I'm sure most people have heard of John Maynard Keynes. He's the "brilliant" economist who is the father of the government stimulus.
...along came John Maynard Keynes's tome "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" in 1936. Keynes was dapper, fresh and sophisticated. He even wrote in English! And the guy had chutzpah, fearlessly fighting the battle against unemployment by running the currency printing press and draining the government's coffers.
He was the anti-Mises. So what if Keynes had lost his shirt in the stock-market crash. His book was peppered with fancy math (even Greek letters) and that meant rigor, modernity. To add insult to injury, Mises wasn't even refuted by Keynes and his ilk. He was ignored.
Ludwig von Mises wrote his book "The Theory of Money and Credit" back in 1912, just one year before our Federal Reserve was born. Unfortunately, his book, written in German, really didn't get much play. It explained exactly why something like the Federal Reserve would eventually lead to ever more volatile business cycles.
This is the best, to the point, analysis of his theory and is very relevant to our current situation:
Government-imposed interest rates artificially below rates demanded by savers leads to increased borrowing and capital investment beyond what savers will provide. This causes temporarily higher employment, wages and consumption.
Ordinarily, any random spikes in credit would be quickly absorbed by the system-the pricing errors corrected, the half-baked investments liquidated, like a supple tree yielding to the wind and then returning. But when the government holds rates artificially low in order to feed ever higher capital investment in otherwise unsound, unsustainable businesses, it creates the conditions for a crash. Everyone looks smart for a while, but eventually the whole monstrosity collapses under its own weight through a credit contraction or, worse, a banking collapse.
The system is dramatically susceptible to errors, both on the policy side and on the entrepreneurial side. Government expansion of credit takes a system otherwise capable of adjustment and resilience and transforms it into one with tremendous cyclical volatility.
It reminds me of the academic debate between communism and capitalism. Even after seeing the Soviet Union do a 70 year long experiment with total government control and seeing it fail, many still think that more government control is the path to work towards.
So now that we've been following the path of Keynes for the past 70 years and have seen how it has failed, many still think that more of the same is what is needed. More government stimulus and more government borrowing. Hopefully our system won't collapse like the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, it will probably take a collapse in order to get back to a system that works.
Remember how we were told how important it was to pass the $787 billion "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act"? Obama's chief economic advisor, Christina Romer, put out a nice study showing how many jobs would be created or saved with this "stimulus" bill.
On page five of the report they had a nice graph projecting the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus bill being enacted. That was in January of 2009, just 10 months ago. Let's see how the best and brightest economic minds in Washington did vs. the reality of what has actually happened.
With the Recovery Plan, the unemployment rate was projected to be 7.8% by now. Without the Recovery Plan it was projected to be 8.8%. The reality is that it's 10.2%. The actual rate is 43% higher than they projected!!
I'll let you decide whether it's a matter of incompetence or a matter of deceit in order to get their agenda passed.
With this sort of track record, can we trust them at all with the projected cost of the proposed healthcare bill?
Get Verizon's wireless network at more than 50% off. I heard about Straight Talk in a blog the other week and checked it out. It sounded like a great deal so I switched from Verizon.
Tracfone buys blocks of time from Verizon and resells it using Walmart as it's marketing arm. So you get the quality of the Verizon network but at a bargain price with no contract to tie you down.
I've been with Verizon for years now and I figured that this is a no brainer. I was paying Verizon $99/month for unlimited talk. Text would have been an additional $10 and data an additional $10. With Straight Talk, I get unlimited talk, text and data. I guess the only negative might be that the phone selection is limited and there isn't any big discount on the phones. I just had a very basic phone so the Razor, $99, was a step up for me.
The switch over was pretty easy. I went to Walmart and bought my phone and service plan. I logged onto Straight Talk and keyed in some numbers along with my current Verizon account number. In seconds, my current phone number was ported over to my new phone. I had to make a simple call to activate it and I was done. I quickly set up a new voice mail messege and I was back in business. It took me maybe 5 minutes to get it all up and running.
Fifteen minutes of work could save you a lot on your cell phone bill.
My Halloween memories go back to 1964-1973. I remember in the early years, we'd come back home with a bag full of full size candy bars. I kind of remember seeing the bite size candy starting to creep into my bag around 1970.
Last night, my kids came home with nothing but bite size and mini size candy.
It made me wonder about what has changed? I grew up in a very blue-collar middle class area in Pennsylvania. Now I live in a much more white-collar upper middle class area.
Are we actually poorer than we were in the sixties or are we just more thrifty or less giving?
As a real estate agent, I always remind myself who I'm working for. I have to do what's best for my client. If that means your client gets upset or loses money, so be it. It's not my job to make sure both sides are happy with the deal. It's my job to get the best deal for my client.
Broker Bryant says it better than I can so I'm just going to reblog his post.
Hi folks. Let's talk a little bit about professional courtesy. I hear this term quite a bit on AR and in my business. Usually, it goes something like this:
"The listing agent should have told me he had other offers on the property, as a professional courtesy".
"Even though my buyer's offer was a low ball the listing broker should have gotten back to me before the offer expired, as a professional courtesy."
You get my point. Anyway, let me see if I can shed some light on this professional courtesy "thingie". First, I want to say, that anyone who has ever worked a deal with me will tell you that I am very professional in all that I do. I treat my peers with respect. I am always willing to help "newbies" in anyway I can and if I say I'm going to do something, I do it.
But, and it's a big but, sometimes what you are expecting me to do, as a "professional courtesy", is completely against what my customer/client is telling me to do or not do. Last time I checked, I work for my customer/clients NOT my peers.
My job, as a listing broker, is to look out for my Sellers and do everything I can to get their property sold in a reasonable amount of time and for a reasonable price. Sometimes, that may require my Seller and I to "sit on" your Buyer's offer. We may even choose to ignore it completely. We can do that. We may even use your offer to negotiate a better deal with another Buyer. We can do that too.
And you know what? I don't have to tell you I'm doing it. There is nothing unprofessional about that. Your Buyer is NOT my concern. What may seem like my lack of action or response, from your perspective, may very well be a negotiating strategy from my Seller's perspective. Don't jump to conclusions about my professionalism or lack of.
I completely agree that we should all work together and that we do not have to work in a disrespectful manner. We should be professionals in all we do. If you want to be a professional then please remember who you are working for and who is paying you. Your "professional courtesy" could very well jeopardize your customer/client's position. How professional is that? What say you?
Long ruled that banks can't foreclose on homes unless they have complete paperwork covering every time a specific loan changed hands.
The judge found that fixing documents after the fact, as Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank did in the Springfield cases, isn't enough. He ruled that flaws not resolved earlier can depress bids at foreclosure auctions, reducing how much consumers who face home losses get for their places.
"The issues in this case are not merely . . . a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers," Long wrote yesterday.
Experts say the ruling paves the way for thousands of people who've lost houses to foreclosure to challenge their homes' seizures
I enjoyed reading the complete ruling. The banks were arguing that that's the way they've always been doing it so it shouldn't be a big deal. I was glad to see the judge stick to the law.
If they believe a change is warranted to reflect "industry standards and practice," they must seek that change from the legislature. I note, however, that if those "standards and practice" have brought us to the present situation (see, e.g.,Chairman Ben Bernanke, Financial Innovation and Consumer Protection, speech at the Federal Reserve System's Sixth Biennial Community Affairs Research Conference (Apr. 17, 2009); R. Posner, A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of '08 and the Descent Into Depression (Harvard University Press 2009)), "we should learn something from that experience." Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 242 (1944)
I'm not a lawyer so I thought before writing my own post, I would see if any resident expert on ActiveRain wrote about the topic. I saw Richard Vetstein's post and thought it would be best to reblog it since he's actually an attorney who seems to be pretty knowledgeable.
Today, Massachusetts Land Court Judge Keith Long reaffirmed his controversial ruling made back in March 2009 that invalidated foreclosure proceedings involving two Springfield homes because the lenders did not hold clear titles to the properties at the time of sale. A copy of the decision can be found here.
As I outlined in my prior post on this case, the problem the Land Court dealt with in this case is what happens when modern securitized mortgage lending practices meets outdated foreclosure laws. When mortgages are packaged to Wall Street investors, the ownership of a mortgage loan may be divided and freely transferred numerous times on the lenders’ books. But the mortgage loan documentation actually on file at the Registry of Deeds often lags far behind.
The Ruling
Judge Long ruled that foreclosures were invalid when the lender failed to bring the ownership documentation (known as an assignment) up-to-date until after the foreclosure sale had already taken place. An assignment is a legal document confirming that a mortgage loan has been transferred from one lender to another. Assignments must be recorded with a registry of deeds so anyone researching a property’s title can track the loan’s origin and ownership. Oftentimes, as in the Ibanez case, lenders will sell bundles of loan and record backdated assignments with an effective date before the first foreclosure notice. Judge Long effectively prohibited this practice.
Despite the lender’s attempt to convince him otherwise, Judge Long came out (again) in favor of consumers:
The issues in this case are not merely problems with paperwork or a matter of dotting i’s and crossing t’s. Instead, they lie at the heart of the protections given to homeowners and borrowers by the Massachusetts legislature. To accept the plaintiffs’ arguments is to allow them to take someone’s home without any demonstrable right to do so, based upon the assumption that they ultimately will be able to show that they have that right and the further assumption that potential bidders will be undeterred by the lack of a demonstrable legal foundation for the sale and will nonetheless bid full value in the expectation that that foundation will ultimately be produced, even if it takes a year or more. The law recognizes the troubling nature of these assumptions, the harm caused if those assumptions prove erroneous, and commands otherwise.
Judge Long also had some choice words for lenders:
[T]he problem the [lenders] face (the present title defect) is entirely of their own making as a result of their failure to comply with the statute and the directives in their own securitization documents… What the plaintiffs truly seek is a change in the foreclosure sale statute (G.L. c. 244, § 14), which can only come from the legislature.
What Now?
That’s a good question and one not readily answerable. To be sure, the current state of flux and confusion surrounding foreclosure titles affected by an Ibanez issue will remain intact until an appellate court considers the case or some action by the Legislature (which may be unlikely). Given the importance of the decision, I predict that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will take the unusual step of taking the case directly from the Land Court.
As for what happens in the year or so the case may be in appellate limbo, I asked an in house counsel for a leading title insurance company, and his response was essentially that it’s going to take a fair amount of time and research to figure this one out. If there’s an existing title insurance policy on the property, some but not all of the title companies may be willing to insure over the problem. If there’s no title policy in place, affected parties are going to have to ride this one out for awhile.
Once title insurance companies offer some further guidance, I will post it here.
It's all starting to add up and make some sense. Unfortunately, it's the same old story. Taxpayers are getting screwed and the well connected like George Soros and making billions.
As some of you already know, I blogged recently about being interviewed recently by our local NBC news affiliate. To read the blog, click here. Basically, IndyMac Bank (now OneWest Bank), is holding one of my clients hostage, demanding a $75k promissory note, or they will proceed to foreclosure. For the life of me, I couldn't figure out why they were doing this. The BPO came in at the contract price of $275k, with a net to IndyMac of $241k. What advantage could there possibly be for them to proceed to foreclosure?
Yesterday, I figured it out. You see, IndyMac was taken over by the FDIC and sold to OneWest Bank in March/2009. Guess who the investors are behind OneWest? George Soros, Michael Dell, Steve Mnuchin (former Goldman Sachs executive), and John Paulson (hedge-fund billionaire).
Now, listen to the deal they got from the FDIC....
Basically, they purchased all current residential mortgages at 70% of par value (70% of the outstanding loan amounts). They purchased all current HELOCS at 58% of Par Value!!!
Next, in order to "sweeten the pot", the FDIC stepped in and guaranteed the following: For any residential mortgages where OneWest experiences a loss, the FDIC will step in and cover anywhere from 80%-95% of the loss. The loss is calculated using the ORIGINAL LOAN BALANCE, not the amount that OneWest paid for the loan. Let's use my clients situation as an example:
Loan Amount is $478,000, plus 6 months of missed payments, for a grand total of $485,200
OneWest pays $334,600 for the loan
We have an all cash offer of $241,000, net to OneWest.
So, let's do the math, shall we? The net loss, according to the FDIC formula is the ORIGINAL LOAN AMOUNT minus the amount of the offer. In this case, $485,200-$241,000, or $244,200. Next, the FDIC, according to their Loss Share Agreement, writes a check to OneWest for 80% of the so-called "net loss". So, in this case, OneWest gets a check from Uncle Sam for $195,360 (.80 X $244,200).
Add the $195,360 to the sales price of $241,000, and you get a grand total of $436,360. Remember, OneWest paid $334,600 for the loan. So, OneWest puts $101,760 in their pocket, thanks to the FDIC. Folks, that is over $100k of our hard-earned tax dollars!
So, you ask...Why does this program hurt short sales? Because, our brilliant government offers this SAME PROGRAM FOR FORECLOSURES! The only difference is, the government picks up 80% of the tab on all of the extra costs associated with a foreclosure (BPO's, upkeep, utilities/maintenance, legal fees, etc.)
So, If I'm OneWest, why would I want to waste my time negotiating through a Short Sale, when I can make the same amount of money (if not more) by just letting it go to foreclosure? And we wonder why nobody can get a Loan Modification? Why would OneWest approve a loan modification for this guy, when they can foreclose and make over $100k? And, to add injury to insult, they have held this loan for 6 months! Not a bad ROI, huh?
What infuriates me the most is that in my particular case mentioned above, they have the guts to hold my client hostage for a $75k promissory note, after they are already making more than $100k on the sale!!! This is his primary residence, 1st Position loan, and OneWest has NO RECOURSE! Imagine if they could make $100k, then get a deficiency judgement! Talk about making some big bucks!
Can you say "GREED"?
The scary thing is that over 50 banks have Shared Loss Agreements in place with the FDIC. Some of them include: Bank of America (go figure), CitiMortgage, Wells Fargo, etc.
This entire agreement between the FDIC and OneWest can be found here, on the FDIC website. It's all there, for the world to see! They have it all layed out. All of the formulas, worksheets, etc.
Now, it's up to us to bring it to the attention of our elected officials and the media. Enough is Enough!
UPDATE 9/18/09: I JUST READ AN AWESOME ARTICLE ON THIS, THAT GOES INTO WAY MORE DETAIL THAN MY BLOG ABOVE. TAKE THE TIME TO READ IT WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE! CLICK HERE TO READ IT.
Wait, it gets better...The FDIC just announced that it needs to start borrowing money from the U.S. Treasure in order to replenish it's deposit insurance fund (the same fund being used to pay all of these banks in the Loss Share Agreements). Go Figure! Click Here to read it.
Can someone with good credit and good assets actually get a lender to do a short sale for them?
Katerina Gasset gives real life examples of situtations where banks are accepting short sales for people who's "hardship" might not be exactly what one would define as a hardship.
The bottom line is, everything is negotiable and you never know what a bank will be willing to do until you approach them with a proposition.
Short Sale Strategies- Getting The Facts Straight For Sellers With Money- Case In Point
Let me set the record straight with who can get a short sale approved and who can not.
The main answer to the question is that is all depends on the lender and their policies regarding approving short sales.
Most lenders would rather have a short sale approved then foreclose on yet another property even if there is no financial hardship. There are some lenders who will only approve short sales for financial hardships and others who will approve short sales if the terms are right for just about anybody. Before taking on short sales you need to find out the policies of each of the short sale lenders that you will come into contact with.
It is simply NOT true when agents tell you that your clients without financial hardships can not do a short sale. In fact, just the mere fact that an agent is making a judgment call like that without knowing or trying is doing a disservice to a seller. It depends on how hard you want to fight for your sellers.
There are a lot of blogs out there where agents who say they know how to do short sales are not stating the facts correctly.
Just because your seller does not have a financial hardship does not mean they will not get approved for a short sale.
First let's get clear on what a short sale is since even after the last several years of short sales being prominent here in Florida, many states are just now beginning to experience short sales in their respective markets. A short sale is when a seller's property is worth less and will only sell for less than what the seller owes to his lender. So the seller is going to have to ask his lender to accept less than a full pay off of what he borrowed from his lender. It is up to his lender to say yes or no or yes with conditions.
A short sale is a short pay off of a loan, nothing more, nothing less. There are many terms and conditions that can be attached to a short pay off.
So now that we all understand what a short sale actually is we can look at some different possible outcomes for a wealthy seller, an investor or a non financial hardship case. There are also many cases where the seller may appear not to have any hardship but after you ask some probing questions you may discover hardships that the seller may not think of. I will write a short sale strategy post on this process.
One other thing I want to get really straight right now is that we do list and sell short sale listings and we have clients from all different financial backgrounds and situations. So the cases I will expand upon are real but I can not disclose the names to protect the identity of clients' financials. I want to make it very clear that these are true cases. I am not making this stuff up. I am not teaching out of some real estate book. I am not out in left field. I am in my own back yard, my own field of short sales. So if you want to listen to agents who don't do short sales but tell you how to do them, that is your decision. We are in the trenches. We carry a lot of listings and we close a lot of short sales.
When you first do your intake evaluation with a potential short sale client you must make certain things very clear and you must assess the client's situation. Financial hardships are relative and you can create a good case if you know the right questions to ask.
When we have clients who have money in their bank accounts or who own several to many other properties we will not take their short sale listing unless they agree to participate in the terms of the short sale. The usual way that a short sale lender treats a short sale is that the more financially strong the homeowner is, the more the lender is going to want them to contribute with a cash contribution towards the short fall and/or a promissory note.
We have closed on short sales where there is not a financial hardship for the homeowner but that something else changed in their lives. We just closed one that Broker Bryant referred to us where the sellers have great credit, they own and live in a home in another state and they no longer wanted their rental here.
They had tenants in the rental who were paying the mortgage. Their lender turned down our first short sale offer because the sellers were current on their mortgage on the rental which is the property they wanted to do the short sale on. So then they stopped paying their mortgage.
We received another offer. You should have seen the bank statements and what they used their money for. They were also paying off their credit card debt. They kept the rental money too. The first lien holder let them off free and clear through our negotiations with them. The second lien holder asked for a $30,000 promissory note which we negotiated down to $13,000 with payment of $110 per month and ZERO interest. This was a great offer for these sellers and they understood going into this deal that they would be required to participate in some way.
It was not our job to judge their motives or whether they were 'worthy' of a short sale approval or not. Our job was to negotiate the best possible outcome for them based on their own set of circumstances.
We never take their initial offer as fact. Everything is negotiable.
Nearly every situation where there is not a hardship case the seller is going to be adding cash or signing a note. If the sellers do not want to take part in that then we don't take the listing. There are many ways around this situation which we won't go into now- suffice it to say- you got to pay if you want to play.
On our financial hardship cases, we always get our sellers off without any payment plan or cash contributions even when there is PMI involved, which I will post on later- how to deal with PMI companies.
We have another listing where the seller owes over 2.6 Million dollars ( not disclosing exact #s). We just got approval on the short sale to close in the $600,000's. The buyer is going to pay all cash. The lender wants a $25,000 cash contribution. The buyer and seller are going to pay that contribution to the short sale lender.
Case in point-Seller has over 1 million dollars in his bank account and has some joint accounts. He was going to pay to play then changed his mind. We have been through several buyers because the lender wants a cash contribution from the seller of $50,000 but the seller does not want to take that out of his bank account. He owns several other properties and is not late on any mortgage payment except this one. This is not sitting too well with his lender. They feel he is getting off too easy. We negotiate back, saying, what does it matter, still better than a foreclosure. Now we finally found a buyer who is going to contribute a large hunk of this and the seller now will finally contribute to make the short sale happen. We will get this closed.
Case in point-Seller owns many properties around the country. They want to short sale their rental here in Florida. They make very good money. We will only accept their short sale listing if they agree to contribute to the short sale financially. We know their lender and they will be able to do the short sale. The seller agrees to participate financially if that is a condition. Knowing this lender- they most likely will require a contribution. The seller understands this and will participate. Investors can get short sales approved. We have one investor where we have listed and sold 4 of his properties so far as short sales and all were approved. By the way, all of his were Countrywide loans.
Case in point- Doctors and attorneys. We list and negotiate short sales for attorneys' personal and investment properties. We have already listed and closed short sales for 2 attorneys and are in negotiations on short sales for 3 other attorneys right now. The attorneys look great on credit and paper. It is all about selling their story. They all understand that based on their occupations alone they are going to be scrutinized and expected to play ball with cash to close or promissory notes. Many attorneys have taken a hit in income depending on what their specialty is. So although they may be able to pay a mortgage payment of $3500 a month; they no longer can make payments of $7,500 a month. If the lenders are not going to approve their loan modification which has been the case for each of our attorney clients their best option may be to try to get a short sale approved, cut their losses and move on with their lives and businesses.
The biggest obstacle is getting your short sale file to the upper management in these cases because employees at these servicers are looking at the occupation of 'attorney' or 'doctor' and instantly judge them to be some rich people who are much better off than they are. Diligence is key here.
Hopefully this clears up some misconceptions as to who may get approved for a short sale.Please remember this is based on Florida stats, Florida laws and the way the lenders treat properties in Florida which is going to be much different than in Arizona or other trust deed states. The only constant is that rules and policies change in regards to short sales often.
Cutting commissions on a short sale has been a hot topic over the past few days.
My thinking about commissions associated with short sales is that the listing commissionshould be negotiated up front with seller, listing agent and also seller's mortgage lender who is going to be asked to take a big hit to make the transaction happen. Let all parties involved agree before any work is started.
How can a seller in a short position agree to pay a listing commission when he knows he can't pay off the mortgage? I really don't think that is a valid contract. Agreeing to something that you know you can't perform is fraud. So why would you knowingly enter into such a contract and expect a third party to respect your contract with the seller?
I haven't taken a short sale listing so I really have no idea if a bank will agree on a commission before the listing is taken or not. But that just seems like the most logical thing to do. If you can't work out a reasonable commission, then you shouldn't take the listing.
Here is a perspective that might make you see things from the bank's perspective a little.
Let's say that you take on a short sale and the bank cuts your commission to practically nothing. Since your listing agreement is not with the seller's bank, but with the seller, there isn't much you can do. You decide to go after your seller for the commission that they agreed to pay you after the closing of the sale that shortchanged you.
Let's say that the seller owns a second car worth $20,000 which just so happens to be what they owe you for your commission. You and the seller agree that the seller will sell the car and give you the proceeds in order to settle your claim against them for your real estate commission.
They hire an attorney to arrange the sale of the car. The attorney finds a buyer for the car for $20,000. This is a very skilled attorney who has a lot of experience and isn't ashamed to charge what he thinks he is worth. He charges the seller $18,000 for his services which leaves the seller only $2,000. The seller is $18,000 short on your commission. This is the only asset they have left.
You think to yourself that the seller is an idiot for paying the attorney $18,000 to sell a $20,000 car which then leaves only $2,000 for them to pay you. You call the attorney and say that $18,000 is way too much of a fee to charge for selling a car and that the attorney needs to reduce his fee so that your seller has more money to pay you. The attorney promptly reminds you that you have no right to interfere with the attorney's agreement with the seller. The attorney has to run his business as he sees fits and it's only up to him how much he charges for his services. He has the exclusive right to sell that car for the seller and he's not going to cut his fees one penny.
You tell the seller that the $18,000 in fees to sell a car is way too much to spend and you can show them others who will do it for much less. This will allow the seller to be able to pay a much bigger portion of the commission that they owe you. The attorney says that you are illegally interfering with a contract between two other parties.
The seller says that his attorney has worked long and hard to find this car buyer and put together this deal. His attorney has many expenses he needs to pay to stay in business. Your seller goes into details about how expensive it is for attorneys to run a business. The attorney says that the partners in his firm actually take a big portion of the fee and he, himself, actually ends up with very little.
I guess my point is that a short sale is not a normal real estate transaction and if you choose to participate in it, be aware of what can happen and cover yourself accordingly. If you can't get the bank to agree to an acceptable commission up front, then decide whether or not you want to spend your time in such a risky situation.
Disclaimer: ActiveRain Corp. does not necessarily endorse the real estate agents, loan officers and brokers listed on this site. These real estate profiles, blogs and blog entries are provided here as a courtesy to our visitors to help them make an informed decision when buying or selling a house. ActiveRain Corp. takes no responsibility for the content in these profiles, that are written by the members of this community.
With the Recovery Plan, the unemployment rate was projected to be 7.8% by now. Without the Recovery Plan it was projected to be 8.8%. The reality is that it's 10.2%. The actual rate is 43% higher than they projected!!
Hi folks. Let's talk a little bit about professional courtesy. I hear this term quite a bit on AR and in my business. Usually, it goes something like this:
;)
;)
