Without a Deal Maker, The Deal Does Not Get Made!

“I’m Not Doing Another One of These Short Sales!!!!” I hear as one of my negotiators at The Short Sale Service slams the phone down yelling.

I walk down the hall and ask what’s up.  He continues:  “I’m not doing another one of these short sales unless there is an investor in the middle to make sure it actually closes!”

Huh?  Go on . . .

“We’re $1,950 apart on this deal because of some HOA dues lien.  The bank won’t pay it – they say they’re at the maximum that their guidelines allow.  The buyer won’t pay it – they say it’s the seller’s job to deliver clear and marketable title and not their responsibility to clear liens.  The Seller is broke and can’t pay it.  The agents won’t pay it – they say the bank already cut their commission and they’re not forking out cash just to make a deal happen.  If my buyer was an investor, he’d just pay it and we’d be at a closing!  BUT THERE IS NO DEAL MAKER HERE TO MAKE A DEAL!  It’s going to die, four months of work down the drain and a seller is going to lose their house to foreclosure because there is no deal maker here to make this deal happen!”

Interesting…

Let me give you some background.  At The Short Sale Service we negotiate a lot of short sales as a third party negotiation service.  Many of our customers are real estate investors who purchase short sales, but we also do a fair amount of work on behalf of real estate agents who hate doing short sales themselves (either because its such a time consuming and frustrating process or because their legal counsel has advised them that the S.A.F.E. act prevents them from doing it themselves.)

The negotiator was dealing with his frustration on a deal where there was no real estate investor “in the middle” and through his outburst, he was actually illustrating why the Administration’s efforts to encourage short sales has largely been a complete disaster and why less than 10% of all short sales attempted across the country actually close (Housing Predictor).  Quite simply – without a deal maker, the deal does not get made.

Purchasing distressed property from distressed sellers in advance of foreclosure is not your normal ‘ready for retail’ transaction.  If it needs a short sale, then the property does NOT have clear and marketable title, which is what is required to have an insurable closing.  Without clear and marketable title an owner occupant retail purchaser will be unable to obtain financing to purchase the house.

More often than not, the short sale is merely one of several reasons a property does not have clear and marketable title.   When a distress seller does not pay the mortgage, they often are not paying the property taxes, the homeowner’s association dues, the garbage bill, the water bill, and the sewer bill, any and all of which can result in liens that cloud title and prevent a sale to an end user-owner occupant.

In addition, when someone is experiencing a financial hardship (a prerequisite to a short sale) they are often not paying credit card and medical bills and may also be facing battles with the IRS or other creditors – all of which can result in liens or judgments that attach to their real estate, cloud title and prevent a property from being sold to an end user-owner occupant.

There are two ways to fix the mess of unmarketable title and create a property that can be sold to an owner occupant retail end-user:

(1) Foreclose, or
(2) Untangle the knots – one knot at a time.

It’s actually one of the benefits of foreclosure – it wipes out all the liens and judgments (at least with respect to the property) and gives title a clean sweep.   From a title cleaning perspective – foreclosure is great.

However, foreclosure comes at a great cost.  To the lender, the homeowner, the neighbors, the local tax base, and the community the costs and damages of foreclosure are well documented and the Administration has advanced the universally accepted goal of reducing foreclosures.

The alternative to foreclosing on a property to fix unmarketable title is to untie the knots one at a time and fix each lien individually.  The short sale is usually just one of these knots – there are usually others.  Clearing title one knot at a time is time consuming and often complex work.  Who is going to do this work?

Let’s explore the options:

The Homeowner – probably not.  They are at the worse point of their life and they have neither the ability, frame of mind, or motivation to fix the mess.

The retail end-user owner occupant – not likely.   Owner occupant home buyers are retail consumers.  They generally want a pleasant retail consumer experience.  They want a house that is move-in ready and that looks nice.  Sure they may want a bargain and express an interest in a foreclosure or short sale; however, the average owner occupant home buyer does not have the knowledge, ability, time or interest in fixing seller’s title defects – too much hassle, too many other houses.  (Because an owner occupant retail buyer is not a viable purchaser of a property without clear and marketable title, the value of that property is depressed until such time as the title defects are cleared and the property can be marketed ‘ready for retail’.)

The real estate agents?  There are few agents who have the skill and experience to address clearing title.  Generally the work transcends the skill, knowledge, and expectations of the vast majority of licensed real estate agents.  It’s not what they are trained to do – and most will say, they’ve been trained to NOT do that.

The job of a real estate agent is to help buyers find properties and help sellers find buyers.  Their job is not to track down liens and judgments and negotiate title cleaning.

What about the title company?  Title companies insure title and close transactions.  They’ll tell you what’s wrong and what has to be fixed.  They may even make a phone call or two – but they’ll tell you quickly that they do not have the time to go chasing down lien holders or negotiating releases.  They’ll tell you it’s broke – but it’s not their job to fix it.

What about closing or real estate attorneys?  Yep – here is finally someone who has the training and ability to clear up defected title.  However, attorneys just don’t run around cleaning up title unless they have a client who asks them to do so and is willing to pay for them to do it.

So in our short sale ‘deal without a deal maker’, who is going to pay the lawyer to clean up title?  The seller? Nope, they’re broke.  The agents – nope, they’re just in it for the commission.  The short selling lender?  Nope – they’ll allow the short sale and taxes, but they won’t mess with all that other stuff because they can just wipe it out at foreclosure.  The buyer?  Rarely – why would a potential home buyer spend money on an attorney to fix something before they’ve closed on the house?  An owner occupant retail buyer is not likely to risk money before closing and speculate that title will be fixed.

So who is left to take this risk and make such speculations?  Someone who is willing to take risk and speculate on a return on an investment – yes, the much needed (but often maligned – vulture, maggot, bottom feeding, etc.) real estate investor.

Absent the real estate investor – there is usually no other party willing to undertake the work, time, and expense to transform a property that does NOT have clean and marketable title into the home that can be sold to the end user owner occupant into a retail ready home that can be sold to an end user owner occupant.

In the rush to fix the housing mess, find a scapegoat for its cause, and an excuse for what they’re not doing, some lenders and services would like to see real estate investors removed from the short sale arena.  Some have gone so far as to suggest their involvement as somehow fraudulent.

Not only is such suggestion baseless in law, it is misguided public policy that – if followed – would greatly exacerbate the country’s foreclosure crisis.  Vultures and maggots are not the cutest and most adored critter in the zoo, but take them out of the ecological mix and the entire ecosystem collapses – they’re ones who do the work to transform waste into the green grass and flowers that everyone loves.

I fully understand that in hindsight it may seem unfair that a deal maker, the middleman, the transaction engineer, the investor buys a house on Monday and sells it on Tuesday and walks away with a large profit spread.   The profit from one deal may even be more than the entire year’s salary of a hard working bank or government official.  I understand how this might just sting a little when you watch it from the sidelines.  I understand how that may just feel like an injustice – that one person should make so much money.  I get it – it looks like that money should go the bank, or the Treasury – anywhere but not some investor!

But that’s the luxury of hindsight, the Monday morning quarterbacking of the finished product brought to the market by the efforts of someone willing to do what nobody else would or could – take the risk, bear the expense, and undertake the effort of transforming something that cannot be sold on the retail market into something that can be sold on the retail market.  And in a market based economy – the reward associated with taking that risk is called – profit.  It’s not fraud, it’s not unfair, and it’s not unjust.  In fact, just the opposite – the work of the investor is essential to fixing this housing mess and the foreclosure crisis.

Fixing the housing mess will be done one house, one family, and one deal at a time.  Take the deal maker and the incentive for profit out of the ecology and the whole ecosystem collapses – because without a deal maker, the deal does not get made.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Leave a comment

Dear Freddie Mac

**** An Open Letter to Freddie Mac ***

Dear Freddie Mac:

Last week you published an article on your website “Emerging Fraud Trends: Short Payoff Fraud.”  Absent further clarification, your letter could cause serious damage to the already struggling housing market, compromise the Administration’s goals of reducing foreclosures, and increase losses to lenders and investors such as Freddie Mac.  I’m sure that was not your intent, so the following is offered to assist in a clarification that must be forthcoming.

You expand the definition of mortgage fraud to include misrepresentations or omissions by the borrower or buyer made to a lender in the context of a short sale.  You then specifically mention ‘a subsequent transaction at a higher price’ as one such misrepresentation.

The investors, buyers, real estate agents, title companies, lenders, closing agents and others on the front line of promoting the Administration’s goals of reducing foreclosures and healing the housing markets by encouraging short sales need further clarification from of this overly broad and grossly simplistic statement.

Here’s what I think you’re missing: A property with debts that exceed its value does not have clear and marketable title and cannot be sold until such time as a short sale approval is obtained.  Obtaining a successful short sale approval is a complicated, frustrating, and lengthy process.  This reality is reflected in market pricing: properties that do not have clear and marketable title command less from the market than those that have clear and marketable title the same way that a house with structural foundation issues will command less than the same house without the defect.

Proof can be obtained from any real estate agent specializing in buyer representation.  When asked if they would show their well-qualified buyer a property listed “potential short sale” most agents who work with end-user owner occupant retail buyers will say “heck no . . . it will be months before we get an answer, too much headache, lots of hassle, and I’ll probably lose my buyer before the short sale gets approved . . . no thanks, too many other houses on the market right now to mess with an unapproved short sale.”

Accordingly, a potential short sale property commands a lower-than-retail price which may be attractive to a wholesale investor looking to purchase a property at a discount and later reselling for a profit.  You recognized this appropriately in your October Sellers & Servicers Bulletin:

Property flips are not inherently illegal and not all transactions involving a rapid purchase and resale are improper. Legitimate property flips are acceptable transactions in connection with loans purchased by Freddie Mac. Some indications of property flip transactions that may be legitimate include: . . . Sales of properties that the property seller acquired at below market value after purchasing as a result of a distress sale (i.e . . . . short sale . . .), where any increase in the sales price over the property seller’s acquisition cost can be clearly shown to be a result of the difference (if any) in the market’s reaction to distress sales and typical arms-length market sales.

Best Practices for Loans Involving Possible Property Flips
, Freddie Mac Bulletin, NUMBER: 2009-24, Attachment A (October 9, 2009)

There you got it right and recognize the legitimacy of a flip from a lower distress short sale value to a higher typical market sale.  Your October Bulletin recognizes that opportunities to buy low, add value, and resell for a profit are the very foundation of our market economy.

The wholesale investor invests the time, energy, and expertise to obtain the short sale approval from the seller’s lender together with other short sale agreements and lien releases as may be necessary.  (Most short sales transactions involve multiple mortgages, liens, homeowner association dues, back taxes and other title exceptions that must be cleared – it’s not easy stuff and often involves a significant amount of work.)

Completing this non-physical repair work to create clear and marketable title increases the value of the property from the prior “non marketable title/distress sale” value.  The increase in value is not a product of a fraud or misrepresentation.

Here’s where your recent article causes some troubling confusion.  The increase in property value from repairing clear and marketable title by securing a short sale takes place between the time of the buyer’s original contract (at the lower value) and the eve-of a closing usually several months later at which point the wholesale investor, through the efforts of clearing title including obtaining the short sale, has created an asset that can now be re-sold at a higher price.

If by the statement “misrepresentations in these schemes may include…a subsequent transaction at a higher price” you are suggesting that it is fraudulent for a short sale buyer to resell properties for increased prices resulting from their efforts to clear title through short sales, then you are attempting to create new law of an affirmative duty that does not otherwise exist while simultaneously bringing about a dramatic decrease in the number of short sales that are successfully closed.

Realize that every lender currently has the ability (absent your newly fabricated duty) to control their short sales and shut out investors.  The short sale is entirely at the discretion of the lender to approve or deny.  If the short sale lender does not like the offer from the investor (because it is too low), it is entirely within the lender’s prerogative to reject the offer, counter at a higher price, request other offers, or simply foreclose.  The entire process is always within the complete control of the lender.

The lender has always been able to make requests for information from their borrowers, require a signed statement from a buyer at closing, or put restricting language in a short sale approval that would prohibit subsequent transactions.  (Such efforts foolishly disregard the value the wholesale investor brings to the lender in advancing a product that does not have clear and marketable title but for the investor’s involvement and compromises the Administration’s goals of promoting short sales to reduce the foreclosure rate; however, it is certainly within the lender’s prerogative to take such actions should they choose to.)

However, above and beyond any such requests or restrictions by the short selling lender, if you are asserting that once a lender has accepted a short sale offer and the buyer then attempts to resell at a higher price, that the buyer has an affirmative duty to reveal its sales price of a subsequent transaction and that the difference between the short sale approved price and the subsequent sales price is somehow a fraudulently obtained unjust enrichment, then . . . geez . . . will the last Gd fearing American grab the flag on the way out!

If that is really what you mean, you will further damage the housing market, dramatically increase foreclosures, vastly reduce the number of successful short sales, and impose a chilling effect on the free market that will likely have serious ramification beyond the housing market.  You would be setting a precedent that wholesalers, anyone who owns stocks, equities or commodities, sales persons, importers, and any other entrepreneur who buys, creates value and sells products or services somehow has an affirmative duty (even if not asked) to get permission from their seller to resell an asset at a higher price prior to completing their purchase?

You can’t really mean that?  You would have:

  • Car dealers get permission from new car buyers to resell their trade at a higher price before closing the deal?
  • Anyone who buys a stock or commodity having to get the approval of the stock seller before reselling the asset at a higher price?
  • Fruit wholesalers required to obtain the permission from the farmer to resell their crop to a grocery store at higher price?
  • Importers getting permission from China before Wal-Mart could sell a t-shirt?

No.  You can’t possibly mean that!

You had it right in your October Bulletin when you recognized the legitimacy of these transactions.   In addition, the FBI makes it very clear what current law considers mortgage fraud involving a short sale:

In a typical short sale scheme, the perpetrator uses a straw buyer to purchase a home for the purpose of defaulting on the mortgage. The mortgage is secured with fraudulent documentation and information regarding the straw buyer. Payments are not made on the property loan causing the mortgage to default. Prior to the foreclosure sale, the perpetrator offers to purchase the property from the lender in a short-sale agreement. The lender agrees without knowing that the short sale was premeditated.


Mortgage Fraud Report “Year in Review”
, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008).  Yes, now that’s mortgage fraud!

Yet the policy suggested in your article goes well beyond this clear example to potentially include any resell of a property where a buyer does not go above and beyond to reveal the subsequent resale of a property at a higher price.

I believe in my heart of hearts that the work that I do together with thousands of hard working, honest, proud American entrepreneurs creates win-win-win transactions that add value to the U.S. economy, the housing market, sellers, and Freddie Mac while supporting the Administration’s objective of promoting short sales and reducing foreclosures.  I offer these thoughts to further these mutual objectives.

Together with other real estate investors, educators, and entrepreneurs, I would be eager to contribute to a dialogue to help distinguish truly fraudulent actions from what is good honest entrepreneurial work essential to the Administration’s objectives of healing our troubled housing market.

Very truly yours,

Ben Pargman

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

“We’re #1!”

(Syd’s baseball team – currently undefeated 4-0 and in 1st  place.  My Gators – nope,  didn’t make it past their first game in NCAA March Madness.)
But Short Sales are #1! According to Thomas Popik, research director for Campbell Surveys, “Short sales now account for the No. 1 category of distressed property.”

Confirming what I’ve been saying for years, “Losses on short sales are typically lower than for REO, and both lenders and the government are pushing programs to facilitate short sales.”

The Survey reports that last month distressed property sales accounted for 48.1 percent of the home purchase transactions.  These February numbers were up significantly from the 37.3 percent level recorded as recently as November.

We saw a dip last fall and into the winter due to increased government efforts, including temporary foreclosure moratoriums and a push to qualify more financially troubled homeowners for mortgage modifications.  However, as I said back then, that dip was temporary and just postponed the inevitable.  Now a growing number of distressed properties are hitting the housing market.

With more distressed properties coming onto the market, the Campbell Surveys reports that home prices are again showing signs of weakness. Average home prices for all categories properties (damaged REO, move-in ready REO, short sales, and non-distressed) – declined from January to February in the latest survey.

Popik makes another important point for real estate investors:  “as more and more people default or simply want to walk away from their properties, mortgage servicers are having trouble expeditiously processing these complicated transactions.”

Because these transactions are so complicated and the lenders are so back-logged, real state investors who understand the winning argument and how we add value to transactions can get deals done that agents and sellers would not be able to do without us.  You want to know how?  ==> I’ll tell you.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Leave a comment

Dumb Dumb II

Following yesterday’s post – I don’t call lenders dumb . . . but sometimes they’re good for solid laugh.  Check this one out.   These are actual emails from lenders.

From the lender in 1st position:

Being in first lien position, our investor gets to make the decision as to how much the 2nd can receive on a short sale – both from the net proceeds and as their total payoff. They require the 2nd’s Release letter upfront as part of our submission stating that they will agree to release their lien for the proposed amount. Basically, at this point, if the 2nd will not issue a Release letter upfront stating they will agree to this – then we will not be able to do a short sale on this loan.

From the lender in 2nd position:

I’ve been doing this for 4 years and have never submitted approval before the 1st issues their approval. Neither has anyone on my team. This may be this particular lenders policy, but not how we operate.  I cannot issue an approval until I have the approval from the 1st and can verify their offer to us, that is the way it always goes, the 1st is in superior position so they dictate the terms.  I’ll decline the file and let our legal dept pursue our note.

What are you in kindergarten!?    You go first . . . no you go first . . .no you go

We actually see this all the time and a skilled short sale negotiator can often get these two kindergartners  to play nicely and get along . . . so this deal isn’t dead yet.

I’m not going to call lenders dumb, but in a week where the big banks are on a publicity blitz to promote how seriously they are taking foreclosure avoidance and short sales – here’s what’s really going on behind the PR campaign.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dumb Dumb

I don’t engage in lender bashing.  Facebook and the blogosphere are full of people talking about how dumb lenders are.  You’ll never find me saying that.

My party line is “lenders are simply under intense pressure from many different places – investors, insurance companies, government regulators, and their own PR agenda – that often the end result just doesn’t make sense to us.”

I’ve always taught – don’t try to understand a bank – you’ll go nuts.

However, in a week when banks are bending over backwards to push a marketing agenda of how seriously they are taking short sales and how they are aggressively pursuing foreclosure alternatives – I just have to share:

Here is an actual email exchange between one of my short sale negotiators and a lender’s loss mitigation representative regarding a proposed short sale offer:

Lender: I will tell you that the minimum net to <BANK> needs to be $51,500.  This amount does not include jr liens, commission, closing costs etc.  Thank you,

NegotiatorThere is unit next door for sale for $49k.  It has had no offers. How can we get that number with this unit next door?

LenderPlease be advised that this is NOT based off the value.  The value is only used as a reference.  The file will remain closed until an offer that meets this criteria is received.  Thank you,

NegotiatorWhat is it based off if not the value?  The homes are not worth that much so how can we get you an offer for that amount?

LenderThere are buyers that are willing to pay more than the current market value.

Oh, silly me. . . I get it!  First, the bank sets a demand NOT based on the value of the property but rather establishes criteria based on the assumption that there are people in this market who will pay more than what the property is currently worth?!

A skilled short sale negotiator’s job is to breakthrough this silliness which we see all the time.  I’m not going to call lenders dumb, but they are often good for a solid laugh.

I have another one to share tomorrow.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Analysts Say: More Short Sales Please!

Regular readers of this Blog will recognize a theme:  government announces new rules or program . . . the blogosphere goes nuts with headlines and posts that the new policy is “bad for short sales” or “bad for real estate agents” . . .  I write something ultimately concludes . . . “the government program in the end will not stop the market from doing what it needs to do  . . . the market must correct itself . . . real estate investors are the agents of change . . . the market can’t correct itself without us . . . whatever government program will merely serve to delay the inevitable . . . there will still be more short sales than anyone could ever handle . . .stop whining and get to work” or something like that.
So today we get more evidence that . . . well, I’m right.

Moody’s Investors Service is forecasting another 8 percent decline in home prices during this year before the market reaches a bottom.  They blame the increase in the “underwhelming” success of the administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP).

The report highlights that not only is the bottom deeper than originally thought, but also future away in time.  Previously, Moody’s predicted the floor to be reached in the third quarter of this year, but now they have extended that date until the end of the fourth quarter 2010.

Moody’s says the reason for the delay is the unimpressive number of houses successfully avoiding foreclosure through the HAMP program.

A decline in distress sales-including foreclosure, deed in lieu, and short sales-as a share of total home sales is a driving contributor to the gain in house prices.

The Moody’s report clearly suggests that a lack of successful short sales is part of the reason the market has not turned the corner towards recovery sooner.

While HAMP modifications have kept many houses from foreclosure temporarily, the report states that HAMP will “fail to convert to a permanent modification and will eventually end up on the market as heavily discounted distress sales,” Moody’s wrote. “It is looking likely that foreclosures will hit the market more slowly than we had anticipated, mitigating but prolonging the price decline.”

So . . . at the risk of saying “I told you so” . . .  to the extent that a HAMP modification can buy a homeowner some time –  good for the homeowner, but for someone in a house that is upside down that they can’t afford to keep making payments on – it’s short sale or foreclosure – one of the two.

And the best way for a seller to successfully sell their house through a short sale is to work with a team that includes an experienced real estate agent and an experienced real estate investor.  Anything else and you’re just delaying the inevitable, bringing on more foreclosures, and pushing back the date that this market starts to recover.

So . . . if you’re still worried about some program taking away all the good deals . . . get to work.  Apparently, according to some analysts we haven’t done enough yet!

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in HAMP | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Foreclosures Get Worse, Increasing Demand for Smart Investors

A recently released study from LPS Applied Analytics shows the foreclosure crisis keeps getting worse.  Here are some quick statistics from the report:

  • Delinquency rates have surpassed the 10% level; factoring in foreclosures, the total non-current rate sits at 13.3%.
  • Industry extrapolations indicate that over 7.2 million loans are currently behind on payments with an estimated nearly 1 million properties in REO status.
  • Average number of days delinquent for loans in foreclosure has increased 63 percent from January 2008 to December 2009, rising from 249 to 406 days delinquent.
  • Prime loans have experienced a worse pace of deterioration on a relative basis than subprime, FHA and all loans as a whole. Within prime loans, those with current unpaid principal balances between $417,000 and $600,000 have performed the worst.
  • The percent of “new” serious delinquencies (from the population of loans that were current as of year-end 2008) sits at 4.64%, higher than any other year analyzed for the same period. Extrapolated counts result in approximately 2.3 million “new” 60-day delinquent loans from December 2008 to year-end 2009.*

I said a couple of years ago (check out old blog posts) that we were entering a huge market correction and all the government programs, bailouts, and subsidies to stop foreclosures would not and could not prevent the inevitable from happening.

When a borrower is in a house that is worth far less than what it is worth, one of three things will happen: (1) if the borrowers can afford to keep making payments they may wait the several years it will take for the market to recover, or the borrower will default (either voluntarily or involuntarily) and (2) the borrower will work out an alternative with the lender to avoid foreclosure, or (3) the property will go to foreclosure.

If the borrower attempts to work out an alternative to foreclosure, there are only two options: (a) stay in the house, or (b) leave the house.  Despite all the efforts of the administration and all the talk by lenders, a modification to keep someone in the house is not sustainable unless the loan balance is reduced to the fair market value of the property and the payments are affordable.  Because many loan modification programs do not offer principle balance reductions and many borrowers are in houses that no matter how the loan is modified, they cannot afford, the only viable option is to work out a deal with a lender that allows the seller to move and avoid a foreclosure – that’s a Short Sale.

Short Sales are critically important to the U.S. economy right now.  They are perhaps the most honest and sustainable remedy to the foreclosure crisis.

It is well trained professional real estate investors who understand how to get these complicated deals done successfully.  As the number of foreclosures continue to climb as illustrated by the latest LPS Applied Analytics data, the need for well trained short sale investors also continues to climb.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Leave a comment

New FTC Proposed Rules

The Federal Trade Commission proposed a new rule that would prohibit loan modification specialists and loss mitigation attorneys from collecting advanced payment for foreclosure prevention services until after they obtain results.

“Homeowners facing foreclosure or struggling to make mortgage payments shouldn’t have to contend with fraudulent ‘companies’ that don’t provide what they promise,” FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. “The proposed rule would outlaw up-front fees so companies can’t take the money and run.”

The FTC has brought 28 cases against companies suspected of foreclosure rescue and mortgage modification scams in addition to those brought by state and other federal law enforcement agencies.

“Far too many homeowners have paid up-front fees to bad actors who promised loan modifications but never delivered,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said.

For about two years now, I have been approached by speakers and service providers asking me to promote various forms of loan modification services given the close connection between loan modification and short sales.  Believing that loan modification is NOT something real estate investors should be involved in for a profit, I have always declined.  Here’s what I have told them:

  • Real Estate investors provide an essential role in the economy by being a Buyer of distressed assets which are not well addressed by the retail market.
  • A Buyer is adverse to a Seller and sits on the opposite side of the transaction.  (That doesn’t mean we can’t operate with the dignity and interest of the seller in mind, but technically, we’re “on the other side”.)
  • That legitimate and important role should be kept distinct and not blurred with anything that resembles foreclosure prevention, advice giving, consulting services, or anything else that might confuse the seller such as loan modification services.
  • If a Seller can and wants to stay in the house, they should – it is in the market and the economy’s best interest that they keep their house if they can.
  • A buyer of investment real estate has no interest in working to keep a seller in their house because it is in conflict to our interest of buying the house.
  • Loan Modification work should be left for seller to do themselves or if help is needed, then to attorneys, non-profits, or legitimate services that charge fees only upon successful delivery of results.

The FTC’s proposed rule should not present problems for short sale real estate investors who understand what hats they wear and which ones they shouldn’t put on.  Hopefully, a new rule will remove the scam artists from the market, give sellers who have a shot at staying in their house a better chance of doing so, and if they can’t then Short Sale investors will be prepared to do what we do distinct from any confusion in the minds of a seller.

The proposed rule, however,  defines Short Sale as a “Mortgage Assistance Relief Service” together with loan modification and therefore the Rule would affect how real estate investors market and advertise.  More on that . . .

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Leave a comment

Short Sale Success Workshop for January 2010: “$120,000 from a Shack”

I’ll show you the real deal . . . step-by-step how we created a $120,000.00 profit all the details . . . line-by-line.

It’s a 100% Content jammed packed training

Sunday, January 24, 2010
9 pm est / 8 pm central / 7pm mountain / 6 pm pacific
<<<<<CLICK HERE to RESERVE your free seat>>>>

From “Lead” to “Check” Ben illustrates each step of the deal including the marketing to find and sell, the paperwork, the agents, and the closing logistics.

When the training starts, you can come back here to ask any questions or leave a “Comment” below and we will get back to you.

See you on the training.
Here’s to your Success!

Ben

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Leave a comment

HUD Recognizes “Good Flippers”, Waives 90 Day Seasoning!

Wow, I never thought my blog post on “Good Flippers” would have such an impact.  I posted it Friday morning and then that day FHA waives the 90 day flipping rule!  Ah, the power of the pen!

Okay, so maybe that’s just a coincidence, but the both the article and the FHA waiver make the same point – flipping real estate is an important part of the economic recovery!

Even HUD gets it:

In today’s market, FHA research finds that acquiring, rehabilitating and the reselling these properties to prospective homeowners often takes less than 90 days. Prohibiting the use of FHA mortgage insurance for a subsequent resale within 90 days of acquisition adversely impacts the willingness of sellers to allow contracts from potential FHA buyers because they must consider holding costs and the risk of vandalism associated with allowing a property to sit vacant over a 90-day period of time. HUD: Waiver of Requirements of 24 CFR 203.37a(b)(2)

Current HUD regulations provide that a mortgage for a property will not be eligible for FHA insurance if the contract of sale for the purchase of the property is executed within 90 days of the prior acquisition by the seller.   This 90 day period is often referred to as the “seasoning requirement”.

However, effective February 1, 2010 (for a period of one year), the 90 day seasoning requirement will be waived provided that:

  • the transaction is arms length; and
  • a flip spread of more than 20% must be justified by verification of repairs or an explanation of the increase in property if no work was done.

This is tremendously positive news for “Good Flippers” and recognizes the value that we bring to the economy as I discussed in Friday’s post.   The waiver explicitly recognizes that not all increase in value is due to physical repairs and provides room for increases in value (even above 20%) “in cases where no such work is performed”.

To help facilitate the return of repaired and habitable properties to the market in a timely fashion, additional exemptions to the 90-day resale restriction period must be granted for the purchase of the properties by investors.  This policy change will help to sell properties that may otherwise remain vacant for up to 90 days, while offering affordable hosing options to buyers wishing to use FHA-insured financing. HUD: Waiver of Requirements of 24 CFR 203.37a(b)(2)

The waiver specifically notes that all other guidance concerning property flipping remains unchanged, so you still have to understand how to be a Good Flipper.

  • Share/Bookmark
Posted in Current Blogs | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment
Google Analytics integration offered by Wordpress Google Analytics Plugin