My recent articles on this very subject have initiated a firestorm and, I am sure this next article will only throw nitro glycerin on the flames.

Before you read this blog, understand that I have not been appointed as some ethical, moral guardian and, I know that. By no means, do I believe I am going to change your opinion or win you over, that is not my intention. Take what I have written and do with it as you please, I really don't care if you think I am wrong, right or anything else for that matter. This is my opinion and if you don't want to know it, then stop now and don't read any further.

Know this, I feel I am right not because of some statutory legislation or common practice but because I believe in a certain way of doing business and that is what I hope is exemplified in this blog.

First let me explain what I believe a lie is. This will be important to keep in mind when you read the rest of this article. I believe a lie is when someone makes a statement or presentation that they know is false with the intent to deceive.

I believe a lie takes place when an "investor"; as it pertains to Short Sale Option Contracts, tells the bank they will offer them "X" amount of dollars for a property, passing it off as true market value, when they are holding behind their backs higher and better offers with no intention to disclose them to the bank.

I have heard others contend, that as long as you disclose the fact that the "investor" is going to resell the property expeditiously after the closing with the bank, then it's not a lie but, in fact it's full disclosure.

My problem with this argument is that it's based on the premise that the bank knows and agrees to the investor promptly selling the property for a profit from bids that were legitimately the banks but, the bank never had the option to consider. The bank was never able to consider the other higher and better offers because the investor intentionally withheld them. In many ways, I see this as equivalent to a bank heist.

The investor stole money directly from the bank not because of what he said however, because of what he intentionally failed to mention. The investor engages in deception when he misleads the bank into believing the only offer on the table is the investor's offer and it was the only offer received therefore it must be true market value.

This is a lie of omission. Let me explain, for the investor to remain silent and withhold from the bank vital information such as the additional higher better offers, is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the bank. Basically, this lie subverts the truth with the hope to manipulate the banks decision to the benefit of the investor and not the bank who is already coming up short on the sale of the home.

If we really wanted to have a serious moral and ethical discussion about this type of lie, we need to understand that a lie of omission infringes or maybe even violates the banks right to self determination but, that is a totally different conversation for a different time.

This is also a lie based on misinformation or in other words, the investor is perpetuating a falsehood with the intent to mislead the bank into believing something that just isn't true. The investor is misinforming the bank by claiming they only received one offer and that offer is the one presented by the "investor". This is a falsehood because the investor knows he has higher and better offers but is concealing them.

In closing, I think I have made my points loud and clear. I really don't think any educated counter argument can be presented. I do believe however many "spin doctors" or "investors" are going to come out of the wood work and speak only on bits and pieces of the truth with the purpose to get support for their seriously questionable and in my opinion illegal business practice however, be that as it may.

The truth is, each and every one of you reading this far have to make a decision. I only hope that each of you make the right decision.