| MinnItMan 
Follow
Befriend
23 comments
Saint Paul, MN
Followed by 0
Following 0
Ignored by 0
Ignoring 0
Ignore MinnItMan
Registered Nov 02, 2009
|
MinnItMan's most recent comments:
- On 21 Jul 2011
in
I don't want a buyer agent, but I still get one.,
MinnItMan said:
As an attorney, I would recommend using an attorney as a buy-side age agent, if, and only if the attorney had considerable experience (which most affordable ones won't). In California, however, they might be more common with real estate service industry layoffs (for example, a laid-off title company lawyer). This is a hard call.
That said, I'm am not sure about the customs in Cali, but a few distinctions are important:
Generally, agents always are working for the seller. A so-called "buyer-side agent," unless paid directly by the buyer, is going to get paid by the listing agent's company.
More accurately (but somewhat confusingly), the so-called "buyer-side agent" is technically called the "selling agent" and that is accurate because that agent is getting the buyer to buy (that is, "selling" the buyer).
So, unless you are paying "your" agent out of your own pocket, usually irrespective of whether you buy AND CLOSE or not, you do not have a true "buyer's agent." You will have a "selling agent" representing you to the listing agent, and the listing agent's broker will pay that agent.
Remember the true relationship is determined by the party literally paying the commission, a the lister is almost always paying "your" agent.
I suspect a major reason for what you are running into this issue is that "unrepresented" buyers are asking for a 3% discount because they're not using a realtor. While there is common sense to this, the agents see this as cheating the system. And to be slightly and grudgingly fair to them, listing agents probably do have an often-justifiable preference to avoid dealing directly with a buyer unless they are getting paid to do so.
So, while there are plenty of people who don't need an agent, it's also very easy "to not know what you don't know in real estate." - On 24 Jun 2011
in
which entity loses money when I foreclose on my house?,
MinnItMan said:
Who owns the policy? For the PMI, the insured will be the mortgagee or its successor and/or ultimate assignee (that is, the owner of the secutity instrument) So, probably the securitized trust. But there might be other insurance as well, and "inurance-like" side deals, like a CDS, the loss payees for which could be anybody if they are wholly synthetic (meaning it's truly a side bet from a party with no tangible interest like a mortgagee/assignee in the transaction).
But, just because you pay the premium, doesn't mean you are the beneficiary. Nor does it mean that the insurer paying a claim for a loss caused by you isn't subrogated to (literally, "standing in the shoes for") the payee's claim against you. - On 23 Jun 2011
in
which entity loses money when I foreclose on my house?,
MinnItMan said:
Mortgage insurance is fairly complicated in how it pays, and it depends on what type it is, an who is paying for it. PMI (single loan - paid by borrower) is different from portfolio insurance (multiple loans - paid by the portfolio, roughly speaking). FHA has its own insurance that is typically financed, so if there is an early default it's more-or-less the lender paying it, even though the borrower is nominally paying it.
A few things are clear, however. It is a mistake to think insurance payments to the lender relieve any borrower indebtedness. Also, the insurers are relatively small companies compared to their liability. They can't come anywhere close to paying their exposure to probable claims, let alone possible claims if principles are written down wholesale.
This is the real reason principle reduction is so difficult. It's the insurers call and they really would rather not have to pay. The primary insurer, say the PMI, may not care that much because it only covers part of the loss, that is the shortgage against principle up to the first 20% against the original appraised value. A portfolio insurer (or multiple insurers), however might be covering the rest and be subject to bigger and deeper losses.
These are secrets of the temple.
|
