Mark Roth answers the question in Businessweek yesterday.
I say yeah, right.
In most cases, short sales are heavily weighted towards the lender in California. In many cases, borrowers are better off allowing foreclosure. Tell the bank to pound sand.
Of course, this is not a moral discourse. I’ll assume that you’ve done your diligence in trying to keep your property, and haven’t heloced the heck out of the place.
Is a short sale right for you? In most cases, no. Mark is dead wrong about California.
What do you think?
I think in all cases, it ultimately depends. However, I definitely agree with you in that most of the time, it’s just not the most efficient (or favorable) thing to do.
Businessweek,…should be, Business-weak or Business-wreaks! Their articles are often lacking the most obvious arguments, tending to cheer the current administration, and current policies without regard to the obvious illegal constitutional implications. Often touting miopic “big-city” statistics as the gospel for judging the country’s economic situation, while appeasing Wallstreet, financial institutions, Obamanomics, etc. In fact, Businessweek is merely a “shill” for selling their advertising, their only interest is selling ad space to boneheaded CEO’s; so their articles are written to tickle the twinkle toes of those who buy their ad spaces; hence, it’s probably why I get my copy for free, to make it look like they actually have subscribers,…Hahahahaha.
Real estate today is not a safe investment to capture 3-5% of interest year by year.
California and New york are the first to fall , fall hard.
We will soon fit in with Greece, iceland and ireland.
Globalization is their answer.
Hey, came to this page from Yahoo and just wanted to say thank you for the informative post you have written about.