San Jose Short Sale Agent: Silicon Valley Foreclosure Prevention Specialists

I got a chance to watch a couple of agents go at it with each other in a real estate forum trying to answer a question about doing short sales.   It was interesting, to say the least.  Besides the two main agents who proclaimed themselves the “experts” and hijacked the conversation, there were a few others who chimed in and made some comments.  But the question was never specifically answered.

The question posed was whether a lender will approve a short sale if the borrower had assets. He didn’t provide a lot of detail but wanted to either do a short sale or let his home go into foreclosure and he specifically asked not to get into a debate about the ethics in not paying his mortgage.

The argument or “discussion” in the forum quickly evolved into a big debate about the ethics of what people considered to be strategic default.  One expert proclaimed it was morally and ethically wrong to engage in strategic default and the lenders would not go for it. The other expert proclaimed morality and ethics had nothing to do with his decision and it was more about money.

As a San Jose Short Sale Agent, I tend to agree with the latter expert.  When you are dealing with short sales with lenders, the department you deal with is called Loss Mitigation.  Let me say it again:  Loss Mitigation.  Their job description is patently obvious: it is to mitigate or lessen the loss for the lenders.

Yes, there obviously are moral and ethical implications of not paying your mortgage when you have the financial ability to do so.   I firmly believe you should pay when you can and live up to your contractual obligations.  However, the question posed specifically asked not to judge the ethical implications but sought opinion as to whether a lender would agree to a short sale when the borrower stopped paying and was headed towards foreclosure.

There is no definite yes or no answer in these matters as the answer lies in the details.  It has a lot to do with how much assets the borrower has or does not have.  However, if the lender is faced between foreclosure and short sale, from my experience, the loss mitigation department chooses short sales over foreclosures.   At the end of the day, the primary decision will be about which method loses less money for the lenders, then, other factors like ethics and mortality can be entertained.

Why do you think big lenders like Chase and Wells Fargo are offering people up to $35,000 to do a short sale without even verifying their financial information?   HAFA recently amended its rules to state that servicers are no longer required to verify any financial information, but only to collect signed hardship letters.  Do these actions by large lenders and servicers sound like they are overly concerned about the ethical or moral issues surrounding foreclosures?

I can’t speak for other States, but in California, the recent changes in the law means if the lenders agree to permit a short sale, then the issues about deficiencies become null and void.  Once a short sale has been approved, the seller can walk away clean without looking over their shoulders.  Yet, another procedure that make completing a short sale more effective and efficient and preferable to foreclosure.  It’s all about money; if the institutions can make more money foreclosing, they will certainly choose that method, but everything recently is geared towards choosing short sales.  Yes, the lenders hate strategic defaulters, but they hate losing money even more.

So back to the question about would a lender approve a short sale if the borrower has assets?  It would depend on how much assets the borrower had and whether foreclosure would yield more money for the lender or a short sale.

Bank of America was the biggest villian in the short sale world only  a year ago.   Anyone doing short sales in 2009 would tell you horror stories of how difficult the process was and long it took to get a Bank of America short sales approved.  From personal experience, I can tell you it was a long and unwelcome experience.   I dreaded dealing with the Loss Mitigation of Bank of America and that was a feeling shared by many San Jose Short Sale Specialists and experts.

Then in early part of 2010, with the announcement of HAFA by the Federal Government and its switch to the Equator system, Bank of America , made a dramatic change to change their image regarding short sales. There was a concerted effort to change their reputation and to be seen in a better light regarding short sales, apparently because their loan origination business was being impacted negatively by their horrible short sale reputation.

Within a few months of this announcement, their reputation had indeed changed for the better in a dramatic manner.  Their big push had indeed paid big dividends.

Fast forward  to 2011.   Kim Dawson, Senior Short Sale Executive at Bank of America, recently sat in on a CDPE webinar to talk about their successes in the short sale arena.   She didn’t have a lot of specific data, but pointed out some surprising numbers.

In January of 2007,  Bank of America had only closed 7 short sales throughout the nation.  At the end of 2010,  they had completed  93,000 short sales in the nation (see the graph below).   A huge and monumental accomplishment  by any measurement.   They were able to accomplish this because of the efficiency of the Equator System and by tripling their staffing in the loss mitigation department.

As of now, Bank of America, is  my favorite lender for working short sale.   In my opinion, they have completely succeeded in what they tried to accomplish is a very short time and should be commended on their efforts.

Why would banks agree to a short sale when they know they are going to be losing money?  This is the question I get posed to me frequently.  My answer: it costs them less money than to foreclose on a property; lenders’ primary responsibility is to mitigate their losses. Once we understand that, then the concept of a short sale is really not a mystery.

When you speak with short sale negotiators and other people in the industry, it is common knowledge that banks make more money when the sale is completed through a short sale, rather than permitting a property to go into foreclosure.  This was the unspoken truth that everyone acknowledged but no lender published any data to support or deny these truths.  Not having published data can be problematic for bloggers, as  postings are much more credible when there is data to support your contentions, rather than anecdotal evidence.

Today, for the first time, I discovered published data which sheds light into the true disparity between homes that are disposed as short sales vs. those disposed as REOs after returning to the lenders after foreclosures.    Short Sales net the banks between 13-26% more than REO sales according to Clayton Holdings after conducting a 6 month survey conducted between October 2009 – March 2010. (I’ve heard some higher numbers from other industry insiders).

13-26% is a nice tidy bag of cash for the lender holding those underwater mortgages; fantastic job of mitigating their loss.   And people still wonder why short sales are approved.