure attorneys’ use of nonlawyers in Pennsylvania may have clouded the title to thousands more. The use of a private, electronic database (called MERS) to track mortgages instead of recording them in government land records may have clouded yet millions more. And in any case, MERS is a legally problematic cost-savings strategy that has created only more confusion and delay.
Even homeowners who are capable of curing their default sometimes can’t because banks’ inaccurate record-keeping about how much the homeowners owe precludes the possibility. More outlandish problems have surfaced too: from multiple banks trying to foreclose on the same property, to banks foreclosing on homes bought with cash, to banks breaking into homes they haven’t foreclosed on, to a bank ignoring its court-approved agreement to foreclose and demanding the money instead.
What Revelations Are Still to Come?
These cases are probably just the leading edge of a paperwork-problem tsunami. Even though these issues have been in the news for months, the official investigations and litigation are still in relatively early stages. Millions of foreclosures in nonjudicial states haven’t gotten the scrutiny they deserve (except presumably as part of the 50-state attorneys general investigation), so who knows what will yet surface?
As major judiciaries force a closer look at bank documents, what will they find? The fact that all the major law firms advising on “typical” securitization deals didn’t know that “assignments in blank” violated Massachusetts law is chilling. How many other states’ laws were broken by the “typical” deal?
Moreover, everything we’re seeing suggests the banks’ papers for securitized loans are in total disarray. The note is in one place (theoretically), the record of payments on the loan (inaccurate as it may be) is in another, and the ownership of both the note and the mortgage may or may not be the same. When asked to produce securitization documents, banks frequently submit drafts and contracts without attachments. The attorneys doing the foreclosures are buried in volume, cutting corners themselves, and are unable to meaningfully communicate with their bank clients. Indeed, it may not even be attorneys doing the foreclosures.
Signs of this chaos abound, whether it’s dead financial firms signing documents, banks changing their minds about who owns the loan in the middle of court proceedings, or attorneys unable to certify that the information in foreclosure complaints is true.
And What’s the Fate of Mortgage-Backed Securities?
The banks also have a different type of mortgage “paperwork problem” relating to mortgage-backed securities. Will the banks discover that millions of mortgages they thought they had securitized instead stayed with them because they screwed up the paperwork to transfer the mortgages?
Massachusetts will be a leading indicator on that question because the “assignment in blank” problem may have prevented most of those Massachusetts mortgages from being securitized. Or if the securitizations technically succeeded, will investors still win suits against the banks or force them to buy back large volumes of securities because the papers the banks used to sell the securities were fraudulent?
The foreclosure paperwork problem damage the banks somewhat and the broader economy even more so, but the paperwork problem with mortgage-backed securities has the potential to trigger Bank Bailout II.
No One Is Above the Law (or are banks exempt from this?)
But imagine for a second a world that doesn’t exist — one in which the banks’ foreclosure documents were all accurate, and their problems were simply a failure to abide by the rules that apply to everybody else? Shouldn’t we blame the deadbeats for gumming up the system then? Many readers make comments to that effect on some of my reporting.
Let’s flip the question: Why is it OK for the banks to ignore the rules? The rich and powerful and the ordinary Joe are all supposed to play by the same rules. No one is supposed to be above the law.
No matter whether it’s America’s real estate market getting crushed by millions of foreclosures that didn’t need to be, or our real property records getting shredded through clouded titles, or citizens’ tax dollars being used to bail out banks again, we’re all paying for the banks “paperwork” problems.
And remember: We don’t know yet just how big that bill is ultimately going to be.
See full article from DailyFinance
….we ask you, who is to blame?
What follows is an article that incapsulates my evolution of thinking about the ‘foreclosure crisis’.
Had you ask me years ago if someone should ever consider a strategic default (or strategic short sale) I would of said…”you made the decision to take on the responsibility of that mortgage…now, man (or woman) up and deal with the ramifications…you have a moral obligation”. I am guessing if you are 35 years old and from the mid-west your mindset was (or maybe still is) the same.
What has caused my quantum shift in attitude about a homeowners true moral obligation towards paying their mortgage?
Reality.
The reality of the true human costs that have come as a result of the collapse in the housing industry. The cost to families, communities, the economy…and to the real estate profession will last for decades to come. Far reaching? Think again.
THIS housing crash is now officially more severe..causing more devastation than even The Great Depression. Putting numbers to it, homes have lost MORE value during this ‘Great Recession’ than any other real estate crash…in record history.
Who is to blame?
All of to a certain extent. But, maybe to a lesser extent than the banks.
Read this article and share your thoughts.
As the foreclosure crisis has escalated over the past several months, one overarching debate has been about who bears the most blame: homeowners or banks?
After everything I’ve learned and written about the foreclosure mess, my verdict is: The banks are responsible for 90% of the problem, troubled homeowners 10%.
Yes, every foreclosure involves a homeowner not paying his mortgage. But every foreclosure also involves a bank that made the loan. And usually another bank, or several more, that profited from securitizing the loan. And still another bank, or several, that profited from servicing the loan. Together, those banks have done three things that created the massive glut of foreclosures choking America’s legal systems and laying waste to its real estate markets:
- They knowingly made millions of loans doomed for foreclosure as soon as the check was written.
- They deliberately and/or incompetently failed to modify many salvageable mortgages.
- They were so careless with their paperwork and processes that they’ve undermined the rule of law, clouded the title to untold numbers of properties and complicated the processing of the massive backlog of foreclosures that hurts the economically crucial real estate market.
What Happened to Underwriting?
Getting a mortgage isn’t supposed to be as easy as getting cash from an ATM. Banks are supposed to make applicants prove they can repay loans before giving them. The process is called underwriting, and it’s one of the most basic in banking.
Yet during the housing bubble, banks largely stopped underwriting in any reasonable way. Indeed, if the banks had been underwriting throughout, the bubble could never have inflated so much.
If you want to get a vivid and entertaining overview of the dynamics that eliminated underwriting, listen to Planet Money’s interviews of people at every stage of the process, from making the home loan through its ultimate securitization.
The mortgages made without underwriting have lots of names: Low-doc loans (the borrower stated her income without proof, but proved the assets she claimed to own, or vice versa), no-doc loans (borrower stated both income and assets without proving either), NINJA loans (no proof of income, job or assets). They’re all known as liar’s loans. According to a recent Forbes article, in 2006 and 2007 liar’s loans accounted for 40% of new mortgages, and more than 50% of new subprime mortgages.
The Banks Knew Mortgage Applications Were Fraudulent
Now here’s the thing: No one forced the banks to make those loans, even if the applicants were lying about their ability to repay.
People shouldn’t be sympathetic to banks that effectively say: “Hey, we knew the applicants were lying and wouldn’t be able to repay the loans. We didn’t care because we didn’t hold onto the loans. We offloaded the risk to investors through the securitization process. But so what? Blame the deadbeat borrowers for the volume of foreclosures today.”
Why is it fair to say the banks knew they were being lied to? Well, beyond the obvious — everybody in the business used the term liar’s loan — the FBI warned about mortgage fraud back in 2004. And take a look at this 2006 fact sheet from the Mortgage Brokers Association for Responsible Lending that analyzed data from 2004 and 2005. By doing a quick check, the group found that 90 out of 100 stated-income loans exaggerated the applicant’s income, and 54 of those loans inflated it by more than 50%.
Or consider this Chase loan officer’s email acknowledging that he had made up an inflated income amount to make a borrower’s debt-to-income ratio “work.”
By 2007, the FBI reported that industry insiders — loan officers, mortgage brokers, real estate agents, appraisers and lawyers — not wannabe homeowners — were involved in some 80% of mortgage fraud. The FBI calls that “fraud for profit” as opposed to “fraud for housing,” which is when a homeowner lies to get a house he can’t afford. As Calculated Risk’s Tanta showed in 2007, that distinction started breaking down as the absence of underwriting by the banks enabled both types of fraudsters to join forces.
Tanta also explained that in addition to being directly complicit in mortgage fraud, lenders engaged in massive cost-cutting efforts that gutted their ability to underwrite loans:
So many of the business practices that help fraud succeed — thinning backoffice staff, hiring untrained temps to replace retiring (and pricey) veterans, speeding up review processes, cutting back on due diligence sampling, accepting more and more copies, faxes, and phone calls instead of original ink-signed documents — threw off so much money that no one wanted to believe that the eventual cost of the fraud would eat it all up, and possibly more.
Beyond the idea that the banks knew, in real time, that they were making loans that couldn’t be repaid, evidence shows that banks went a step further and tried to conceal that information from others.
Banks Hid Fraud by Shopping for AAA Ratings
Banks weren’t the only entities to stop evaluating risk. Their key allies were the big three ratings agencies, Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch. The ratings agencies put AAA ratings on securities that didn’t come close to deserving that golden grade, in part by using outdated risk models that their own analysts complained inflated ratings. But why weren’t the agencies worried about their professional reputations?
In 2009, professor and former financial regulator William K. Black used a paper from S&P to discuss how the banks and the raters chose not to look at the documents used to make the loans they were securitizing. Then Black cited a 2007 paper from Fitch to show why it mattered that no one was looking at the loan files, why it was at minimum willful blindness. (Willful blindness is trying hard to not know that the law holds you accountable for knowing.)
What was going on? According to 2010 testimony from former ratings agency executives and their emails, the agencies capitulated to demands from banks for AAA ratings on mortgage-backed securities even though they knew those ratings weren’t deserved.
The banks had the leverage to get the AAA ratings they wanted because rating “structured finance products” — mortgage backed securities and the like — had become really profitable for the ratings agencies, and compared to other types of rated securities, very few clients issued them. So if those clients — the big banks — weren’t pleased, they could simply “ratings shop” — that is, go from one agency to another until they got the desired rating.
In short, a large proportion of the foreclosures drowning the courts and the real estate market are a direct consequence of the banks’ failure to effectively underwrite loans during the bubble. Those borrowers should have had — and today would have had — their loan applications rejected.
Servicers Get Paid to Foreclose, Not Modify
But wait, you might point out, it’s not just the dodgy liar’s loans going bust. Foreclosures have spread widely throughout the “prime” mortgage market as well. Surely, the Great Recession, not the banks, is to blame for many of those foreclosures.
You’d be only partly right.
What’s generating many recession-induced foreclosures is the relatively new model of mortgage servicing. Prior to the mass securitization of mortgages, the bank that made a mortgage was the same bank that serviced it. As a result, the servicing bank made its money from the mortgage interest, and the long-term repayment of the mortgage was key to its profit. So, a bank was typically willing to work out a mortgage modification with the homeowner to keep that income stream intact.
Of course, sometimes the homeowner was in such trouble that foreclosure made more sense. Foreclosures do happen even in real estate markets filled only with solidly underwritten loans serviced by the bank that made the loan. That’s because bad things do happen to prevent a once-creditworthy borrower from repaying.
How many forecloses result from financial incentive and how many from incompetence isn’t clear, but it’s also irrelevant. The point is that a good chunk of foreclosures shouldn’t happen because modifications make more money for the people the mortgage is owed to (usually, the investors in the mortgage-backed securities).
Simply put, if the banks had kept up normal underwriting and had modified mortgages (or approved more short sales) every time it made sense to do so, we wouldn’t have the foreclosure volume, and thus delays, that we currently face.
The “Paperwork” Problems Aren’t Meaningless
Now you might ask, in addition to volume-related delays, with so many foreclosures in the system, aren’t defaulted homeowners to blame for gumming up the process? Aren’t they just citing meaningless problems with the banks’ paperwork so that they can stay in their homes for free, hurting everyone else in the process?
No.
While it’s true that foreclosure defense attorneys want to slow the process to give their clients more time to relocate, that doesn’t mean the “paperwork” problems they’re raising are meaningless.
For example, the banks’ carelessness with the securitization of Massachusetts mortgages has clouded the title to thousands of properties. Foreclosure attorneys’ use of nonlawyers in Pennsylvania may have clouded the title to thousands more. The use of a private, electronic database (called MERS) to track mortgages instead of recording them in government land records may have clouded yet millions more. And in any case, MERS is a legally problematic cost-savings strategy that has created only more confusion and delay.
Even homeowners who are capable of curing their default sometimes can’t because banks’ inaccurate record-keeping about how much the homeowners owe precludes the possibility. More outlandish problems have surfaced too: from multiple banks trying to foreclose on the same property, to banks foreclosing on homes bought with cash, to banks breaking into homes they haven’t foreclosed on, to a bank ignoring its court-approved agreement to foreclose and demanding the money instead.
What Revelations Are Still to Come?
These cases are probably just the leading edge of a paperwork-problem tsunami. Even though these issues have been in the news for months, the official investigations and litigation are still in relatively early stages. Millions of foreclosures in nonjudicial states haven’t gotten the scrutiny they deserve (except presumably as part of the 50-state attorneys general investigation), so who knows what will yet surface?
As major judiciaries force a closer look at bank documents, what will they find? The fact that all the major law firms advising on “typical” securitization deals didn’t know that “assignments in blank” violated Massachusetts law is chilling. How many other states’ laws were broken by the “typical” deal?
Moreover, everything we’re seeing suggests the banks’ papers for securitized loans are in total disarray. The note is in one place (theoretically), the record of payments on the loan (inaccurate as it may be) is in another, and the ownership of both the note and the mortgage may or may not be the same. When asked to produce securitization documents, banks frequently submit drafts and contracts without attachments. The attorneys doing the foreclosures are buried in volume, cutting corners themselves, and are unable to meaningfully communicate with their bank clients. Indeed, it may not even be attorneys doing the foreclosures.
Signs of this chaos abound, whether it’s dead financial firms signing documents, banks changing their minds about who owns the loan in the middle of court proceedings, or attorneys unable to certify that the information in foreclosure complaints is true.
And What’s the Fate of Mortgage-Backed Securities?
The banks also have a different type of mortgage “paperwork problem” relating to mortgage-backed securities. Will the banks discover that millions of mortgages they thought they had securitized instead stayed with them because they screwed up the paperwork to transfer the mortgages?
Massachusetts will be a leading indicator on that question because the “assignment in blank” problem may have prevented most of those Massachusetts mortgages from being securitized. Or if the securitizations technically succeeded, will investors still win suits against the banks or force them to buy back large volumes of securities because the papers the banks used to sell the securities were fraudulent?
The foreclosure paperwork problem damage the banks somewhat and the broader economy even more so, but the paperwork problem with mortgage-backed securities has the potential to trigger Bank Bailout II.
No One Is Above the Law (or are banks exempt from this?)
But imagine for a second a world that doesn’t exist — one in which the banks’ foreclosure documents were all accurate, and their problems were simply a failure to abide by the rules that apply to everybody else? Shouldn’t we blame the deadbeats for gumming up the system then? Many readers make comments to that effect on some of my reporting.
Let’s flip the question: Why is it OK for the banks to ignore the rules? The rich and powerful and the ordinary Joe are all supposed to play by the same rules. No one is supposed to be above the law.
No matter whether it’s America’s real estate market getting crushed by millions of foreclosures that didn’t need to be, or our real property records getting shredded through clouded titles, or citizens’ tax dollars being used to bail out banks again, we’re all paying for the banks “paperwork” problems.
And remember: We don’t know yet just how big that bill is ultimately going to be.
See full article from DailyFinance
Does My Eastlake Short Sale Have To Be Approved Before I Put It Up For Sale?
Eastlake CA – We often get asked if a short sale is even worth the effort. “Do I need to have my short sale “Approved” by my lender before I put my home on the market?” one seller asked us.
“When I called my lender they wouldn’t talk to me about my short sale. I am concerned that they might do that when I finally sell the property and I’ll never get the short sale approved.”
Discover how other sellers successfully did a short sale to avoid foreclosure by clicking here.
Here was our answer. Most lenders will not talk to you about a short sale until you have several things in place.
They want a solid offer from a pre-qualified home buyer along with all the necessary financial documents. Why do they do this?
Because they only want to process short sales that will sell and close. Now, I think it’s a stupid way to do things. Instead of refusing to negotiate short sales until there is an offer on the table, they should instead pre-approve short sales.
It would make the process so much easier. A home could be placed on the market at a set price. Buyers would be more interested in the property because they know they can get an answer in 2-3 days versus 2-3 months.
We have brought this up with Matt Vernon, the Vice President of Bank of America’s Short Sale Department. He knows there is stuff to improve.
But, it’s hard to change the course of a huge company with so many different parties involved. Despite all this, experienced short sale agents are getting short sales approved every day.
The Short Sale Process is getting better and easier to navigate. More and more lenders are moving towards “Approved” Short Sales.
You just need to find a good short sale realtor that can navigate their way thru the crazy short sale process. Thinking about a short sale?
I can help you short sale your property and never pay the bank another penny. Send me an e-mail at henry@houseinsandiego.com. I will contact you for a free consultation.
When we talk, I will explain how the process works in detail and answer any questions you may have. Or, if you prefer, you can call me at 619-517-6791
Discover how other sellers successfully completed a short sale and request a free consultation by clicking here.
Thinking about a loan modification? Our Eastlake loan modification kit has the instructions you will need to get a loan modification approved with your bank. Click here to request a copy.
Thanks for reading this, Henry Pailles.
Henry is a Real Estate Broker at houseinsandiego Realty. Eastlake Short Sales Realtor:
Phone: 619-517-6791. henry@houseinsandiego.com.
Are you at risk of losing your home? ...We can help!
View My homes for sale at http://www.houseinsandiego.com/.
Henry Pailles specializes in loan modification assistance and short sales in Eastlake California. Eastlake Loan Modification Help, Eastlake Short Sales. Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Chula Vista CA Loan Modification Help, Chula Vista CA Short Sales. Chula Vista CA Short Sale Realtor. , Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Eastlake CA Short Sales. Eastlake Realtor.
Copyright 2010 SFI Marketing Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved. This is not intended as legal, technical, or tax advice. Please speak with a licensed professional before making any decision. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed as of the date of writing. The views expressed here are Henry Pailles's personal views and do not reflect the views of houseinsandiego Realty.
This information on Does My Eastlake Short Sale Have To Be Approved Before I Put It Up For Sale? is provided as a courtesy to our viewers to help them make informed decisions.
Eastlake CA – We often get asked if a short sale is even worth the effort. “Do I need to have my short sale “Approved” by my lender before I put my home on the market?” one seller asked us.“When I called my lender they wouldn’t talk to me about my short sale. I am concerned that they might do that when I finally sell the property and I’ll never get the short sale approved.”
Discover how other sellers successfully did a short sale to avoid foreclosure by clicking here.
Here was our answer. Most lenders will not talk to you about a short sale until you have several things in place.
They want a solid offer from a pre-qualified home buyer along with all the necessary financial documents. Why do they do this?
Because they only want to process short sales that will sell and close. Now, I think it’s a stupid way to do things. Instead of refusing to negotiate short sales until there is an offer on the table, they should instead pre-approve short sales.
It would make the process so much easier. A home could be placed on the market at a set price. Buyers would be more interested in the property because they know they can get an answer in 2-3 days versus 2-3 months.
We have brought this up with Matt Vernon, the Vice President of Bank of America’s Short Sale Department. He knows there is stuff to improve.
But, it’s hard to change the course of a huge company with so many different parties involved. Despite all this, experienced short sale agents are getting short sales approved every day.
The Short Sale Process is getting better and easier to navigate. More and more lenders are moving towards “Approved” Short Sales.
You just need to find a good short sale realtor that can navigate their way thru the crazy short sale process. Thinking about a short sale?
I can help you short sale your property and never pay the bank another penny. Send me an e-mail at henry@houseinsandiego.com. I will contact you for a free consultation.
When we talk, I will explain how the process works in detail and answer any questions you may have. Or, if you prefer, you can call me at 619-517-6791
Discover how other sellers successfully completed a short sale and request a free consultation by clicking here.
Thinking about a loan modification? Our Eastlake loan modification kit has the instructions you will need to get a loan modification approved with your bank. Click here to request a copy.
Thanks for reading this, Henry Pailles.
Henry is a Real Estate Broker at houseinsandiego Realty. Eastlake Short Sales Realtor:
Phone: 619-517-6791. henry@houseinsandiego.com.
Are you at risk of losing your home? ...We can help!
View My homes for sale at http://www.houseinsandiego.com/.
Henry Pailles specializes in loan modification assistance and short sales in Eastlake California. Eastlake Loan Modification Help, Eastlake Short Sales. Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Chula Vista CA Loan Modification Help, Chula Vista CA Short Sales. Chula Vista CA Short Sale Realtor. , Eastlake Short Sale Realtor. Eastlake CA Short Sales. Eastlake Realtor.
Copyright 2010 SFI Marketing Institute, LLC. All Rights Reserved. This is not intended as legal, technical, or tax advice. Please speak with a licensed professional before making any decision. Information is deemed reliable but not guaranteed as of the date of writing. The views expressed here are Henry Pailles's personal views and do not reflect the views of houseinsandiego Realty.
This information on Does My Eastlake Short Sale Have To Be Approved Before I Put It Up For Sale? is provided as a courtesy to our viewers to help them make informed decisions.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Bankruptcy at an all time high!!!
Eastlake CA – According to data from the National Bankruptcy Research Center, US bankruptcies have reached a 5 year high.
The last record was set in 2005. That record was set because bankruptcy laws were being tightened up and people wanted to file before the laws changed.
(The big banks had convinced congress to make it harder for debtors to get relief.)
The number of bankruptcies filed in 2010 reached 1,530,078. That was an increase of 8.7% over 2009. Even though the economy is starting to show signs of a recovery, people still need relief from debt.
“The [2005] law was supposed to reduce filings, but we are very close to levels we were at then,” said Samuel J. Gerdano, Executive Director of the American Bankruptcy Institute. “The laws of economic gravity are more powerful than the laws passed by Congress.”
I can’t agree with him more. Here are a few tips if you are considering bankruptcy.
Read the whole story at: http://www.theshortsalehelp.com/
Eastlake CA – According to data from the National Bankruptcy Research Center, US bankruptcies have reached a 5 year high.
The last record was set in 2005. That record was set because bankruptcy laws were being tightened up and people wanted to file before the laws changed.
(The big banks had convinced congress to make it harder for debtors to get relief.)
The number of bankruptcies filed in 2010 reached 1,530,078. That was an increase of 8.7% over 2009. Even though the economy is starting to show signs of a recovery, people still need relief from debt.
“The [2005] law was supposed to reduce filings, but we are very close to levels we were at then,” said Samuel J. Gerdano, Executive Director of the American Bankruptcy Institute. “The laws of economic gravity are more powerful than the laws passed by Congress.”
I can’t agree with him more. Here are a few tips if you are considering bankruptcy.
Read the whole story at: http://www.theshortsalehelp.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
