Kevin Kauffman (with a Fred Weaver slide in...) shares a bank's internal documentation that was sent to him by mistake. The document is all numbers and has one line for the homeowner's hardship. "Hardship = Tenant Not Paying"
Wow! Never cease to be amazed! It’s amazing, but not surpising.
Great stuff! It’s a numbers game, so tenant not paying is a justifiable hardship. Since it’s not loss justification, but loss mitigation, the truth is revealed! Simply, savings over foreclosure!
Great info again.
You say we can get copy of the email when we attend a class. So, when is your next class. I believe it would be a mind blower. Thanks
This is something I’ve been wondering about – clearly this is an investment property. So what about income and assets? Is the investor liquid or not? Did they ask for participation? Or was it really only about foreclosure vs. short sale profits to the lender? The issue being that investor property is recourse and so the lenders can play hardball. But it sounds as if they didn’t care – they approved the short sale simply because it was more profitable – and I didn’t think they did that. I just assumed they turned down most investor properties – especially if the investor was liquid. Am I wrong?
@Hangemhi – Its ALWAYS only about what is more profitable for the bank. We have closed 300+ short sales, more than half of them have been “investment” or rental properties.
but are the investors broke – so they have a real hardship on top of the “bad tenant” reason? what about investors who have money elsewhere, but have a home that 50% under water? You owe the bank $50k or $100k and you’ve got at least that in cash. I’m just curious if it’s got to be a double hardship – the property and the investor’s own finances? Or do they demand financial participation – and if so how much?
Kevin Kauffman (with a Fred Weaver slide in...) shares a bank's internal documentation that was sent to him by mistake. The document is all numbers and has one line for the homeowner's hardship. "Hardship = Tenant Not Paying"
Wow! Never cease to be amazed! It’s amazing, but not surpising.
Great stuff! It’s a numbers game, so tenant not paying is a justifiable hardship. Since it’s not loss justification, but loss mitigation, the truth is revealed! Simply, savings over foreclosure!
Great info again.
You say we can get copy of the email when we attend a class. So, when is your next class. I believe it would be a mind blower. Thanks
This is something I’ve been wondering about – clearly this is an investment property. So what about income and assets? Is the investor liquid or not? Did they ask for participation? Or was it really only about foreclosure vs. short sale profits to the lender? The issue being that investor property is recourse and so the lenders can play hardball. But it sounds as if they didn’t care – they approved the short sale simply because it was more profitable – and I didn’t think they did that. I just assumed they turned down most investor properties – especially if the investor was liquid. Am I wrong?
@Terri – Check the events page
@Hangemhi – Its ALWAYS only about what is more profitable for the bank. We have closed 300+ short sales, more than half of them have been “investment” or rental properties.
but are the investors broke – so they have a real hardship on top of the “bad tenant” reason? what about investors who have money elsewhere, but have a home that 50% under water? You owe the bank $50k or $100k and you’ve got at least that in cash. I’m just curious if it’s got to be a double hardship – the property and the investor’s own finances? Or do they demand financial participation – and if so how much?
@Hangemhi – Its ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS only about money and what is more profitable for the bank.