Government Set to Sell Foreclosures in Bulk

[kpete]

Government Set to Sell Foreclosures in Bulk
Published: Monday, 9 Jan 2012 | 9:11 AM ET Text Size
By: Diana Olick
CNBC Real Estate Reporter


The Obama administration, is very close to announcing a pilot program to sell government-owned foreclosures in bulk to investors as rentals, CNBC has learned.

The Obama administration, in conjunction with federal regulators and led by the overseer of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is very close to announcing a pilot program to sell government-owned foreclosures in bulk to investors as rentals, according to administration officials.

There currently are about a quarter of a million foreclosed properties on the books of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and millions more are coming.

The foreclosure processing delays of last year created a mammoth backlog of properties yet to be processed, which are just now being re-started. One of the initiatives of this program is for the federal government to be in the position to mitigate and manage any new wave of foreclosures, sources say.



...................

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45925851

[Autumn]

1. I don't think I like this at all

. Another bail out.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45928213



Sounds like the investors will make profits while the taxpayers subsidize the risk. Another bail out.

[webDude]

46. aGREED; this is more of the same. You(Obama) dance with who brung you.

[LaydeeBug]

72. On this one, I agree. It takes our neighborhoods from 'owned' to 'rented', and there's a difference

[Mojorabbit]

2. I think this sucks

There has been little in the way of helping homeowners keep their homes. Selling them to investors at probably a low rate instead of vigorously working with people to decrease their principal to something like what the house is worth now on the market is deplorable. It is a transfer of assets to the investing class.

[dmallind]

84. Trouble with that is it rewards suboptimal behavior

If my neighbor who bought a house rashly above his income level and then welched on his debts gets a principal reduction and I who bought well within my means and paid on time get nothing, which behavior will we see more of? Which is more conducive to economic security for all parties? Can you think of a way to make sure the program ONLY helps people who acted responsibly and were simply unfortunate? Because if not it's incentivizing others to act the same way.

[Fool Count]

90. Yeah, god forbid we ever help people who actually need help.

That would "incentivize" more people to behave irresponsibly - instead of helping themselves
they would rely on help from the government. That brilliant argument, in fact, applies to any
social assistance program, i.e. unemployment benefits "discourage" people from getting back
to work.

[dmallind]

91. No it doesn't

Few people who are out of work are so entirely of their own volition. Those who took on mortgages they could not afford or walked away when they could pay were not forced into that situation. I am more than fine with helping people who took out sensible mortgages they could afford comfortably at the time, and who made every effort to pay while they could, but fell behind a once-manageable payment after losing a job. I'm not OK helping some deadbeat shyster who signed up for a $300k mortgage knowing they only made $25k a year and then stiffed the bank as soon as the house lost value.

[Mojorabbit]

92. Almost everyone I know that lost their house

did so because they lost their jobs and if they found another it was for way less money. My sister lost her house. Her husband is an electrician who had his own small company and went bust when construction halted. Now he does odd jobs and they are scraping by but can afford a modest rent. If BOA had worked out some kind of extension of the mortgage at a cheaper rate etc they might have been able to keep the home they loved even if it had lost half it's value. There are a ton of people like that out there. I would rather they keep their houses even if a percentage of people out there who were irresponsible get something also. It is better than investment houses who were also very irresponsable get these homes at pennies on the dollar. At least some average people would benefit.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. What a load of crap.

So now all the people who used to OWN those homes can now RENT them from some sack of shit investor??? Good god, this whole housing crisis response has been nothing but more "top down" bullshit.

[Vanje]

54. You got it.

So much trickling down , we're drowning in it.

[MindMover]

4. Serf city here we come......

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41483660@N04/6668077941/" title="4525185528_1536bb2745 by pbmus, on Flickr"><img src="" width="333" height="500" alt="4525185528_1536bb2745"></a>

[harun]

5. More help for the rich at the expense of the poor, the modern American Way.

[proverbialwisdom]

6. Thanks, bookmarking.

[leveymg]

7. More socializing the risks, privatizing the profits. Bye, Bye Miss American Pie.

Here's the money quote:

"There currently are about a quarter of a million foreclosed properties on the books of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and millions more are coming."

[eyewall]

11. "and millions more are coming"

What??!!

so much for economic recovery. The New Carpetbaggers are here.

[abelenkpe]

8. They are hoping to keep families in their home

and prop up the price of homes so those close to retirement still have equity in their home and can afford to retire. However, this punishes those who did not buy during the bubble and continue to be priced out because wages have not kept up with home prices.

[avaistheone1]

34. These homes are already foreclosed on. So this will not keep families in their homes.

[abelenkpe]

47. from article

"Late-stage delinquencies still in the pipeline number close to two million, according to a new report from Lender Processing Services. Foreclosure starts outnumber foreclosure sales by two to one and "the trend toward fewer loans becoming delinquent, which dominated 2010 and the first quarter of 2011, appears to have halted," according to LPS.

Knowing this all too well, the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, HUD, FDIC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with their conservator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) at the helm, are engaged in a collaborative effort to face this new wave of foreclosures head on and figure out a way to keep these properties from sitting on the books of the government and sitting empty in the nation's neighborhoods. "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an article here on DU about a month ago about a family that had owned their home, was going through foreclosure and were part of a trial program that allowed them to stay in their home not as owners but as renters. I think original article was from huffpo...which means it was from somewhere else. Anyway yeah many homes are already empty so that doesn't help families stay in their home, but there are many more that are still occupied and facing foreclosure that the government is eager to keep occupied. I think this is part of that same plan. Could be wrong tho...

Is it a good or just idea? Maybe for the government, maybe for investors, maybe for neighborhoods hoping to prop up prices and families that want to stay in their home. For those who didn't buy or are still looking to buy hoping home prices become more in line with local salaries...not so much.

[FreakinDJ]

9. How many will China buy

[chalky]

39. I was thinking Saudi Arabia, but yeah, what you just said.

n/t

[Hoyt]

10. I think these are homes where the people have long since vacated, and the government is paying

to keep up the property.

I think this makes sense. Obviously, there could be bad outcomes if not handled correctly. But what is government supposed to do -- watch the properties rot into disrepair?

[Lionessa]

20. Then they shouldn't have booted the people who were taking care of the home for free out, now should

they have?

[SomeGuyInEagan]

23. Should have funnelled the money for the banks through the borrowers ...

... in the first place.

Original goal of giving billions to banks: check
Keep xxx homeowners in their homes: check

All for about the same price to taxpayers (there would have had have been some coordination of determining which mortgages where most in need and then typing up the Post-It note to attach to the stack of bills ("This stack of bills pays off Joe's mortgage, receipt please&quot .

[Hoyt]

27. Agree with that 100% -- but this is now.

[handmade34]

52. +1

[mbperrin]

28. They could sell them to individuals to live in. But they'll bulk them out like many of the north

Dallas townhouses that originally sold for $200,000+ in the early 80s. They were sold for $5,000 each - in lots of 1,000 units, limiting the buying to those with $5 million in cash.

Always remember - bad times are a garage sale for those with the cash. Rockefeller, Sr, switched from a millionaire at the beginning of the depression to a billionaire during and after.

I imagine this will be similar, with landlords recouping their purchase price within 90 days and gravy the rest of the way.

Help PEOPLE? What? Communism!!!

[CrispyQ]

75. +1

Outstanding post.

"Always remember - bad times are a garage sale for those with the cash."

This is a policy any repub would love.

[leftyohiolib]

12. he's taking willard romney's advice.

[kitkat65]

13. We are trying to refinance via hardship on a Freddie Mac loan

Our interest rate is 6.375% with 24 years left on the loan.

They agreed to refinance . . . at 6.375% for 24 years which somehow will save us around $11+/month and the bank wants to charge us $360 to document the "change."

Some refinance, huh? So when I read something like this and I have to wonder what kind of shit they're pulling and how much does this administration really want people to keep their homes.

[leftofcool]

43. You might try this

This may not work for you because I don't know how big your home is or the size of your family. Some friends of ours were going through the same thing so what they did was rent out one of the bedrooms to a college/graduate student. They had to do some shifting rooms with their kids and designate a bathroom for the renter but it is working for them and helps to make the mortgage payment.

Left of Cool

[abelenkpe]

55. Can you try refinancing w a different bank?

Some friends of mine were going through the same thing recently. They were getting the run around. Only minimal help. They found another bank that would refinance and give them a good deal and then a couple months after refinancing Fannie Mae bought their loan again!

[usrname]

14. Make the predatory investors

fight tooth and nail to get each piece of the property. Don't give it to them for pennies on the dollar. The government would get a better return as well.

[dipsydoodle]

15. Rental streams will then be sold on insured against default of course

This is like going to the pictures and watching the same film time and time again.

[xiamiam]

16. this is HOW you help main st? oh my..nt

[Myrina]

17. Burn 'em down on your way out ...

If I knew I was being foreclosed upon, there'd be nothing but sticks, cinders & a set of keys left for the bank to take back. No fucking way they're going to abscond all the maintenance and care I put into my property and home and 'rent' it back to me - or to someone else at some bs usurious rate. Fuck them.

[slackmaster]

78. That is a profoundly stupid idea, and here's why...

Banks carry fire insurance policies on REOs (foreclosed property and other property that ended up being owned by the bank.)

Burning down a foreclosed house will result in an insurance claim being paid out to rebuild it. The insurance companies will in turn raise everyone's premiums to make up for the loss.

An arson fire wastes the materials that went into the building, puts firefighters at needless risk, and may distract them from other tasks.

Fire pollutes the air. There is also a possibility of causing unintended damage to other property.

What you've advocated here, Myrina, is a major crime. Please think about the implications of what you are saying before you say it.

[former9thward]

86. You forgot to add that you would be spending a few years in prison for your troubles.

The former resident would be the prime suspect in an arson on a foreclosed house.

[slackmaster]

87. That's not entirely bad, actually

At least the former resident would not wind up homeless.

[Lionessa]

18. Fannie Mae took my home. I wonder how much they'll dump it for and why didn't they just

dump it in my direction before I lost it.

This sucks for so many of us.

[GreenPartyVoter]

26. Exactly. Why not sell them for cheap to the people who owned them in the first place?

[glinda]

58. Exactly. Unfortunately that doesn't make rich richer......

[CoffeeCat]

19. What a great deal for the ONE PERCENT...

Bundle a bunch of foreclosed houses together--and sell them in bulk for rock-bottom prices to "investors."

What a frickin windfall for people who have loads of cash sitting around--just waiting for an income opportunity.

These "investors"--all of whom will be upper income folks with money to spare--can get into these houses
for incredibly cheap. If you've got the cash to get in--you can.

They'll make a killing. Many people want a decent-sized home, but they don't want a mortgage because of
a floundering economy and also because many people have lost faith in a home as an investment.

More people are renting, and as the economy continues to sputter--that trend will only increase.

This is a bailout. It's a gift. I'd like to know who these "investors" are--and what qualifications they need to have to play
in this game.

Also, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the government backs off on telling these "investors" what they are to do
with these homes, once they purchase them for a song--from the government. Will the government force
the investors to make these properties "rentals"? I could see some of the investors house flipping and making
even more profit.

This does not benefit the little guy. That is a farce. There are plenty of things that could have been done
to protect homeowners from losing their homes. Very, very little was done and the banks were pretty much
allowed to call the shots--despite the fact that they created the housing crisis and the subsequent meltdown.

I am really sick and tired of the ONE PERCENT benefitting from government deals and bailouts--while the
rest of us are being squeezed like woodchucks in the grip of a python.

[FreakinDJ]

22. Wall St will broker the Deal for the Chinese Gov to purchase them

that is how this whole mess started. Packaging American Working Class Debt to the Chinese to pay for the Iraq War

[Ikonoklast]

30. No, they won't. China has it's own very massive real estate bubble about to burst.

The coming bust in China real-estate speculation and the enormous backlog of new, unsold housing in that country will make ours look like nothing.

[leveymg]

66. Ding, ding, ding! Give this 'un a ceegar! Answer of the thread.

[sulphurdunn]

21. If I understand

this correctly the feds plan to sell off their foreclosed inventory at a discount by bundling mortgages and selling them to the same "institutional investors" who "bundled" mortgages that were instrumental in causing the real estate collapse and will now buy those bundled mortgages back so they can make money renting the properties they made money off selling previously to the same people? Can that be true? It can't be. Can it?

[abelenkpe]

56. Yep. Nt

[CrispyQ]

77. But our side is better than the other side.

Feel better?

[humbled_opinion]

24. Yes finally I see that

people are starting to "GET IT"... This is a terrible idea. So in a nutshell the government forecloses the house because it was backed by Freddie or Frannie initially. The bank got its share either in payment from F/F or from writing off the loss on their taxes, so the bank breaks even, F/F break even by selling it to investors who make money by renting it out.... In the end the only person that gets screwed was the initial homeowner who had investment in the property but who got tossed out, ruined credit and literally destroyed life because of the bad economy which was caused by the super greed of the super rich who needed to cut their loses on the backs of the Middleclass....and oh by the way Mr. Foreclosed upon prior homeowner we will be taking your tax dollars and portions of that will be what we use to manage and create these stupid, idiotic programs..... LOL.... sucker......

[greiner3]

71. "the government forecloses the house"

The government has NOTHING to do with the foreclosure process. The agencies only guaranteed the loans they backed originally in that if the homeowner did default it would pay off the loan to the holder of the mortgage which in many cases are the big banks. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac then get the houses which they guaranteed for pennies on the dollar from the banks. They are then on the line for the millions of homes that were lost by homeowners by default. These agencies then turn around and sell the properties either at auction or to mostly the same banks they just paid off for full price for distressed rates. The banks then turn around and put these properties back on the market, usually getting thousands more than what they paid to get them back. The properties are usually sold 'as is.' This way all the money the bank gets in the difference is profit.

I for one disagree with most of the comments on this post. It was not HUD that created the housing bubble; it was the banks through the criminal actions of the lending institutions. Call it a conspiracy theory but someone had anticipated the housing bubble and made trillions in profit. It is they who will buy these houses.

In my neighborhood there is a 98% live in rate. I am in a newer subdivision within the city limits of Columbus OH. Columbus has a much lower live in rate. I would think that even if these predatory banks and outside investors do buy the unlived in houses for cheap and rent them [out it would benefit everyone involved. People need housing. Homeowners do not need empty houses all around them. This action would then free up a large part of the after market of the millions of empty houses depressing sales prices and then raise the land values. This would also boost the new housing market just by the lessening of empty after market houses.

I do not defend the few people who will make the huge amounts of money this action will allow. I do defend the actions that the government is taking to get the distressed neighborhoods full of empty houses back to having people in them.

Follow the money. Republicans so far are against this move. They know this action will help the economy and quickly.

[humbled_opinion]

88. When I said government I meant

Freddie and Fannie.....nothing you said refutes my main point that the initial homeowner is the one that takes it in the shorts on these terrible government programs and as a side benefit that same schumuck will be stuck with the tax bill that the government will rack up bailing out freddie and frannie. The money has to come from somewhere right now its all in defecit spending. It's not so hard to understand... If the govt really wanted to do something they would forgive the loans to the homeowners and work on some arrangements for future compensation for the house.... i.e. you lost your ability to pay for the home but we will not allow the banks to foreclose the mortgage and reap the benefits of being able to punish you and collect the 20 percet equity stake from F/F, write off the loss on taxes and still be able to sell the property for a profit at the end of the day instead, F/F will buy out the bank portion and allow the homeowner to stay with minimum monthly payments until the economy improves and the homeowner can get back on their feet that way the houses would still be occupied by the people that had the vested interest in the property in the first place, it would ultimately cost no less to the government who is only selling the properties back to the banks for pennies on the dollar anyway and the truth is that the banks would be the ones that took it in the shorts not the homeowner.

[OmahaBlueDog]

25. Here was my response to the WH.

Dear Mr. President:

Today, it was reported on CNBC that the administration will agree to make bulk sales of foreclosed homes to institutional investors so that the homes may be rented. While this may appear to be a quick and efficient solution, and may ultimately be the only solution for certain properties, I find myself thinking that this is the kind of deal that overwhelmingly benefits "the 1%" -- chiefly the bankers who got us into this mess. So, before we, as a nation, sell these properties on-the-cheap to banks, they should be offered first, on-the-cheap, to members of the following groups a) active duty and reserve military and Iraq/Afghanistan Vets, b) active duty police, c) active duty fire fighters, d) public and private school K-12 teachers, e) nurses. These groups serve America, work hard, and are far more deserving of a deeply discounted home than any banker or real estate trust.

**

Before you flame this - I'm sure I left out many worthy groups. Nevertheless, you get the idea. Before we hold a property fire sale, let's get the most deserving buyers to the head of the line.

[Roland99]

31. +infinity!

[Hotler]

69. Not one sale until Wall St. and the banksters face

prosecutions for their fucking crimes. If they can jail pot smokers they can jail the banksters. If we have money for war we have money for the DOJ to investigate the biggest crime of the last hundred years.

[humbled_opinion]

89. Excellent, excellent

I suggest we all copy and paste this and send it to our representatives and to the White House...

[mlevans]

29. Welcome to the all new and improved Middle Ages.

Do we at least get to choose which feudal lord we'd like to serve?

[sad sally]

32. This proposal was part of Bernake's White Paper to Congress, with the administration's blessing

In addition, regulators have been seeking ways to shrink the glut of foreclosed properties by pooling properties and selling them to investors in bulk. The investors could then rent them out, taking advantage of rising rents. As a result of falling home prices but rising rents, “it might be appropriate in some cases to redeploy foreclosed homes as rental properties,” the Fed paper said.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/01/04/bernanke-tells-lawmakers-more-action-needed-to-fix-housing/?du

How many times and how many ways can our government screw us? As much and many as we let them, I guess.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Well of course they are. Make damn sure no 'little people' get ahold of one.

Meet the ownership society.

[CoffeeCat]

41. That's another great point--bundling keeps out the "average Joe/Jane"...

...if you bundle these mortgages--that raises the amount of cash that an "investor" must have
to get in on this deal.

It's almost as if they're preventing middle- and upper-middle class folks from benefitting from low
housing prices. Many made serious income off of house flipping. Prices are low right now, but who
knows--inflation could rise and housing prices could increase.

Wouldn't want just *anyone* bettering themselves or surviving the hell on Earth they're creating for us.

Rich bastards need only apply for this government opportunity.

Now I know why the banks and Wall Street in general, donated so many millions to political campaigns. They
get to purchase investment opportunities from the US government--when they do so.

[Fire Walk With Me]

35. Human need, not corporate greed!

[paulk]

36. and the rich get richer

aka

talk is cheap, Mr. Obama

[noiretextatique]

37. in other words...the very people who created this mess stand to FURTHER benefit from it

thanks, 1%

[Edweird]

38. Teh mostest progressive president EVAH11!!!11!!1 His approval among "Liberal Dems" must be near 100%

with this!11!!1

[a simple pattern]

40. They're not even bothering to spin this one

[CoffeeCat]

42. Gotta release all of the dirt...

...well before the campaign heats up. After that happens, we'll be thrown a few crumbs
in an effort to win our hearts and minds.

Oh boy.

[sarcasmo]

44. Follow the money, and watch who buys up most of these bulk loans.

My guess it will be the same douche bags we bailed out.

[USA_1]

45. more corporate welfare for the elites

[lib2DaBone]

48. Mr. Obama is playing 13th dimension chess... and he really cares about his base.

As long as Democratic voters are satisfied with Mr. Obama... this is what we will get.

[WillyT]

49. K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[McCamy Taylor]

50. When the homes sit idle, we call it Obama's fault. When the homes are rented, we call it Obama's

fault. If they hold a national lottery and let everyone who has had a home foreclosed upon in the last three years compete for a shot at these houses, will we be satisfied? Nope, we will claim that Obama is now sucking up the gambling industry. If we give the houses back to the folks who lost them, will we be happy? No, because then we will complain about all the evicted whose homes are owned by Swiss Banks that are not being given back.

The plus side of this is less blight and lower rental prices.l It is not a perfect world solution, but as long as they make sure that American investors are favored, it helps the economy.

[zipplewrath]

68. You're right

The only possible conclusion is that whatever the president chooses is the best solution.

Always assume there is no legitimate criticism.

[Alameda]

51. Anyone here ever hear of Frank Morales?

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/40677

"The Squatter Movement: Seizing Housing"
Interview with journalist, squatter and housing activist, Frank Morales. Morales' direct action for housing in the South Bronx and lower east side of Manhattan in the late 1970s; bank redlining of loans to certain neighborhoods; Chapter 7 of the 1968 Kerner Commission Report; spatial de-concentration dispersal of the urban poor as a counter insurgency strategy............"

[stuffmatters]

53. Not just corrupt, it's criminal

Looks like this was always going to be the grand finale for Wall Street's systemic and systematic fraud called "The Housing Bubble."

It is incomprehensible that the Obama Administration is planning to commit this hideous theft against the American citizens and taxpayers in the light of day.

Can criminal charges be initiated against Obama, Geithner, Donovan, Bernaeke for colluding in and apparently orchestrating this grand finale and giveaway of national treasure to huge private corps, the same deep pockets that caused the crisis, have been given taxpayer subsidies instead of prison sentences, interest free trillions secretly to make billions from the taxpayer, and together with the Obama Administration obstructed every possible attempt for homeowners and single investors to remain in their homes or protect their investments.

At this point it should be clear that the Obama Administration deliberately prevented homeowners from keeping their homes. He did not need Congressional validation to do the obvious... automatically lower all balances and interest rates on all mortgages to current market rates. This would have saved homeowners, neighborhoods, enriching the economy and growning employment ...a no brainer actually. And it would certainly cost less than the trillions of taxpayer money he is now planning to give away inexplicably for pennies on the dollar in 5 million dollar "bundles", criminally gifting the same Wall Street Vampire Squids , who created and have profited so obscenely already from the crisis they created.

I do not know who can stop this. Maybe the National Assoc of Realtors, a pretty Republican leaning org traditionally, but they alone will lose billions in commissions with these privileged, off market transactions.

I'm finding it especially meaningful that Obama has drawn out this outrageous action long enough to prevent a primary challenger...
or has he? While, of course, the clock on statute of limitations for the crimes of the real estate collapse, for which we're now going to see the final payoff, is relentlessly ticking down...


There has not been one conviction of one Wall Street figure or government officer who designed this massive fraud. Every homeowner in this Country (whether in arrears or not) has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by contagion in this national crime, every neighborhood has been degraded, every county,city and state treasury has been devastated by tax losses.

And now this unspeakable, clearly criminally complicit finale ... I gave Obama $2500 in 2008. It makes me sick that I made this contribution now. He is simply not the President and leader of the Democratic Party I voted for.

[boppers]

59. So, fuck all the renters?

They didn't gamble, so they shouldn't be given a bailout for gambling losses, but people who gambled, and couldn't cover their losses, should be propped up?

Isn't that just more of the same shit people were complaining about in the first place?

[abelenkpe]

57. Didn't this happen during the depression too? Nt

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

60. "rentals"

[AllyCat]

61. Isn't this kind of what happened in Iceland? Or was that private banksters selling in bulk?

This looks bad to me.

[just1voice]

62. Freakin corrupt govt aholes could just create what was known as "Savings and Loans"

Problem solved that easily. But that idea, along with 1000s of other good ideas will never happen in corrupted America.

[bluesbassman]

63. So is this what the corporations sitting on record amounts of cash have been waiting for?

The current members of the S&P 500 are sitting on about $800 billion in cash and cash equivalents, the most ever, according to data by Birinyi Associates, even as the unemployment rate has ticked back above 9 percent. Most of this cash and cash equivalents are likely yielding at or below the current 3.6 percent annual rate of inflation, giving it a negative real return.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43499606

Seems to me that pennies on the dollar would be a real attractive investment for a lot of these companies. Sure aren't using the hoard to create jobs.

[caseymoz]

64. More helping the poor by making the rich richer.

And we all see that it has worked so well so far.

Another thank you to President Obama, who doesn't seem to get it or doesn't care.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

65. Disaster capitalism strikes again,

how convenient for the engineers of this disaster to swoop in and fix it. Once again the fix is in, and we ain't in on it.

[CanonRay]

67. Same thing was done in RTC when the S&L's folded

and the rich got richer, picking up bargain basement property from the government. Who else can buy "in bulk" but the already rich?
Scammed again.

[dotymed]

70. This certainly

entrenches the lord\serf status. This is such a sweet gift for the wealthy. The "American dream" is officially a nightmare. Not good timing on the part of candidate Obama, unless he knows that the votes of the 99% actually do not count. Only a President with a "d" behind his name could get by with this. Do you think TPTB know that? Of course they do.

The revolution has to come. The alternative is hopelessness.

IF our votes DO count, this will hurt a re-election bid.

America is quickly becoming one of the most repressive countries in the world. Are we emulating China?

[AlphaCentauri]

73. Make the rental prices drop 30 to 50%, that will fix the economy n/t

[Mr Dixon]

74. SMH

No surprise they would rather sell to the Vultures then help the people. The people are just screwed, I hope they change the Tax Codes for renters because that is the future of the housing markets.

[slackmaster]

76. Links to US Census data showing historic home ownership rates for the USA and by state...

These figures may surprise those among us who assume that the current housing crisis has resulted in fewer people (nationwide) owning homes and more renting.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html

The rate shown for 2010 is actually higher than for 2000:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0993.pdf

[cap]

79. I wonder if it would be possible for folks who were foreclosed on

to band together and buy those mortgages. Say, everyone in a neighborhood who lost their house could pool cash and become joint landlords of their neighborhoods. They could rent their homes to themselves.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

80. So instead of selling them cheap to indivuals who can buy them to live in...

Obama's administration is going to sell them (at discount) in bunches to investors (the wealthy) who can then mark up the price.
Of course the average person who can afford a cheap forclosure can't afford to buy several forclosures in a group purchase. This is just another system to make sure the 1% can use their money to fleece more of our money and to make sure the 99% has to sit on the sidelines and watch opportunity pass them up.

See, it really doesn't matter who is president - all politicians play for the same team... money & the 1%. No one is immune from the influence of money.

[rbixby]

81. I don't really like this idea all that much, but at the same time

Around here rental housing is at a 98% occupancy rate, which makes rents go up and up, and is pricing some people out of the market. While I'd prefer people own their houses, at the same time its not really a reality for a lot of people, so they have to rent.

There's definitely two sides to this issue, it doesn't seem right to sell these off in bulk to management companies which will no doubt be slumlords, but at the same time, we need more rental housing. Its a two edged sword.

[Odin2005]

82. They should be giving away the houses to people who need them! Bastards!

[FreedomVoice]

83. At least they are getting occupied again and I will

definitely be looking to buy some if they are available in small pools of properties. The value of the rent and the hope of an increase in housing values soon are a wonderful and fairly safe investment. Rental income is a great retirement plan.

[aquart]

85. Sell to whom?