TRUE Value VS BPO/Foreclosing Lender's Value

Today, I lost a deal that I shouldn't have. 
Now the lender will, most likely, end up foreclosing and they'll add that property to an ever growing list of REOs that are already flooding nationwide marketplaces.

This particular deal has been in negotiations for 11 months and 3 BPOs have been done, on this property, during that time.

All 3 BPOs came in at different values, but the lender opted to stay with the higher value.
How do I know ? Because 2 of those BPOs were mine - I had them done AND there was a difference of 36K, in value, between my 2 BPOs !

According to the servicer, their BPO was higher than my 2, simply based upon the purchase price they were insisting that I pay.
They wanted to capture 92% of their BPO/value - which was more than 90K over the true/current market value of the property.

We tried to compel the servicer to review the most current comps, which we provided AND we also linked them to resources where they, as well, could confirm those comps.

We provided interior/exterior video of the property - so they could see, first hand - the required repairs that would have to be completed.

And, of course - we provided our 2 BPOs, to show the difference of "opinions" in value -

I'm no stranger to losing, or walking away from, deals - because, like the banks and/or any other business - I'm in it to make $$, right ?

However, losing this deal isn't about my lost opportunity, it's about a disturbing fact that these lenders are declining huge volumes of short sales that they should be approving - because the losses, even at less than 92% of their "opinion" of value, aren't as great as the losses that are being realized when these lenders foreclose and the property reverts back to the lender/investor.

So how do I propose the lenders/servicers solve this problem ?

I have a few suggestions that might help:
* They can start by having 3 BPOs, done by 3 independent brokerages, done on each short sale - ensuring that the BPOs are being done by LOCAL brokerages.
Then, they can average the 3 out to calculate an ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE.

* After more than 3 solid years of declining property values, in most markets, they can easily create a formula, based on available data, that calculates the AVERAGE LOSS of value - for a given market, over the previous 12 months (or 6 months) and apply that as a discount off of the current ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE. 

* They can stop trying to control the buyers of these short sale properties, relating to whether, or not, these buyers intend on flipping for profit, or keeping the property. What I'm saying is IF THE SHORT SALE OFFER IS ACCEPTABLE, THEN TAKE THE DAMN PAYOFF AND BE DONE WITH IT !

*FINALLY - If a short sale offer is acceptable - then the lenders/lienholders should NOT maintain ANY rights to pursue the sellers for deficiencies.

WHY ?? I'll summarize:

When the buyer originally purchased the property, or even had it refinanced, BOTH the buyer(s) and the lender(s) agreed that the value of the property supported the purchase price, RIGHT ?
So, a partnership is formed between the buyer(s) and the lender(s).

Now the market changed AND the property has lost that value -
So, the buyer(s) are going to lose and the lender(s) are going to lose.

Buyer(s) lost the property -lender either sells the property in a short sale, or gets it back - which should conclude any further contractual obligation from the buyer(s).  

Legislation will need to be enacted to prevent, or reduce, the inevitible wave of deficiency judgements/litigation that's sure to come.

As an aside, it might be a better idea for foreclosing lender(s) to train reps to contact buyers in foreclosure - that are suffering TRUE HARDSHIPS, but want to remain in their distressed home.

Taking the LOAN MOD (Don't EVEN get me started on LOAN MODS !!) to a new level, the foreclosing lender(s) should arrive at that ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE, as referred to above, and rewrite a new "market value" loan, thereby keeping the current owner(s) in place.

HOW MUCH $$ WOULD THAT SAVE ??