All Forum Posts by: William MacBride

Hi,
As I look over the options for getting started in real estate I find that what looks the most feasible right now is being whats called a bird dogger or jobber. I have virtually no money to even invest to begin with.
I need to clear up some basic confusion as to how "leads," potential properties attractive to investors, are generated. First off, why is there such a need for bird dogs or jobbers (I read theyre virtually the same thing) if people can just browse websites? Its relatively easy I'd imagine to for an FSBO seller to post their property on a website. And real estate agents have even more latitude with the multiple listing service (MLS).
So does a bird dogger or jobber browse websites and get a 3000 dollar fee for finding something a rehabber or other investor could have found just as easily by doing some sort of real estate site web search in their area? It just doesn't make too much sense.
If somebody could outline what a bird dogger actually does, what function they serve, and how best for a newbie in it to get started I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
Will

Thanks that clarifies a lot. I can see how he'd want to do any number of options rather than foreclose.

Will

Hi. Trying to get some very fundamental stuff answered and clarified.

example 1:
Homeowner Scott Spivey took out a mortgage for 200 grand and bought a house. He paid 10,000 dollars on it and then lost his job. He can't pay any more. The bank begins sending him letters saying they're going to foreclose. Scott will have to leave and the bank will auction the house off so they can get some of their money back.

1. absurdly basic question:
I realize this represents a number of opportunities for investors, but first I need to know simply: Why can't Scott Spivey just say - "ok fair enough. I can't pay. I'll move out and get a cheap apartment. that'll be that." If he leaves and gives them the title, he doesn't own the house any more. He doesn't owe them much more money (just, I'm assuming, the difference between the original loan minus the amount of equity, and the price they get for it at auction. Or would he even owe this?). This isn't optimal I guess, since he doesn't want to owe ANY money, but it doesn't seem so terribly bad. He pretty much just moves out and that's the end of it.
What is the MAIN reason that a foreclosure is so undesireable to a homeowner? Is it because he doesn't want it on his credit record? is it because he'll still owe the bank the difference I mentioned above? Or is it some other factor I'm misunderstanding? I need to get this really clear because it seems to me the whole process (especially in the sub prime mortgage housing crash conditions of our current times) starts here - with somebody who doesn't want to go into foreclosure and is thus ready to make all kinds of deals.
That's enough to start with I'll ask more absurdly basic questions in subsequent posts.

Thanks a lot,
Will

Thanks a lot for the reply. I see the situation - it's probably pretty common to have that happen. somebody only has paid off a little of the mortgage.
While we're on the subject, I can think of a few alternate outcomes that might occur, might as well explore them, basic as they might seem
1. lets say we've got that same situation, somebody owes close to the full amount on a mortgage on a 300k house. let's say they owe 275k still. Investor comes in and pays the lender 25k and assumes the rest of the mortgage. Now he's got plenty of time. He makes 10 grand in repairs in a month. So now he's put only 35k into the house. He finds a buyer who'll pay FMV - 300k. He sells it, pays the mortgage off, and walks away with 15 grand.
I just want to know if that situation is fairly common, or if you have any comments on it. Probably it would be hard to find a buyer (rather than an investor looking for a "wholesale" property) who would be able to come up with the full 300k up front.

I'll posit some more hypothetical situations in subsequent posts.

Thanks again,

Will

I heard that you need some kind of a license to do short sales. Is this true and if so what kind of license is it and how do you obtain it?

Will

[note: I posted tis in the regular foreclosures forum but i realzie its more of I short sale question so Im postin git here too.]

Hi
I'm just getting into this and trying to clarify the basic cash flow patterns of the foreclosure and short sale market. Bear with me because I'm a real newbie. Let me start with a hypothetical situation.

Somebody takes a mortgage for 300, 000 dollars out to buy a nice house. They make their payments ok until they've achieved 100 thousand dollars of equity. They still owe 200 grand, and suddenly they lsoe their job and can't make any more payments. They start getting notices from their lender that their property is going to go into foreclosure.

The way I understand the short sale deal is that their lender agrees to take 150, 000 for the house instead, to save them time and hassle and fees for auctioning the house off. But the individual in foreclosure can't pay them this amount of money. That's where an investor comes in with the money and either buys the house himself, or flips it quickly making say 10 grand.

Now- what I don't understand is why the owner of the house can't just skip these middle men and sell the house himself. I mean if the house was worth 300 grand when he bought it, it should AT LEAST be worth the 150 or even the 200 that he owes right? Hell it might even be worth more than the mortgage he took out.

It's referred to as an "upside down' situation when the owner can't expect to make as much from sale of the house as he owes the lender, but I just don't really see why this is the case. Wouldn't prices have to fall very sharply to create this situation, and even if he'd only paid off a little of the mortgage wouldn't he still be in a fairly good position?

If anyone can clarify this I'd appreciate it.

Thanks a lot,
Will

Hi
I'm just getting into this and trying to clarify the basic cash flow patterns of the foreclosure and short sale market. Bear with me because I'm a real newbie. Let me start with a hypothetical situation.

Somebody takes a mortgage for 300, 000 dollars out to buy a nice house. They make their payments ok until they've achieved 100 thousand dollars of equity. They still owe 200 grand, and suddenly they lsoe their job and can't make any more payments. They start getting notices from their lender that their property is going to go into foreclosure.

The way I understand the short sale deal is that their lender agrees to take 150, 000 for the house instead, to save them time and hassle and fees for auctioning the house off. But the individual in foreclosure can't pay them this amount of money. That's where an investor comes in with the money and either buys the house himself, or flips it quickly making say 10 grand.

Now- what I don't understand is why the owner of the house can't just skip these middle men and sell the house himself. I mean if the house was worth 300 grand when he bought it, it should AT LEAST be worth the 150 or even the 200 that he owes right? Hell it might even be worth more than the mortgage he took out.

It's referred to as an "upside down' situation when the owner can't expect to make as much from sale of the house as he owes the lender, but I just don't really see why this is the case. Wouldn't prices have to fall very sharply to create this situation, and even if he'd only paid off a little of the mortgage wouldn't he still be in a fairly good position?

If anyone can clarify this I'd appreciate it.

Thanks a lot,
Will