All Forum Posts by: Simon W.

Thanks Scott W.

The property is in PA. I found a list of closing cost and escrow fees.

I just took a snapshot at it.

To make it easier, which one would I (HAVE TO) pay even if I want all the Seller to pay for all the closing cost.

I am not backing off with the seller pay for all since I know he doesn't have any other backup offers. The numbers work for this property, but I am not attached to it so I don't really care if I get it or not.

In the event that he does accept my offer I want to make sure I know he is paying and what I am paying for those fees.

The property tax escrow & proration should be rolled over to the mortgage, right?

Thank you in advance!

Hi,

So I am in the middle of negotiating with the seller.

I told to listing agent that if I want to accept the seller's offer, he would have to pay for all the closing cost and escrow fees.

(I am new to this. This would be my first deal. I never bought a house.)

Did I ask the right thing? The agent responded back with

I read that buyer is usually responsible for those fees, but I know that everything in Real Estate is negotiable. And have heard stories people having the other party pay for it.

How should I respond back to that?

Thanks.

I could be wrong, but unless their lease expired with the old landlord you can't raise it.

wow Bill, thanks for the thorough post.

I understand what you are saying. Maybe I should've mentioned this in my first post.

I wanted to know about the equity in an REO is because I want to have it as a rental property and hoping to use the equity to purchase/down payment on a 2nd property.

The bank listed it at $30K, we negotiated and the bank agreed to $25K. Is the market value $25K?

So the only way to make equity on any property is to either do some work on the property?

Thanks Will Barnard

I think I got my answer on my question on this equity & REO.

I think the best bet is look at the property, run some comps, and see if the REO is indeed a good deal or not.

Patrick L., Thanks. It's is actually something I am thinking about.

Bill Gulley, thanks for your input.

I know they mind very much hahaha

for example:

If bank takes back the property, the borrower owes $50K and the house is worth $90K.

Bank isn't in it to do real estate. When having a property in their books, it becomes a liability. Sure the bank can try to sell it for $50K+ to either get back the money or make profit.

But from what I noticed, most REOs are listing much lower than the market value. I understand the vandalism and etc that can bring the value down as well, but the bank don't want to hold the property for long period of time.

Wouldn't the bank might take a loss say selling it for $45K or less depending on the BPO?

thanks everyone for your input, it definitely helps.

I am beginning to get the vibe that REOs are pretty much pointless if the banks are selling them at $X and then it's worth the same amount it's being listed unless you are a rehabber.

Thanks Jon Holdman
i was just trying to make an example.

I thought the word "Say that..." was given that I was trying to say it hypothetically.

I understand that usually it would be priced at market if it is move-in ready. However, isn't also possible that maybe that $30K is what the previous owner might owe and defaulted? or maybe bank wouldn't mind taking a loss since it is a liability on their books and the location isn't exactly too desirable?

Thanks for your response.

I understand that it's priced at 30K for a reason, I was trying to understand the equity number when it comes down to REOs.