The tax rolls say so. . .

Also, if something comes back asking for a reduction in commission, I’d say the listing agent had not done their job.

This is simply wrong. Apparently you’ve not heard of either refinances, pre-payment penalties, or costs of sale.

Often people can refinance at a value higher than what they owe–refinance appraisals tend to be high.

Often loans come with 3% pre-payment penalties. Add that onto the 9% costs of sale that can be involved, and you quickly end up with a deal that’s not a deal.

Short sales are not necessarily bargains. I’d even say most of them are not, and there’s no reason they should be.

Scroll down to comment number 64 on my Short Sale article, from a woman in Illinois who visited RCG this morning.

This is a VERY GOOD example of why short sales should be disclosed up front, to everyone, in advance. By everyone I mean disclosed to the public in a very clear way.

Doing so maximizes good consequences for the most number of people and minimizes negative consequences for the most number of people.

Doing so holds both agents accountable to their clients.

Hiding the fact until a more convenient time seems disrespectful to homebuyers who might have otherwise been fine with waiting it all out. Don’t home buyers deserve to know, just as much as home sellers deserve to have their private little financial mess kept quiet?

http://www.raincityguide.com/2007/03/05/short-sales

just read comment numer 64.

Disclosing Short Sales to the public maximizes the seller’s ability to attract the right kind of buyer.

I can think of a rule that advises real estate agents to act against the seller’s best interest.

For example, sellers must complete the NWMLS Form 17 Disclosure statement, answering honestly about items that might affect a homebuyer’s decision such as marketability of title, easements, and so forth. This turns caveat emptor into caveat vendor. It might not be in the seller’s best interest to be honest, but now he or she is required to be honest on this form.

With a short sale, a seller cannot perform without the permission of a third party. Most would consider this fact a material fact, worthy of disclosure.

What we’re debating, is WHEN the “short sale” terms are disclosed.

If the home is in foreclosure, it is now a matter of public record and is no longer private, for anyone could uncover these facts. Not all short sale transactions are in a state of foreclosure.

I still hold to my idea that when it becomes a selling point, then agents will, as Greg pointed out, talk with their sellers about the advantages of putting “short sale” in the public comments.

I am of the belief that no rule or law presumes to direct representatives of consumers to act in a manner contrary to the consumer’s best interest, nor do they have the authority to do so.

When and if they do make a rule that tells you to act in a manner that is contrary to your client’s best interests, they lacked the authority to do so.

There is a reason for every rule. As long as you know that reason and preserve that reason in a different manner, you will never be fined for acting in your client’s best interest.

Case by case, my client and I will talk about these things and decide if, and if so how, to disclose that the closing may be delayed and how to pay the selling office what we promised in the mls to pay them. That simple.

Agent’s whining is the reason for so many rules. Agents afraid they may have to reach in their pocket to make the promise to pay a given % to the selling office is the reason for this rule. Now what would you do if you were not afraid? You’d find a way to guarantee your promise to pay in the mls, without it negatively impacting your client. Find that way, and the rule goes away.

I didn’t say “ignore” the rule. I said have a meaningful conversation with your seller client, and decide together what to do to accomplish the seller’s objective without negatively impacting the buyer or their agent. Who could find fault in that?