Short sales and REO's
The lifeblood for some agents and offices. Dreaded words for others.
Yesterday, I heard of a bank that rejected an offer that was $13,000 above market value and almost $60,000 above a reasonable buyer's value.
Why? The BPO was inflated. What causes the problem and how can we avoid it? Here's why I think the BPO system fails everyone:
- Is there a potential conflict of interest? If a BPO comes in low, does the loss mitigation department stop using the agent that completed it? If it is high, does it increase the chance of the agent receiving more BPO's?
- Is the agent doing it for listings? If so, would they be more inclined to show a higher value to impede the short sale but get the listing after REO?
- Is the BPO a "SNAP SHOT" of past market activity without consideration for potential pending fire-sale listings?
Why in the world would an agent go out and do a BPO? Community service? Could there be an ulterior motive like listings or more BPO orders? Could these motives create a conflict of interest?
I can understand that banks are going through tough times.
It just rubs me wrong when I see a property with an offer at $180,000 go to foreclosure due to a BPO at $205,000, only to sell as an REO at $150,000.
For that $30,000, they could've paid 6 analysts $5,000 each to realize that $180,000 is a solid offer and that the BPO value of $205,000 was a pipe dream.
Maybe we can create a rule that if a deal is turned down due to a bank hiding behind an artificial value, their loss, as reported to the IRS can only be between the highest offer received and the amount that was owed.
In the case above, since an offer came in at $180,000 but they sold the home at $150,000, the bank should have to eat the $30,000 mistake instead of writing it off to the taxpayers.
Thanks for sharing. Stick with it!