A growing consensus: foreclosures are the cure for the housing market

With the ongoing failure of all other potential remedies to the excessive debt hangover from the housing bubble, a growing chorus of experts are starting to endorse foreclosure as the best remedy for the woes of loanowners.

Irvine Home Address … 339 DEERFIELD Ave #20 Irvine, CA 92606

Resale Home Price …… $360,700

Don't you know promises were never made to keep?

Just like the night, dissolve in sleep

I'll be your savior, steadfast and true

I'll come to your emotional rescue

Rolling Stones — Emotional Rescue

Borrowers need tough love. The truth of their suffering is rooted in their attachments to the house they occupy and the excessive debts they applied to it. These people need emotional rescue. Unfortunately, loan modifications are not the answer, and free-money gifts of principal reduction are not forthcoming. The rescue they need is a foreclosure.

Back in May of 2009, I asked if foreclosures were a crisis or a cure. I made the following observation:

The only rational method of principal reduction is through foreclosure. As a society, we need to stop viewing this as a “foreclosure crisis.” There is no foreclosure crisis; there is a debt disease, and foreclosure is the cure.

I followed that post in May 2010 with a detailed argument: Foreclosure is a superior form of principal reduction.

Ever since the Great Housing Bubble began to deflate, everyone has incorrectly identified the problem as foreclosure. The real problem is not foreclosure, the real problem is that borrowers have excessive debts due to the huge loans lenders underwrote that inflated the housing bubble. Foreclosure is not the problem, it is the cure. Further, there is only one reason foreclosure is seen as the problem: people have to move out of their homes after a foreclosure, and I have demonstrated how private hedge funds and other parties could solve that problem.

One way or another, the banks are going to write down huge amounts of bad debt. Nothing can save them, and we shouldn't try. Principal reductions are the worst possible solution to the problem of excess debt left over from the Great Housing Bubble. Principal reductions merely gives foolish borrowers a pass. If the borrowers go through foreclosure, they have consequences that minimize moral hazard:

  1. Borrowers will be forced to rent, at least for a time.
  2. Borrowers will have reduced access to consumer credit as the foreclosure lowers their FICO score.
  3. Borrowers will have to save and be prudent in order to meet the standards of home ownership and get another loan.

All of those consequences — inadequate though they may be — are eliminated if the GSEs merely reduce principal. The borrowers who have the most to gain are those who borrowed most foolishly, and the people paying the price are (1) prudent borrowers and (2) those who didn't borrow at all. Next time around, there will be no prudent borrowers, and everyone will participate. Who is going to pass on free money?

To further make the point, I wrote the post Foreclosures are essential to the economic recovery. The excessive debts and the diversion of income to lenders reduces disposable income and serves as a drag on the economy.

As long as the debt on real estate is excessive and capital is tied up in non-performing assets, the economy will suffer. It's really that simple. The solution is equally simple: foreclose on delinquent borrowers wiping out the debt and extract the remaining capital value. With the excess debt removed, borrowers can use their wage income to buy goods and services rather than giving it to the bank. When the mis-allocated capital is returned to the market, new investment will be spurred in areas where capital is most needed. Right now, we don't need more real estate.

Since all the previous solutions people have come up with have failed, the voices of reason are beginning to be heard in the mainstream media.

How to rescue the housing market: Foreclosures!

By Tami Luhby August 31, 2011: 5:27 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — If the Obama administration really wants to save the housing market, it should speed up the foreclosure process — not prolong the inevitable, experts say.

Four years into the housing crisis, the real estate market is still teetering on the edge. The Obama administration has tried one program after another to stem the tide of foreclosures with limited success.

Limited success? Loan modification programs have been a complete and utter failure. There is no measure of performance by which these programs can be considered even a partial success — except perhaps to the banks who merely hope to buy time.

And it is continuing to look for ways “to ease the burden on struggling homeowners,” though no new initiative is imminent, the White House said this week.

If you want to ease the burden on struggling loanowners, foreclose on them and purge the debt. Foreclosure does that. Everyone keeps groping for a solution that allows those who have borrowed excessively to stay in their homes. That is wrongheaded. Loan modifications are the only viable alternative. Without debt reduction — and there should be no debt reduction — loan modifications still leave the borrower with a debt burden they will never pay off. That serves the bank, and for a time, the borrower might feel good about it. But over time, the borrower will come to realize they will never have equity, and they are merely renting money from the bank. Worse yet, the cost of rent on the money far exceeds the cost of renting a comparable property directly, and the money-rentership arrangement leaves them trapped in their homes.

But some housing experts argue that the administration should go in a different direction than it has in the past. Instead, they say it's time to focus on pushing many of those delinquent borrowers through the foreclosure process and putting foreclosed properties back into use.

We can't allow squatting to go on forever. Squatting is not a viable long-term solution to the housing crisis. If banks allow the squatting to continue, they have given away free homes. Lenders will have strongly rewarded the worst possible borrower behavior. It's moral hazard on steroids.

While some of the 2.2 million loans in foreclosure can still be saved, many are too far gone, they say. Some 37% have not made a payment in more than two years, while another 34% have not made a payment in 12 to 23 months, according to Lender Processing Services.

71% of delinquent loans in shadow inventory have been delinquent more than a year. Those are huge numbers. Millions and millions of homes are yet to go through the foreclosure process. These loans will not be cured through loan modification, and unless they win the lottery, none of the borrowers are going to become current by making up past payments.

Loans enter into foreclosure, but never come out,” said Thomas Lawler, founder of Lawler Economic & Housing Consulting. “If this keeps going on, you have a continual overhang that never goes away.”

Delaying foreclosure increases the percentage of homeowners who'll likely never catch up, Lawler said. In 2009, only 6% of delinquent borrowers were more than two years behind. And it means vacant properties still in limbo could fall even further into disrepair, hurting the value of the surrounding housing market.

Thomas Lawler is exactly right. I know he has been working closely with Calculated Risk, and he has a thorough understanding of the problem and the implications of the solutions presented. The best case for resolving overhead supply is very slow appreciation as lenders sell into any price rallies. The most likely scenario is a slow deflation while lenders liquidate at a measured pace.

Lawler is not the first to warn about the consequences of slowing the foreclosure process. Since the housing crisis began, several experts cautioned that foreclosure prevention efforts may only prolong the pain.

Accelerating foreclosures is tricky, however, especially since it is largely the purview of the states. But the administration could work with state officials to speed the process, especially on vacant homes, he said.

I watch the foreclosure flow through the Las Vegas auction site every day. Whenever I see lenders postpone the auction on an empty property, I ask myself why. The only plausible answer is that they are managing the MLS inventory because if the auction happens the property will either be an REO or a flipper resale. Even with the legions of squatters gaming the system, lenders have a huge inventory of empty homes they could be processing if they wanted to.

The push would come at a time when many mortgage servicers have slowed foreclosure efforts as they resolve shoddy paperwork practices. Foreclosure filings in July dropped to their lowest level since November 2007, due to processing delays and foreclosure prevention measures, according to RealtyTrac.

That is a red herring. The foreclosure delays are caused by lenders wanting to delay recognition of losses and to slow the double-dip in home prices brought about by the excessive inventory. Foreclosure prevention measures are responsible for delaying foreclosures, but with the high failure rates, they do little to actualy prevent foreclosures.

Getting rid of the glut

Another key to helping the housing market is facilitating the resale of homes that have already been foreclosed upon, experts said. This glut of vacant properties will continue to weigh on home values until they are sold.

“They can't be a glacier hanging over the market with everyone waiting for it to fall,” said Jim Gaines, research economist at The Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University. “Those properties have to clear the market.

Most in the general public don't understand this. Properties witheld from the market temporarily do not help the market bottom. It may hold prices up for a short time, but these properties will eventually need to be liquidated. As they are sold, prices will fall. It does not need to be an avalanche which takes prices down quickly. It may be a slow bleed which takes prices down slowly over a long period of time.

A slow bleed is not better for the market. It traps more people underwater for longer periods of time, and it stops any buyers from having move-up equity to facilitate a move-up market. A speedy and steep decline followed by slow appreciation is much better for the overall health of the housing market.

A first step could be to sell off the foreclosed properties owned by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration. Collectively, they own 248,000 homes, about 31% of the foreclosure inventory.

The administration and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are already looking for ways to unload these foreclosed homes. Earlier this month, they put out a request for ideas, including possible bulk sales of inventory. Also, they are interested in turning many of these properties into affordable rentals, which are sorely lacking in many communities. Experts interviewed agree this would be a good move for the market.

Apparently, the reporter interviewed some “experts” who have no idea what they are talking about. Turning REO into rentals is a very bad idea. The government has already proven to be a terrible landlord. There is little reason to believe they could effectively and efficiently manage a portfolio of millions of individual homes. Can you imagine the service requests they will get and what their response will be?

To entice investors to purchase these homes, as well as other foreclosed properties owned by banks, the administration could advocate for changes to the tax code, Gaines said. For instance, more favorable capital gains or depreciation rules could attract buyers.

The case against foreclosure

Of course, not everyone agrees that pushing people through the foreclosure process is the best solution to the housing crisis.

David Min, associate director for financial markets policy at the Center for American Progress, argues that there are many homeowners who can be saved if their payments can be adjusted to affordable levels or if some of their principal is forgiven.

Another pinhead who wants to encourage moral hazard by giving away free money to people who can't afford the houses they occupy. This solution is undoubtedly appealing to those who are squatting in houses they don't deserve to be in, but for those of us waiting to buy these properties, these are bad solutions that keep the undeserving in these properties at our expense.

This particularly applies to those who are only a few months behind.

Foreclosure is very costly for servicers, homeowners and neighborhoods, he said.

“There are a lot of other options that make more sense” than foreclosure, Min said. “It's just so destructive to value. We should be pulling every lever we can.”

No we shouldn't. It's fools like this who influence public policy. I'm sure he means well, but his dumb ideas are preventing an economic recovery.

Mediation, for instance, could help some homeowners avoid foreclosure, he said.

No. This merely delays foreclosure and allows people more time to squat in houses which should be put on the market for a new buyer who will pay less, have less debt, and likely be able to sustain ownership.

Some 23 states and the District of Columbia currently have programs that require mortgage servicers to sit down with borrowers and discuss the homeowners' options, though many began only in the last year. More than 70% of mediations end in a settlement, often restructuring the mortgage to a sustainable level, according to the center.

Helping those still current with their payments can also give the housing market — and the economy — a lift, albeit a somewhat marginal one, experts said.

Bullshit. The best thing for the economy is to purge the bad debt and get a new owner to occupy the property with less debt and more disposable income.

For instance, the administration could revamp its refinancing program aimed at allowing underwater homeowners to take advantage of today's lower interest rates.

No, this is an expensive idea that merely promotes imprudent borrowing.

Improvements could include reducing some of the upfront costs and underwriting requirements.

Lowering borrowers' monthly payments would give people more money to spend. And, for those on the edge, it could make it more likely that they will stay in their homes.

“It would be helpful to some borrowers with high rates,” Lawler said.

It would be helpful to borrowers with higher rates — at taxpayer expense. Foreclosure is still the best solution to the problem.

As someone who has argued for more foreclosures to clear the market and stimulate the economy, I am not surprised at the economic doldrums we are experiencing now or the wrongheaded policies which make our problems worse. Everything which has transpired over the last few years was easily foreseen by those who clearly understood the problem. Dean Baker among others has been consistently right about the housing bubble and the problems resulting from its deflation. It is gratifying to finally see the rest of the country awaken to the reality of our problems and the solutions required. If policymakers can overcome the emotional arguments favored by those who want to do the wrong thing, we might get back on the right track.

$264,880 of free money and over two years squatting

It should be apparent to anyone who reads this blog frequently that many California home owners managed their finances through Ponzi borrowing against the increasing equity in their homes. Most of these people didn't see the folly in what they were doing, and the rewards of this behavior was so great, the desire to own for free bank money will likely endure to inflate future housing bubbles.

Nowhere else do ordinary citizens put $35,000 into an investment and obtain over $250,000 in cash returns over a five-year period. California real estate is truly special.

Lenders inflated this bubble. By giving people free money, they made houses very desirable. This prompted the buying which kept the Ponzi scheme growing. When borrowers finally stopped paying lenders back, lenders stopped making loans, and the entire Ponzi scheme came abruptly to an end in a massive credit crunch.

Lenders deserve to bear the full brunt of the losses for their behavior. It's only through massive pain will they be cautious about inflating another bubble. If the rewards exceed the pain, lenders will do this again. The bailouts we gave lenders lessened this pain. Only time will tell if the pain has made them too cautious to repeat their mistake.

  • The former owner of today's featured property paid $219,000 on 5/1/2000. She used a $175,120 first mortgage and a $43,880 down payment.
  • On 6/1/2001 she obtained a $193,000 first mortgage and withdrew $18,000 of her down payment.
  • On 4/7/2003 she refinanced with a $240,000 first mortgage and obtained a $57,000 HELOC. $100,000 more to spend.
  • On 12/26/2003 they enlarged their HELOC to $126,000
  • On 11/12/2004 they obtained a $200,000 HELOC.
  • On 11/2/2005 discovered the virtues of innovative financing. They obtained a $440,000 Option ARM with a 1.37% teaser rate.
  • The quit paying in late 2008 and squatted until 3/11/2011.

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 06/14/2010

Document Type: Notice of Sale

Foreclosure Record

Recording Date: 04/15/2009

Document Type: Notice of Default

The bank lowered their opening bid at auction to $351,000, but it wasn't enough to attract a third party.


This property is available for sale via the MLS.

Please contact Shevy Akason, #01836707



Irvine House Address … 339 DEERFIELD Ave #20 Irvine, CA 92606

Resale House Price …… $360,700

Beds: 2

Baths: 3

Sq. Ft.: 1367


Property Type: Residential, Condominium

Style: Two Level, Spanish

View: Park/Green Belt, Tree Top

Year Built: 1984

Community: Walnut

County: Orange

MLS#: P789308

Source: SoCalMLS

On Redfin: 47 days


Let's Make a Deal! Seller wants this Home Sold Today & they Mean Business. Bring your paint brush & decorating ideas as this Windwood Townhome offers lots of upside potential. Featuring a Main Floor Office-Den or Bedroom option with bathroom & laundry room, you'll be pleasantly surprised with 2 large bedrooms upstairs with private bathrooms in approx. 1,367 Sq. Ft. In addition, your kitchen with travertine counters & breakfast bar opens to your dining room & family room with vaulted ceilings & a cozy fireplace. If you love to entertain then move the party outdoors to your Large Wrap-Around Patio Backyard that is perfect for BBQ's. Conveniently located near Irvine schools, pools, tennis & basketball courts, tot-lots, parks, walking & bike trails, shops, restaurants, theatres & more. Hurry, this won't last!!!


Proprietary IHB commentary and analysis

Resale Home Price …… $360,700

House Purchase Price … $219,000

House Purchase Date …. 5/1/2000

Net Gain (Loss) ………. $120,058

Percent Change ………. 54.8%

Annual Appreciation … 4.4%

Cost of Home Ownership


$360,700 ………. Asking Price

$12,625 ………. 3.5% Down FHA Financing

4.26% …………… Mortgage Interest Rate

$348,076 ………. 30-Year Mortgage

$108,015 ………. Income Requirement

$1,714 ………. Monthly Mortgage Payment

$313 ………. Property Tax (@1.04%)

$0 ………. Special Taxes and Levies (Mello Roos)

$75 ………. Homeowners Insurance (@ 0.25%)

$400 ………. Private Mortgage Insurance

$288 ………. Homeowners Association Fees


$2,790 ………. Monthly Cash Outlays

-$271 ………. Tax Savings (% of Interest and Property Tax)

-$479 ………. Equity Hidden in Payment (Amortization)

$19 ………. Lost Income to Down Payment (net of taxes)

$65 ………. Maintenance and Replacement Reserves


$2,125 ………. Monthly Cost of Ownership

Cash Acquisition Demands


$3,607 ………. Furnishing and Move In @1%

$3,607 ………. Closing Costs @1%

$3,481 ………… Interest Points @1% of Loan

$12,625 ………. Down Payment


$23,319 ………. Total Cash Costs

$32,500 ………… Emergency Cash Reserves


$55,819 ………. Total Savings Needed


25 thoughts on “A growing consensus: foreclosures are the cure for the housing market

  1. Kelja

    IrvineRenter – thank you for calling bullshit on some of the so-called experts and pundits.

    I like it when someone writes:

    “Also, they are interested in turning many of these properties into affordable rentals, which are sorely lacking in many communities. Experts interviewed agree this would be a good move for the market.”

    And they don’t name the ‘expert’. All to frequently, a reporter can pull a supposed factoid out of their ass and no one says boo.

  2. Duran

    What is happening on Redfin? Half of the Houses I click on are marked as “Pending”

    Has anyone else noticed this new phenom?

    1. IrvineRenter

      Redfin recently changed their default setting to show both active and pending sales. Previously, when a house went pending it fell off the default search. If you look at the total available for sale it is about 400 homes higher than the inventory we show which only includes active listings.

  3. Foreclosed on in Chicago

    Great piece. But I have to ask, Irvine Renter, what makes you think we are coming to the realization that more, not fewer, foreclosures are needed? It is true, but I don’t see many light bulbs going on in Washington about it.

    As someone who did a deed-in-lieu last year and would not change my decision for anything, I agree that this is the only “liberation” from debt that really qualifies for the name.

    But I have a suggestion for you and all the other “angry renters” in the country. You are right to point out that it would be patently unfair for government to “save” current debtors from their own actions. Yet you do not move the debate forward by posing it as an “us vs. them” fight.

    People who bought houses at bubble prices got screwed, and they don’t want to hear that others are waiting for them to leave so they can get a bargain.

    Between the poles of “you are a victim and you need/deserve help” and “get out so we can have your house” there need to be other options. There are probably some (not many) people who would be able to keep their houses if their rates are dropped. On the other extreme, people who have squatted for years should be moved out promptly, however much it hurts the banks.

    And for people who are in the middle (the majority) there should be incentives for them to vacate the houses they can’t afford quickly and with the least damage to their families. A fast-track to credit repair would help families buy less expensive homes, which would either enable move-up buyers to do so or take one more home off the market.

    I think the time has come for all of us to stop painting this as a black and white, all or nothing dilemma with one way out, one group that wins everything it wants, and one that loses. If we compromise amongst ourselves the terrorists (bankers) lose. If we keep attacking our neighbors, they win.

    1. Carl Pham

      Hmmm. Nope, on reflection, I quite like the pole of “get out so we can have your house.” Sometimes folks need serious pain to learn their lessons, and those lessons have to be learned so your follies don’t drag the rest of us down, too.

      How about you just be thankful we don’t have debtors’ prison anymore, and that you *can* walk away from your promise — which cost many of us years of living in unreasonably cramped conditions, and ravaged our savings — with not much more than a black mark on your borrowing ability?

      1. Foreclosed on in Chicago

        Have it your way Carl. Mutual Assured Destruction.

        I guarantee you I’ll be buying a nicer house next year than you’ll ever be inside. Hope it gnaws at you.

    2. newbie2008

      You have valid points on how to better present the arguements.

      I don’t see a purchase at a lower price a bargain. It’s more of getting screwed less or paying a fairer price. The lowered prices are still above historical afordability with respect to Price/Wages ratio.

      The borrowers need to do what is best and right for their families, the govt needs to do what is right in preventing reoccurances and the banks need to stop giving way money to those that can or won’t pay back, then expecting the govt to bail them out via forgiveness, taking on the bad loan, or refinancing or repackaging the bad loans. The govt is enabling the bankers to destroy the economy and banks for personal gain.

    3. Chapulin Colorado

      Foreclosed on in Chicago, I thought the guv’mint already tried to help those loanowners who got screwed by the housing bubble/banksters/TPTB: that was called HAMP and it didn’t work. I’m all for helping out my fellow being, without taxpayers getting footed the bill. If you have an idea, work it out. But to me it sounds more like you are asking for more HAMP-like programs, so I’m not a bit convinced your desire to help those screwed will work without screwing “the renters”. Maybe it is more wishful thinking. If there is a solution, what is it? Personally, after watching this unfold for 5 years, I think IRVINE Renter has it right. It is not meant to be mean-spirited… but after 5 years to get it right, enough is enough! Get rid of this debt cancer with the foreclosure surgery and chemo. Sure it will be rough on loandebtors, but cutting there losses really may be the better solution.

      What is the best solution? I don’t know.

    4. Truth

      “People who bought houses at bubble prices got screwed, and they don’t want to hear that others are waiting for them to leave so they can get a bargain.”

      Um, no, mostly they screwed themselves, or just got unlucky, so too bad, pay the dues, or move along. Is anyone going to rescue me because I had money in the stock market before it dropped in 07/08? No, and I’m not asking them to, which separates me from these whining house-sitters.

      1. Truth

        You are absolutely correct about Washington, though – this administration just keeps moving in the wrong direction on housing, with counterprodutive (costly) proposal after counterproductive (costly) proposal, and probably will again tomorrow night, when the President speaks to the nation.

  4. Walter

    I know two households with mountains of debt on option ARMs indexed to 1 yr Treasurys. I now look like a fool because my warnings have not come to pass.

    They brag about how low their payments are and how they are saving so much on interest. If the fed keeps rates at 0 for the next three years, how does this play out?

    I have stopped talking.

    I think the Fed/banks will foreclose a few, short sale a few, mod a few and let them pay for decades, and hope some have ‘morals’ and pay back the debt.

    This will take a long, long time.

    1. newbie2008

      “…hope some have ‘morals’ and pay back the debt.” the borrow are excercising an option in the borrowing contract and through the laws. I don’t agree with them, but that’s what many of them are entitled. The banks and WS have also gotten Congress and the Fed to throw money to the them for converting the non-performing defective loans to non-performing good loans. The GSEs accepting the new loans, warts and all. So now they’re the taxpayers responsibility. I say stop and have the guilty pay, but I know that I’m in the minority and so are most of the people on this board.

      Most want the goods and have someone else pay for it. I recall IR’s blog of ex-friend losing the house, but ordering expensive wine on IR’s tab, because the wine that IR order was beneath his standards. That’s just the state of affairs. Sad but true.

      1. Walter

        I agree. Issue is interest on my savings are being diverted to the debtors. The gov wants the loan owners to keep their nice wine cellars and keep voting them into office.

  5. IndyLew

    The best way to deal with a market and social collapse is to throw everyone on the street as quickly as possible? How about this instead: the solution to the apartment and housing market and the present social destruction being wreaked upon the United States, is to have decent jobs at decent wages. The top 1% has accelerated its total assets, while the bottom 90% is in a morass of epic proportion. US policy to destroy jobs by shipping them overseas, to destroy families by economic hardship, should stop forthwith. No chance. Invest accordingly. Until there are secure jobs and benefits, and a general feeling of peace and stability, foreclosures will continue.
    The bank/loan industry has learned nothing: If you want to see the next wave of the same story, look at the subprime and even sub subprime of the auto loan racke…market, going on. The shift to seven year auto loans even on used cars to people with no credit, sound familiar?

    1. IrvineRenter

      “The shift to seven year auto loans even on used cars to people with no credit, sound familiar?”

      Those loans are reprehensible. I remember in high school going to a used car lot where the operators would buy $200 to $300 cars at auction and sell them to people for $1,200 if they put $200 to $300 down. Basically, these guys financed their profit at 18% on jalopies. Great “credit enhancement” deal. Those guys were only one step above the payday loan crowd.

      1. newbie2008

        At least the used car dealers didn’t ask the federal govt to bail them out for bad car loans. The one sided deal was pay or the car would be reposed (car foreclosure). The sharks even required insurance to cover their loss upon collisions. Too bad the banks were not that honest and the govt so enabling to bad behavior. (Sorry that’s too judgmental in today’s PC speak.)

  6. thrifty

    Artificially supporting the market in any way is not working. However, I suspect it will continue until the situation is so bad that the simple and obvious (and oldest) remedy – selling to the highest bidder – is all that’s left. Given that all markets are local, it will vary in timing.

  7. Barbara Dresser

    This must have been written by a bankster laughing all the way to the bank. Most mortgages written during the last 15 years or so are full of fraud. Because of this there has been a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. That is what is causing our recession. Read all about it at http://www.livinglies.wordpress.com. Wake up people. You have been duped!

  8. Ring

    This piece is off the charts wrong. If these properties were commercial real estate it would be immediately understood that the principal should be reduced. Both parties to these deals believed the appraisals, although in the case of the lenders they very likely tried to get a larger appraisal so they could do the deal. If the necessity is to reprice the market, then principal reductions accomplish it cheapest. Sorry, but the views here are the problem, not the solution.

    1. Walter

      Then why am I seeing so many short sales in commercial real estate?

      Are you a commercial real estate professional with first hand knowledge of these deals?

Comments are closed.