[jeffkrol]

Still like mine better...............

4) The White House is making another run at fixing the housing market, reports Brad Plumer: "Of all the problems plaguing the U.S. housing market right now, two stand out. First, there’s a glut of foreclosed properties out there putting downward pressure on home prices — and that weak housing market, as we’ve seen, is putting a damper on economic growth. At the same time, there’s an undersupply of rental units, which is causing rents to increase faster than inflation in places like San Jose, Washington, D.C., Seattle, New York, Houston, and elsewhere. Is there a way to address both of those problems at once? Possibly. Consider that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration now own some 250,000 foreclosed homes — roughly half of the total number of unsold, repossessed properties out there. There are also another 800,000 or so homes in some stage of foreclosure that are backed by the agencies. So what if the government took these properties off the residential housing market and instead sold them off in bulk to private investors, who would be required to convert them into rental units? On Wednesday, the Obama administration announced plans to do just that. The ultimate goal would be to stabilize the housing market and bring down rents at the same time. And conveniently, the move wouldn’t require a vote in Congress."

Washington post.........

[mikemike]

So what if the government took these properties off the residential housing market and instead sold them off in bulk to private investors

How much do I have to contribute to Obama's 2012 reelection war chest to get in on the buy one get one free action?

[shooz]

How much do I have to contribute to Obama's 2012 reelection war chest to get in on the buy one get one free action?

How much you got?

[newarts]

Still like mine better...............


Washington post.........

Sounds excellent to me! It would create many good jobs and moderate the housing mess.

The cries of "Socialism!" "Socialism!" "Socialism!" ... would be muted by the sale of the housing to private investors who will in turn do the hiring. Good thinking.

[mikemike]

How much you got?

Welcome to the Kleptocracy!

[shooz]

Corporations have been stealing from us for a LONG time now.
It's a plutocracy.

[GeneV]

I am not as jazzed about this idea. Selling them "in bulk" for rentals will more heavily concentrate ownership and insure that wealth is transferred from thousands of individual owners to a smaller number of large ones. If this program goes beyond taking homes out of the hands of those who bought as investors to begin with, it will also transform neighborhoods in a way that may not be positive, and ultimately lower the values in the same way that foreclosure sales do. I would rather see programs to make it easier to continue owner-occupancy under the original purchase.

Much of the country is not under-supplied with rental housing, BTW.

[shooz]

No, but the rent is too damn high........LOL

[mikemike]

Selling them "in bulk" for rentals will more heavily concentrate ownership and insure that wealth is transferred from thousands of individual owners to a smaller number of large ones.

Not to mention that single family homes as rental units are really bad investments if they are bought at fair market value so they will probably need to offer these up at a hefty discount to entice buyers.

[Parallax]

Seems to me anyone who could "buy in bulk", the properties would have to have a pretty substantial bank account to do it. The only reason they would do it would be that it would make money for them.
Now, what was that about it always being the Republicans coming up with schemes to make the rich richer?

[GeneV]

Seems to me anyone who could "buy in bulk", the properties would have to have a pretty substantial bank account to do it. The only reason they would do it would be that it would make money for them.
Now, what was that about it always being the Republicans coming up with schemes to make the rich richer?

My thoughts exactly. Why is this president doing this?

Rental homes were not, until recently, a bad investment. (Full disclosure, many of my clients are landlords for either single or multifamily properties). However they became bad investments because everyone got into in over the last decade. Cheap financing and lots of get-rich seminars made everyone think this was a gold mine. The same mortgage craziness that produced a crisis also made it hard to make money from rentals, even though the rents may seem high to some.

Another thing to bear in mind is that these rental homes are already cheap. Short sales have driven the prices through the floor. How much cheaper would the government have to make them to attract these "bulk" purchasers?

[newarts]

I am not as jazzed about this idea. Selling them "in bulk" for rentals will more heavily concentrate ownership and insure that wealth is transferred from thousands of individual owners to a smaller number of large ones. ....... I would rather see programs to make it easier to continue owner-occupancy under the original purchase.....

Yes - you are right - this a serious the downside of the proposal... perhaps it would be better if ownership were not transferred to corporate owners but ultimately to occupiers (in the case of already foreclosed properties.) - perhaps thru middlemen who refurbish and improve energy efficiency.

I would rather see programs to make it easier to continue owner-occupancy under the original purchase. When "under the original purchase" is not practical we need means to refurbish and make good use of houses in limbo.

Likely the reason for the proposed selling in bulk to corporate entities is because it is easiest to do.....it couldn't be collusion now could it?

[GeneV]

Yes - you are right - this a serious the downside of the proposal... perhaps it would be better if ownership were not transferred to corporate owners but ultimately to occupiers (in the case of already foreclosed properties.) - perhaps thru middlemen who refurbish and improve energy efficiency.

I would rather see programs to make it easier to continue owner-occupancy under the original purchase. When "under the original purchase" is not practical we need means to refurbish and make good use of houses in limbo.

Likely the reason for the proposed selling in bulk to corporate entities is because it is easiest to do.....it couldn't be collusion now could it?

I am sure that there are some cases where it is not practical to have the original ownership continue, but there hasn't been much effort to try this approach and see how many.

Most of these homes around here don't need refurbishment. They were bought new. Builders had the most generous terms, and about 25% of the new homes sold in my city were sold to investors. However, these investors were often individual professionals or people who had just saved and wanted a place to put their money for retirement. They usually were large entities who could buy "in bulk."

[newarts]

I am sure that there are some cases where it is not practical to have the original ownership continue, but there hasn't been much effort to try this approach and see how many.

Most of these homes around here don't need refurbishment. They were bought new. Builders had the most generous terms, and about 25% of the new homes sold in my city were sold to investors. However, these investors were often individual professionals or people who had just saved and wanted a place to put their money for retirement. They usually were large entities who could buy "in bulk."

Oh you cruelly dash my hopes for using this as a tool to put people to work and mitigate the housing value mess we are in. It just seems wrong to limp along with an economy based in part on badly mis-valued real estate.

[GeneV]

If we are going to bring the construction industry back, the stimulus was a better way to go IMO. We need more roads, bridges and public transportation. Our need for more single family homes is questionable.