In your experience is this common practice? The few
banks I am familiar with will accelerate; but I do know
it is common practice for unsecured financiers to sell
paper. I guess what I am getting at, is I fail to see
the reasoning behind exclusively selling the paper of collateralized loans.
I can certainly understand the argument behind selling
the paper as opposed to foreclosing IF the money was
right. It seems to me, that it basically boils down to
a math problem for the bank. Why restrict a means of
exit?
Of course, it is my understanding most large banks will
not even entertain the idea of selling the paper and
that too is perplexing. IIRC you have said before that
it has something to do with their charter. Is that the
case here?
JT I know you are one of the longest standing and sharpest dudes on this board…good to hear from you.
I believe Larry is doing these non-recourse.
I’m thinking if one of the sharpest pencils in the box (YOU) will pay say 20% of face value and Larry is thinking say 75% then maybe 50% is feasable if you work at it. At 50% though I’m already feeling the risk vs reward alarm going off.
I’ve bought a few houses in my area for under $15k but I don’t think any of them were habitable. I’m thinking in other areas there may be such a house. I hear some very habitable houses are being bought in Michigan for cheap!
So I guess the basics apply here: build a list of buyers first.
Didn’t say it was a Bank, it is a LARGE inst… but not a bank. This has nothing to do with a charter issue in this case.
Their business model does not include foreclosure, silly as that seems. It is puzzling to me as well, but they are entitled to be as foolish as they desire, expecially when it creates oppty for me.
Posted by George(OH) on August 08, 2011 at 10:35:35:
L, you’re exactly right about this. I’m from Detroit,
and one of my best buds is a realtor and appraiser. He
tells me ALL the time I need to get back there and
scoop up some houses; according to him, $7K-$10K houses
are PLENTIFUL!