So, I purchased a home at 450k. The bank calls me to see if I would like to short sell my home. I say no, I would like a principal reduction of 100-200k. Bank says no?
Why won't the bank reduce the principal? It would appear that the bank would rather take the home from under my feet, sell it to some one else for less, and have the loss go against me as the short seller (don't know what the negative repercussions are, no mention from bank). So the 450k house is sold for 250k-350k to some other guy, loss of 100-200k to bank/short seller.
Why would a bank short sell and take a loss vs. allowing a principal reduction so owners can stay in the home?
Is this the twisted backdoor process of transfering ownership of property to the state.
Maybe state is a strong word, I mean bank?
Why can't I short sell a home to myself, wouldn't that be the same thing as a principal reduction?
Why won't the bank reduce the principal? It would appear that the bank would rather take the home from under my feet, sell it to some one else for less, and have the loss go against me as the short seller (don't know what the negative repercussions are, no mention from bank). So the 450k house is sold for 250k-350k to some other guy, loss of 100-200k to bank/short seller.
Why would a bank short sell and take a loss vs. allowing a principal reduction so owners can stay in the home?
Is this the twisted backdoor process of transfering ownership of property to the state.
Maybe state is a strong word, I mean bank?
Why can't I short sell a home to myself, wouldn't that be the same thing as a principal reduction?
Comment