San Jose Short Sale Agent: Silicon Valley Foreclosure Prevention Specialists

I get upset when people don’t try their best.  I realize everyone is different and has different personalities, but we, as Realtors, are all in the business of representing the best interests of our clients.  As Realtors, we have a fiduciary duty to our clients: this means we are to put client’s interest ahead of our own.  We must do our best for our clients.  I’ve heard too many Realtors cave into the lenders without putting up much of a fight.

With the economy still in its anemic state and unemployment level still hovering near historic high of 10% (11.5% here in Silicon Valley), the prospect of depleting the inventory of distressed properties in the immediate future does not seem feasible.  The high level of unemployment and implementation of HAFA with the support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac means the next few years will be busy years for short sale.

If, you therefore, choose to make a living helping distressed homeowners fight foreclosures, then by all means go out and fight for them because they need all the assistance you can provide.  This often time means pushing on even when the lenders say no or put up road blocks in your path.  The negotiators working for lenders are not highly compensated and are often over-worked, so they simply do not care and are often willing to send homeowners into foreclosure because of minor technicalities.  Some will help out homeowners by going out of their way to help your clients, most will not.  It’s the nature of the bureaucratic systems in which they work.  It doesn’t mean they are bad people, it just means there is little or no incentive for them to go out beyond what is expected of them.  So it is up to us, the Realtors to step up and earn our commissions.

As a San Jose Short Sale Agent, I recently received a call from an attorney friend of mine who wanted me to help his client because the East Coast lender/servicer denied their loan modification request and would not agree to extend a trustee sale which was scheduled some three weeks out.   He got tired of dealing with this lender and wanted to know if I could get the sale date extended and complete a short sale.  Three weeks to stop a foreclosure was a tall order, but I thought I could help.

Getting a bona fide buyer took longer than I anticipated and we had only one week left before the scheduled trustee sale.  I immediately contacted the lender to advise them we had a solid offer and that I had just submitted a short sale packet.  The curt response I got was that their investor had a policy not to extend Trustee sales unless the short sale packets were submitted at least 10 days prior to the sale date: I was three days too late. She would not even consider looking at the offer or the packet. 

I had worked too hard during the past two weeks to simply be told that due to some arbitrary deadline; my clients were going to be thrown out in the street when we had a perfectly good buyer wanting to purchase their home.   I escalated the matter to the negotiator’s supervisor.  She simply reiterated their investor’s policy and told me there was nothing she could do.  I wasn’t going to be stopped by these bureaucrats who didn’t want to lift a finger.  I searched the internet and found the Corporate Communication Director’s contact information.  This time, I was going to use my ace card: my client’s hardship was his wife’s cancer. While she was receiving treatment, she eventually lost her job and the second income which was required to meet their mortgage obligations.

By the time I got the number and the email address (they are in the East Coast), the office was closed, but I left a voicemail and sent an email explaining my situation and that I would contact the local media and explain that the big East Coast lender, because of an arbitrary deadline and because it was inconvenient, would rather throw a cancer victim out into the street, even where there is a willing bona fide buyer, because we missed an arbitrary deadline by three days!   I was not going to let my clients get thrown out into the streets when we had a willing buyer.

The following afternoon, I got a call from the executive office.   They were more receptive and cooperative then the loss mitigation department employees.  The helpful woman said she would get in touch with the appropriate person at the loss mitigation department and do everything she could to get an extension on the sale date.

The next day, I got a call from someone who was a VP at loss mitigation, she began to tell me that the sale date could not be extended because it was the investor’s policy and therefore, they could not deviate from it and began to tell me all the reasons why her hands were tied.  This was a completely different response than the woman from the executive office.

I wasn’t going to simply accept her explanation, I simply would not accept that they had zero influence in extending the trustee sale; I didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday.  I called the executive office and again threatened to call the local consumer affairs reporter.  This time the helpful lady told me to disregard what I was told by the loss mitigation employee because she was going to pull strings and get it done.  She asked me to trust her and to call the attorney service the next day and confirm for myself that the extension was granted.  I had no choice as we were down to four days before the sale date.  I called the attorney service the next morning and got the news I was waiting for: we received a 60 days extension.

Between the attorney friend and myself, we were told on four different occasions that the trustee sale could not be extended.  They were simply refusing to lift their fingers to help out the borrower.  I had no choice but to refuse to accept their answers because doing so  would mean that my clients would literally be thrown out into the street when we had a willing buyer to take their home.   I was not proud of exploiting my client’s cancer condition, but I had to protect their interest by any means necessary.  In the end we persevered because I refused to listen to them when they told me no.   I guess I am hard headed in that way; but my clients are thankful and that is good enough for me.

This important legislation (SB 1178) passed the California State Assembly and is now heading to Gov. Schwarzenegger’s desk for his signature before it becomes law.   This particular legislation is immensely important during these economically difficult times where homeowners are often facing foreclosure.

This legislation attempts to protect homeowners who, in an effort to obtain lower interest rates through re-financing their loans, lost an important legal protection that limited the lenders to no more than the collateralized property during the foreclosure process. The loss of this protection essentially gave the lending institutions a second bite at the homeowners; not only were they able to take their homes through foreclosure, but they reserved their right to come after the homeowners for the full deficiency value between what was borrowed and what the property eventually sold  for.   The fact that the lenders would not take into consideration the depreciated market value of the property was an additional slap on the face to the distressed and now homeless borrowers.

As a matter of clarification, it is important to point out that this legislation protects the status of those who re-financed their purchase money loan to obtain lower rates.  It DOES NOT protect those homeowners who obtain cash-out loans and do other things like pay down credit cards or start businesses; activities unrelated to the purchase or maintenance of their homes.

As a San Jose Short Sale Agent, I see this heart-breaking scenario more than I care to mention.  Homeowners who simply wanted to lower their interest rates find out during the foreclosure process that they had given up this incredibly important anti-deficiency protection; a protection they certainly would not have given up had they been made aware that a re-finance would trigger said loss.   This is one of those legislations that is the right thing to do.

As a service professional, I am of the belief that we must always  be learning.  We must not only participate in the required  continuing education courses, but go beyond by obtaining specialized training to differentiate ourselves from the average Real Estate Agent.  Only by becoming better educated, can we serve our clients better by utilizing the latest changes in laws and policies.

The increase in short sales is self-evident in any MLS system around the country as the number of homeowners who are unable to qualify for loan modifications and do not want to be forced into foreclosures seek out a better alternative.  Foreclosure or short sale?  The choice is obvious.

Freddie Mac CEO Ed Haldeman announced the number of its short sales increase by 600% from 2008!  An increase was certainly obvious, but 600%?   And with HAFA still ramping up, that number is sure to increase in the near future.

In a statement put out this week, Haldeman said Freddie Mac is doing everything it can to prevent more foreclosures, and that short sales are becoming an ever-popular tool in situations where foreclosure is imminent and modifications have failed.

The rationale behind this increase in foreclosure is, again, obvious for distressed homeowners.

“Foreclosure alternatives like short sales and deeds-in-lieu help borrowers to avoid the stigma of foreclosure, shorten the waiting period before they can buy a new home, and may inflict less damage on their credit reports,” Haldeman said.

He added that these alternatives are also helpful to lenders and insurers. Citing several independent studies, Haldeman said banks lose more than $50,000 per foreclosed home or as much as 30-to-60% of the outstanding mortgage.

You don’t need media reports like these to know that short sales are increasing dramatically, just ask your local realtor who handles a lot of short sales whether their short sale volume is increasing.

Today, Fannie Mae announced how it would deal with strategic defaulters: they will be punished by being unable to qualify for a loan for up to 7 years through Fannie Mae and the latter will reserve the right to take legal action to recoup the losses in states that permit deficiency judgments (not the case in California).  The line has been drawn in the sand.

Strategic defaulters, or those borrowers who have the financial ability to pay their mortgages but who choose not to and walk away because the value of their homes are underwater, are becoming a big problem for banks as the stigma is becoming less and less meaningful and the distressed properties market is ever increasing.   One study puts strategic default at 1/3 of all defaults which eventually lead to foreclosures.

Fannie Mae is addressing a big problem for itself and trying to force strategic defaulters to think twice before walking away from their mortgage obligations.  It’s a perfectly understandable move on its part as it is trying to do potential future damage control.   This reason is also why it has agreed to participate in the HAFA program guideline to encourage negotiated and approved short sales rather than have homeowners simply walk away. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have figured out it is better to work with the distressed borrowers and, for those who qualify, work out an agreed short sale resolution rather than have the property foreclose, as the loss to them will be significantly greater in the end. They are simply engaging in good business practices by mitigating their loss.

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.

Let me just start by saying this is my effort at sharing an experience I encountered today so that newer agents out there do not fall into the same trap.  Hopefully someone can walk away having learned something positive from this experience.

I have always believed the first rule of negotiations is to know where you stand before you engage the other party. Pretty elementary, right?  Sort of the first rule of negotiations 101.

Well, it seems that little gem of advice is sometimes lost to Realtors out there who proclaim themselves as  being “professional negotiators” as if that were a special badge of honor that only a handful secretly receive.  We Realtors are all negotiators, it just seems some are better prepared and do the prep work to insure they do not look incompetent.

Unfortunately, these days, in their desperation to close any deal, agents sometimes open themselves up to ridicule and more importantly, do their clients a dis-service by not being adequately prepared when they negotiate. Not only will they not get a deal, they may possibly lose the client whom they failed to protect.

I am engaged with a veteran agent (probably 30 years in the business) who is on the buy side of a deal.   The deal is taking longer than anticipated because one of the lenders is dragging their feet in coming to a decision on a short sale.  Everyone is frustrated including me, so I understand his impatience.  But nothing can happen until the second approves the deal.

But today he was trying to re-negotiate the price on the deal in a back-handed way which I did not really appreciate.  First, he claimed that the prices in the complex were falling drastically in the past two weeks and he now believed his client was over-paying for the property.  I told him if he believed that to be true, then his clients had the right to back out and I would return the deposit; I have a back up offer that will be glad to fill in.  (His claim of prices in the complex dropping is incorrect).   Secondly, he claimed we may not close in time to claim his client’s $8,000 tax credit because we cannot, at this point close escrow by June 30 (This is true).  Finally, he claimed his client was further harmed because the California Tax Credit (up to $10,000) had been exhausted within 2 weeks of it being announced (This was news to me) and he couldn’t get that either, so he wanted to reduce the offer price.

I understood the message he was trying to convey: 1) that the prices in the complex were falling and 2) the California Tax Incentives had run out and his client was depending on that.  He was claiming his client was hit with a double whammy.  Well, I would have been sympathetic if he had verified these claims before he made them to me and tried to unilaterally re-negotiate the contract.

1.  He was simply uninformed about the prices in the complex.  They were not falling dramatically, an identical unit had come on the market only 7 days ago for nearly $10,000 more than the price he offered to pay.  This is basic stuff, you check the comps before you talk prices.   2.  His claim that the Tax Credit fund had been exhausted, was again, an incorrect claim.  http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/new_home_credit.shtml The fund is only 57% depleted!  I have no reason to lower the price; I am thinking he should raise the price since the house looks like a better deal now than before.

I shot down the grounds for his argument in 5 minutes.  He could easily have verified the information if he took 10 minutes to go online and look them up before he made these false claims to me. This is an individual who has been selling real estate for probably close to 30 years.  This was simply embarrassing for him and certainly did not make his client’s case any stronger.  Now I question whether I want to continue to do business with him or simply deal with the back up offer.   What was he thinking?  All he managed to demonstrate today was that he doesn’t know the first thing about negotiating and now has planted a seed in my head as to whether he is a competent agent or not.

Folks, check the comps and do your due diligence before you start making claims which could back fire on you and your clients.  That’s your job.

The announcement of HAFA in April was supposed to change the way we do our business for those of us who do a lot of short sales.  Not because it was supposed to revolutionize the way short sales were done, but because it was going to be the Federal Government stepping in and trying to standardize the process of how to complete a short sale.  In the lawless world of short sales, that was like a cool breeze on a hot sticky day: very much welcomed.

Many naysayers poo poo’ed the program, saying it was never going to fly and that lenders would not abide by the terms because it was not in their favor.  But you know, there always will be naysayers whose job it is to simply criticize any new idea that comes along which challenges the status quo.

Yes, there are still glitches in the system and many employees of banks do not understand or have not been trained in HAFA and we get to deal with a high percentage of them who are not helpful.  However, an announcement made last night will resonate and have long term impact on the dynamics of the distressed properties marketplace, in my opinion.

Matt Vernon, the executive in charge of short sales and REOs at Bank of America (BofA) announced that institution will now focus on short sales to liquidate their assets before they get into foreclosure.  “We’re going to do everything possible to liquidate property prior to foreclosure,” Vernon said. “REO will still be available, but we will do everything we can to do short sales.”   This is wonderful news for consumers as their underwater properties can be disposed of without having to be forced into foreclosure and devastating their credits.  This is also good for banks because industry surveys have shown that nets proceeds to banks are significantly higher when short sales are utilized as compared to REOs.  BofA is of course is still in the business of making money and has chosen a profitable method, but this method also benefits the homeowners as well. And with all of the loan modifications applications out there, and the unfortunate reality is that a large percentage of those loan modifications will default and end up on the foreclosure circuit.

Mr. Vernon has spoken previously and have been pushing for the notion of short sales taking a more prominent role at BofA. BofA was suffering  from backlash on their Loan Origination business as a consequence of them developing a notorious reputation in the short community as being difficult to work with.  This move will be followed by other banks in my opinion, like airlines follow and match fares when one major player comes out and takes a stand.

HAFA may not have lived up to the expectation people had about its efficacy in making  short sales easier to handle or process, but what it has done is provided an environment where a big player like BofA can come out and concentrate on short sales as a major tool to unload their real estate portfolio.  This move on the part of BofA has now pushed short sales out of the niche market and pushed it into the mainstream, making it easier for consumers to get short sale approval, and hopefully quicker too. Now here is truly a win-win solution for all involved parties.