In any situation where you don't disclose financial info on a transaction to your lender would be fraud... of course that's not what you're getting at. You are talking about the Bella, and since we don't know that is the case I will not accuse anyone at the Bella of doing anything illegal....and since they are actually advertising the offer, its not as though anyone is trying to conceal the practice.

Here you go in summary form:
1. Not disclosing financial information to your lender is fraud.
2. Receiving cash back at closing is illegal and would have to involve the lender since they see and approve the HUD-1 (with the exception of the buyer bringing a check to closing for closing costs and being refunded any money in excess of the closing costs).
3. Receiving credits at closing, getting a seller's assist (to a % approved by the lender), and including personal property in the sale of real estate is legal and has nothing to do with the points above.

What about offering free energy costs for 1 year? Since auto dealers are offering 0% financing until the second coming of Jesus and 1 year worth of gas for 2.99 a gallon to move inventory..maybe real estate will see these same kind of offers to swindle people into becoming sharecroppers and moving into a perceived asset that will probably devalue (exluding CC which is apparently the "exception."). Oh yeah some of that already happened with 100% financing and liar loans. I love how people are so parochial in their thinking. If the crap is not on my shoes then the economy must be doing great..to hell with the rest of the millions in the country. My world is great..for now..

um. What?

Sarcasm....

whooooosh!

Tough times in world's seventh largest economy: consumer spending down, unemployment up, municipalities going bust

California matters. It accounts for 13% of U.S. GDP. It was also where more than a third of the non-mainstream home loans such as subprime and Alt-A were made in 2006 and 2007, making it very important to the health of the banking system.

“California is big enough that it is going to drag a lot of the nation down with it,” said Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics consultancy in Los Angeles.

“You can’t have collapsing consumer demand in California and not expect it to have an influence.”

One particular area of concern is the way in which California’s faltering economy and rising unemployment interact with falling housing prices to prompt greater rates of mortgage defaults. This could hit banks with exposure to California in their mortgage loan portfolios, not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pb...533900601/1036


BUT CC is different.........we're insulated!

cali may suck but my properties here are fully rented. gotta love that.

An excellent idea...

They already are waiving condo fees for a year at some cc properties so free energy for a year on house purchases is a good natural extension to that.

After a year, you know, so many buyers' situations improve that they can subsequently afford to pay for heat. And food. It'd be a good idea to throw in baby food too.

P.S. Here's a letter from a United States Senator to her constituents that estimates potential losses to the economy as a result of the extreme housing deflation at 1.4 quadrillion dollars. (and no, that is not a typo, 1 quadrillion = 1000 trillion.)

Great, well that was like pulling teeth. So it appears that you are now willing to indicate that not disclosing that a car is provided in a residential real estate purchase to the lender is illegal. If this is not what you mean by the above then please say so.

So you have now said to your realtor brethren, if you are participating in a residential real estate transaction where a a car or anything else of significant value is provided by the seller, and if there is a lender, and if you do not inform the lender, then you are participating in a fraud.

Your contention is that the practice of providing a car (or anything else of value) without informing the lender is highly uncommon, and that it very rarely, if ever happened. My contention is that the practice was common during the run-up and is still occurring. As far as I am aware there are no other issues on this point where our positions differ.

The other issue yet to be resolved is that the TrendMLS (according to Prudential HomeExpert) specifies that sales volume in the Philadelphia area is down 32.8%. According to your calculated figures, that number is 15%. Either way the demand dropoff is staggering, but your value does not concur with published values. Why?

Glad to hear all is well in your world....

Mine too. The benefit for myself in all of this is the fact that people who no longer qualify for mortgages with much more strict lending standards are forced to rent. The rental market in Philly has never been better.