You do win in either scenario so it really is a preference.

A couple things- Waiting around for something to happen that is totally out of your control is no way to win.

But everyone basically signed those agreements late into the search right before an offer was made, and because the seller almost always paid, it wasn’t the traditional negotiation you’d have upfront with a seller, 2ndly while I do think this is a net win for the consumer, the idea that the doj “solved a problem that didn’t exist” 1st of all it wasn’t doj it was a jury in Missouri 2ndly the issue is regardless of impact on consumer’s they were almost certainly violating anti-trust law which is illegal lol, the publishing of commissions and the fact that something like 98% of all agents were paid between 2.5-3% was textbook, imagine if the price for a ritz and a motel 6 we’re basically the same, you’d think collusion right? 

Just winning the bid and paying at the auction isn't the end of it. 

I think if you took the big $$ Out of the profession, everyone would win. . . .

With your credit and situation if you were below 12% I would say that’s a huge win from a private lender

Lenders almost always win in foreclosures.

But if you have properties you own you could use those as leverage and secure against those but no lender is going to give you basically an unsecured line which would attach if you win a foreclosure sale.

If you get sued what is the likelihood they will win and what are the possible damages?

They focus on finding long-term tenants, and it's a win-win as less turnover is less expense for us and less work for them.