It seems the system is slowing shifting responsibility from the owner who created the transaction over to the bank as the responsible party who in turn will be shifting responsibility to a government bail out.
I know the path is not that clear, but I see and hear a lot of grown ups looking to shift responsibility.[/QUOTE
In a nutshell, the seller is saying I want out and it isn't worth what I owe on it. You then put it out there with the note in the mls that an offer may require approval from the lender. Theoretically, the buyer can compare to other comps and determine what he thinks the bottom is and make an offer based on his/her determination. Generaly speaking, this lets the prospective buyer know that its hit bottom. A lot of buyers are looking for some kind of sign to tell them that now's the time. This seems to be the sign they are looking for in many cases. Its not too hard to understand. Banks on the other hand, can not hold an infinite amount of ORE property just because they think they can get more down the road. They have to make a decision based on their loan loss reserves, capital, current income and amount of current income that is being reserved each month for losses, among other things. They also have to factor in future expenses of holding said property, and decide what makes the most sense. The larger well capitalized banks in many cases are saying, f... it, lets get this behind us and start making money again. There is a lot more to it than whether or not AAbsolute thinks its "shady" or not. Its called business. Anyway, kudos to Bobby for working it till the end. I think that's the way its going to be going forward and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Thanks for the insight Santiago. It sounds like you know some of the dynamics of the banking business.
I've heard your statement, "It's called business." a couple times from people over the past 10 years. It always means someone is getting hurt financially. That was what I meant a couple days ago when I posted saying, "So it's o.k. if I pummel somebody like a gorilla just because I can and it's legal?"
I'm naive and still trying to get comfortable with causing someone financial harm under the thesis of it's called business.
Its not necessarily causing anyone harm if it brings closure to it and the bank is ok with the deal. The bank's are culpable just like the borrowers in many cases. It took a lot of different players to build the house of cards and they/we all will take our lumps. When you see or hear how many banks are walking away for 5 to 600 k on home loans just to get it behind them and not pursuing the debtors, it sheds some light on how rampant the problem is. I think any transaction now, no matter what the price is a good thing and we need lots to get out of the inventory mess. Short sells are a very good vehicle for getting that done.
You do understand that average folks who do the right thing, follow the rules, don't parse agreements for advantage, people of high moral character, say the type of person who maybe served their country in one of the big wars are getting hurt in this don't you?
I think he means (albeit in a round-about way) the US taxpayers will be on the hook for any writedowns resulting from the investulator "short sales" --which is essentially correct.