Thursday, July 19, 2007

Carl Cole does a short sale on his property

From Eyewitness news.com

Meantime, we have learned, Crisp's former partner, Carl Cole, took a big loss on a home he purchased in January of last year. The home, on Durand Oak Court in the Oaks, was bought for $620,000. Just last month, it sold as a short sale, for just $405,000 meaning the lender took a loss of $215,000.

This news just one month after word of an audit investigation by the state of the former real estate duo crisp and cole.

7 comments:

subsonic22 said...

Something tells me this is only the start for Mr. Cole. I would think someone so experienced would not get caught up in the RE frenzy. He had to see these type of markets before, especially in CA. He'd have been better off just selling real estate instead of playing real estate magnate.

Bakersfield Bubble said...

"He'd have been better off just selling real estate instead of playing real estate magnate"
__________________________


I can't find the link, but on their former website they had written stories about how in X years millions of people would be living here, so you better buy now so you can catch this wave...

They also had a story about how, if things slowed down, that Bakersfield would just become even more attractive to investors. LMAO. The exact opposite happened.

I think they believed their own BS. I guess if you say something enough times, no matter how crazy it seems, you start to believe it.

They didn't want to miss out on this mania they were trying to create?

bako said...

Carl had to sell the property for a loss because wonderful David Crisp sold Crisp & Cole's many assets without Cole's consent and kept the money. It isn't to be blamed on the market. Carl is a good man.

Radelow said...

Oh yeah....Mr. Cole is completely innocent. I call bullsh*t on that one.

subsonic22 said...

He might be a good guy, but he made some poor choices. Maybe he got taken advantage of by Crisp, but like the old saying goes, you are the company you keep. I don't see how his problems can be entirely blamed on Crisp. Here's why:

I searched public records. In Kern county alone, he still owns another 6-7 properties, 4 of which are upside down. Here is one example about being caught up in the RE frenzy. He bought one property 12/05 for $455k, 100% financed. The same property was bought in 5/05 for $355k. That's a 22% gain, or an annualized gain of 48.3%. Someone with his kind of experience should have seen that this type of appreciation can not be sustained long term. Did he really believe that some greater fool was going to come along and pay $100k more than he paid for it in a 7 month period? I thought as an investor you should try to find undervalued assets, not those at peak value. BTW, the property is now valued at $428,000. He should have appreciated the risks of buying property with so much leverage.

I see that he or Crisp are now facing problems with leaseback properties. I feel bad for the rent to owners.

Ichabod said...

The *new* thing in RE training right now (besides foreclosures, of course!) is how to do a short sale. The joke is when everyone gets into real estate, they think a short sale is a SHORTER sale time period, which new agents love because we want money! They usually take much longer! Anyway, part of a short sale is proving hardship- the inability to make payments on the home. Maybe he owed much less than he originally bought it for (I have never seen a lender willing to accept a 33% LOSS on their loans like that), but how does a man like Carl Cole prove hardship?

Peahippo said...

I find it difficult to believe that a lender "took" a loss of $215K. "Taking" like that, must be politics. Any competent reporter would investigate the following:

1. Was the 1099 issued for the short sale? Mr Cole owes tax on that $215K!

2. How has the loss of that $215K appeared on the lender's books?

3. What do the major stockholders of the lender think about all of this? Do they think perhaps that to ensure shareholder value, the lender should have seized Mr Cole's assets instead of just taking a $215K loss like a bunch of nice guys?