I've had MY way of doing short sales for the past 7 years.  I think my way works, but I am always open to new ways of doing things, and new opinions.

Recently, I've had a couple agents (and an attorney) suggest a 'way' that I feel is not in the Seller's best interest.

I have almost always felt that the Seller should negotiate the best possible deal on a short sale offer before submitting it to the bank. Get that price as high as possible and even reject offers that we think have no basis in reality or no chance of bank acceptance.

However, it appears that other agents feel the Seller should submit any offer because it is the bank that really decides what price to accept.  "Just go ahead and submit the offer.  Let the bank decide what they want to do".  I've had agents tell me that I am not acting in good faith by negotiating the offers upfront.  "It would show the bank that you are trying harder if you just submit all offers 'as-is' and they will be more likely to work with you", they tell me.

I have a big problem with that on many levels.  What do you think?

Views: 649

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Drew - keep doing it your way as it is the right way - I have always listed any short sale at FMV and negotiate to the highest amount I can get for the seller, besides, the lienholder is going to order an appraisal so why waste anyone's time with a lowball offer?  Most banks are looking to net 90% of their appraised value.

I think you should always submit a realistic offer you truly believe the lender will approve. Anything else is a waste of time and not in the sellers best interest!

RSS

Members

© 2024   Created by Brett Goldsmith.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

********************************** like buttons ************************