I call BULLSHIT, #137

Posted September 17th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Are you really this obtuse, or is it intentional to validate a case that needs all the help it can get?

Dear Rob,

Interesting reading, that press release of yours.

I looked at it recently and remembered why we’re in this mess today . . . you fudge the facts to fit your story, having little and sometimes no regard for the truth.

As investors, we don’t have the opportunity to fudge facts. We have to play by the rules.

Most of us do.


inundated with paperwork

Case in point?

Your press release where you state . . .

Huey said property owners who agreed to receive “help” from the defendants were inundated with paperwork . . .— March 14th AG press release

“Inundated with paperwork?”

That’s ridiculous.

We’ve always attempted to use the absolute minimum of paperwork to bring about well-documented transactions. Doing so facilitates getting them done quickly (since there’s often no time) and with the least amount of effort.

And, we use simple documents with big print in plain terms so there can be no misunderstandings.

A typical deal involves a purchase and sale agreement (3 pages), a seller acknowledgement addendum (2 pages), and a quit claim deed (1 page).

Where an overage play is considered, add a tax sale addendum (3 pages), an assignment agreement (1 page), a letter to the county (1 page) and a Power of Attorney (1 page).

All total, that’s a dozen pages or so for us to do our typical deal, and in your world, that’s “inundated.”

Nonsense.


Try buying a home today

Bought or sold a house lately? Or looked at an MLS purchase and sale agreement in this century?

That one document alone is more than a dozen pages.

Add all the addendums, disclosures, and forms and a simple real estate transaction today often consists of upwards of 30 or 40 pages of fine print documentation, or more.

My former partner related a story about refinancing and spending nearly a half hour signing all the loan docs (and having time to read almost none of it).

So, my dozen pages of docs is the owner being “inundated,” because no one from your office bothered to notice that a normal loan deal today takes 30 minutes, a dozen signatures, and 50 pages to make happen?

Isn’t anyone but me paying attention here?

Are you really this obtuse, or is it intentional to validate a case that needs all the help it can get?


Partnering Up

We also do partnership deals that require a trust agreement (12 pages) an escrow agreement (5 pages), and a lease agreement (4 pages).

Sure, that’s more docs and more pages, but it’s the minimum required to do that deal and even then, is significantly less than simply refinancing today.

But “inundated” sounds unfair and makes me look like some despicable character hitting poor homeowners over the head with more paperwork than they could ever hope to make sense of.

Pure, unadulterated huey.

If you want to experience inundated, go buy a new home with a new loan and learn what being buried in paperwork is really all about. You’ll see, at a minimum, 100 pages of paperwork in a thick file in front of you.

By comparison, my doc package will feel as inundating as a fried chicken and potato salad picnic on a sunny day in June.


The Minimum Document Set

We’ve always used the minimum of paperwork, with the biggest print, with the clearest, “plain English” clauses, reviewed or created by real estate attorneys who make sure we’re fair to all.

And in your world, this is “inundated?”

Rob, I call BULLSHIT, and please pass me the buttermilk biscuits.

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


4 Responses to: “I call BULLSHIT, #137”

  1. Drew responds:
    Posted: September 18th, 2007 at 7:05 am

    You win that arguement hands down Joe. I could just see it now, the attorney asking the jury which of these stacks of documents do you feel “inundated” with, the stack on the left, or the stack on the right. And then the expression on the AG’s face when Juror after juror pick the typical Real Estate Agent forms, and barely glance over your mere handful of papers. There is a reason we try to be simplistic, we are not out to con or mislead homeowners, we want plain english, easy to understand, easy to follow documentation. For this exact reason, to protect ourselves without seeming devious. It makes you wonder, who out there buying or selling houses, has something to hide, the ones with more paperwork, or less. After all it’s all that paperwork that has put a hurting on the subprime market, after all would you sign a document knowing you’re interest rate in 2 years doubled and your payments doubled…or would you sign if that information was hidden in fine print and glanced over in a fury to sign your mountain of paperwork….

  2. roger responds:
    Posted: September 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    This whole thing is CRAP.

    Kaiser and Co. are not doing anything that is not practiced elsewhere all over America. Does this make it OK? maybe, and maybe not…as Kaiser is fond of saying, “it depends” (on each and every indivudual situation).

    However in places like Florida (where we are) there are instances of foreclosure investors actually being sent to jail for dealing in foreclosures and earning a profit.

    In a recent case if Pt St Lucie, Fla, the local sheriff’s office actualy arrested an individual who bought a house from somebody in foreclosure and moved into the house in question.

    Although I don’t persnally know of this investor, the way it was reported in the media it sounds like the investor actually did everything “right”….assuming that he had his document package done correctly and followed the letter of the law.

    Admittedly, there is considerable recent attention to investors and the media’s irresponsible reporting…they make it sound as if some of the investors took advantage of people who are down and out on thier luck, with their homes being in foreclosure. The media and their producers love to promote their TV programs with series about “Flip this House….the Home Ladder, etc….but never pay any attention at all to the people who got into bad deals when they had no business taking out the loan in the first place. What about all the people, including the investors who have done nothing wrong at all?

    What about the investors who keep people from having their personal possesions being set at the curb by the Sheriff who shows up to supervise the eviction as a result of the foreclosure process when the bank takes the house back?

    What about he investors who have actually saved people from making a bad situation worse?

    I have no doubt that there are a limited few investors who in fact ARE taking advantage of some people, but there will always be people taking advantage of a situation, no matter what kind of business is involved….i.e., real estate, mortgages, financial transactions, medicine, politicians, you name it.

    In every walk of life there are some people who will try to take advantage of others unfaily.

    The media is happy to report on homeowners who were supposedly taken advantage of by unscrupulous investors…however they do not bother to follow up with more stories to show what ACTUALLY HAPPENED…. and perhaps the exoneration of said investors who actually saved the homeowners even more grief by keeping a foreclosure off thier credit records, perhaps coming up with money to help the home sellers with money to move into a new apartment, giving them cash to feed thier families, etc.

    Most, if not all of these people would have never gotten into “trouble” in the first place had the homeowners not gotten mortgages which they never should have gotten in the first place from overly agressive and in some cases unscrupulous lenders, appraisers, mortgage originators, title companies, attorneys, real estate agents, etc. These are the ones who made it too easy for people to get into mortgages and payments which they reasonably could not have afforded in the first place. In other words, people who had no reason to overburden themselves in the first place had they not been approved and closed on loans which were practically guaranteed to go into default by beiing given loans to buyers/borrowers who never could have afforded to get financing in the first place…..which they would not have been able to afford had they not been given loans which would have been denied if it were not for the preponderance of “exotic” loan programs which allowed these people to get any kind of financing at all.

    Having said this, I point out that I was born into a family who made thier living working in the “media” ergo, I am a former reporter, newsperson, radio an TV newsman and on air personality. And I am also now a real estate agent/broker since 1976.

    I have the fullest respect for the law and for so called “ethics” in that when I speak to somebody about foreclosure, I always tell them that if they are thinking of something like a “short sale” that it WILL screw up their credit, and make thier life miserable. However, if the bank takes thier house back…. they will STILL have a foreclosure on their record, and they WILL almost always lose their home, and it will have a horrible effect on everything from thier personal financial situation, to their marriage, and their ability to obtain credit, until they can get back on their feet, and figure how to get their act together later on, and re establish credit, someday being able to buy another home after this is all behind them. It takes time for their financial problems to “heal” to get better, and go away someday. It WILL take to rebuild thier credit.

    And in virtually every case, they WILL lose their home, and regardless of an investor’s efforts, one way of another, they will be moving from thier home. So in most cases, the investor is not doing anything to harm them, and the intention in most cases is to help them.

    Of course the investor makes a profit…almost nobody is altruistic enough to work for no money by running around and solving the financial messes of the world which people have gotten themselves into.

    I do not like the fact that properties which I own are now appraising for 20-30% or more LESS than they did just 2-3 years ago and it is costing me a lot of money to carry these properties and give the rental tenants a home and a decent MARKET rent by me having to come up with money out of pocket every month to carry some of these properties. But…that’s part of the equation. I will just have to wait it out until the property regains its “lost” equity and eventully rises again to it’s former appraised levels of value.

    In that the “law” is jerking around investors like Kaiser and countess other investors who are just trying to make a living and show a profit….it does nobody any good to punish the investors from the “law” and the efforts of officials and politicians who can scream from the rooftops, publish press releases and the like that they are protecting the public by going after investors who are probably in most cases, doing things right.

    Without these investors, who admittedly make a profit…the homeowners will be evicted from their homes anyway, and the lenders can cry about how bad their situation is and how horrible thing are. These are the same people as mentioned above who allowed the homeowners to get themselves into a loan they should never had gotten in the first place.

    And, note that these “poor borrowers” did not seem to have any problem at all in signing the documents that got them into trouble in the first place. Is it a “greedy seller” or perhaps a “greedy lender?”

    The whole thing is CRAP, where were the officials in the first place who allowed these so called “exotic” loans to be authorized in the first place? Why didn’t they protect the “poor borrowers?”

  3. DaveD responds:
    Posted: September 19th, 2007 at 7:58 am

    Again, they can’t have it both ways. You’ve just made the case for what a true “inundation play” is. Which is what any institutional lender does… to protect his position, of course. Which means when he doesn’t get his payment he can foreclose… which creates yet again another inundation. Along with intimidation and ultimately sheriffs who carry firearms moving your stuff out the curb. But that’s OK, you see, because all these instutution lenders are licensed and regulated. To protect us from ourselves, of course.

    So what happens if you strip in down to one document? I’m referring to the deed, of course. Certainly no inundation here. You give the seller a check for a deed. Pain is gone. Watch what happens.

    He gets on with his life. Along the way, his brother, brother in law, mother in law or Uncle Louey tell him he is a loser, he got hosed and they would have bought it for more than $500. Or he gets a letter from the county telling him he got scammed. Or he gets a call from Cheryl or Huey (I’m an AAG and I’m here to help you… BTW you have been scammed.)

    Courtroom scene:
    Them: He stole our house.
    You: He deeded his house to me for $500 because it was in his best interest to do so.
    Them: We didn’t sign anything. We don’t know how to write.
    You: Isn’t this your signature on the deed? The Notary says so.
    Them: What’s a deed?
    You: What you sign to convey your house.
    Them: I didn’t know I was selling it.
    You: What do you think the $500 check you cashed was for?
    Them: I thought it was (pick one) a loan, gift, yada, yada.
    Judge: Joe, do you have any other documentation?
    You: No sir, I don’t believe in inundating the seller in his hour of need.
    Judge: That’s nice of you Joe, but without any other proof, there may not have been a meeting of the minds. Give them their house back along with your profits.

    Your paperwork is proof of their mindset and grasp of the transaction in their hour of need. It is bullshit to think or portray it otherwise.

    BTW, hasn’t the AG been inundating you with discovery demands?

  4. Davido responds:
    Posted: September 24th, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    Integrity without knowledge
    is weak and useless,
    and knowledge without integrity
    is dangerous and dreadful.

    – Samuel Johnson

    Joe, judging from your posts, the State’s prosecuters are lacking in both knowledge and integrity. May that give you cause to expect that their prosecution of the case will be even more weak and useless than it is dangerous and dreadful. Best wishes.


Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:


You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:



Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.