Anyone care to chime in?

[Maryann L.]

The dumbest Realtor in the Northeast. I can't even believe he got a license.

http://massrealestatenews.com/beware-of-the-short-sale-investorshort-sale-fraud/

[Don Konipol]

Short sale investors would not exist if there was no demand for their services, i.e. enough retail buyers were in the market. It's a free market, everyone operates in their own best interest. If there was a higher offer on the table the seller would take it instead of the investor offer.

Bill's argument against short sale investors is the old one that the consumer is too dumb to make his own decisions. Therefore, a third party must protect him i.e. goverment, specially licensed government group (real estate brokers), etc. In some individual cases this might be true. However, overall, the free market sorts it all out.

Short sale investors bring much needed liquidity to the market of owners "upside down" in their homes. They exist exactly because of the service they provide - the ability to work thru 9 months of frustrating and often fruitless negotiation with corporate buracracies that are saddled with ineptness, inverse motivations, and governmental rules and regulations that negate the usual motivation of quick dealmaking. After providing the service of working thru these frustrations, investors who successfully complete the transaction can then try to sell the property to a retail buyer who only steps into the transaction when it can be closed in a reasonable time frame. Of course, the investors capital is at risk and he is not guaranteed any profit, the investment may well end in loss.

The economy works best when everyone works in their own best interest. This is known in a capitalist society as the invisible hand. Many people can't accept this because they can't accept the premise that people working "selfishly" in their own best interest result in a greater benefit for all. However, the result of so called unselfish interest is a government owned economy, and we have all experienced how well communism has worked!

One final note. The premise of Bill's argument is that whatever an investor offers on a property is too low because the investor hopes to sell it for a profit, so the seller should hold out for the higher hoped for price. This theory assumes that the desires, motivations, financial situation of both the investor and seller are exactly the same. Obviously this is not the case. A transaction can be good for both parties at a certain price. One party does not have to lose for the other party to win. Financial condition, ability to accept risk, time alloted, expertise all play a role. The people who are outraged by profit are the ones who believe that the economy is a zero sum game, i.e. if I win you have to lose. This is obviously not the case, almost all deals only get done when both parties get what they want.