How's that saying about opinions go?

It's not opinion -- it's fact. Look at your local sheriff's auctions. Determine the current value of the homes, and determine the peak values of the homes. Look at the totals owed vs peak and current values. The numbers bear what I say out.

Also, if values are down 40-50% from peak, but people only borrowed 50% LTV, they'd be able to sell without going to foreclosure or short-sale right now.

Quite the little Occupy Wall Streeter you are. Do your friends know you drive a Mercedes?

(1) some people don't want to buy a house. If you have to move to a foreign city for a year's work contract, you may be happy to rent, not to buy something.
(2) landlords can't charge "whatever they ask". The fee is governed by a competitive market and people's ability to pay. It's also heavily regulated by local laws in many cases.
(3) not all houses in a given market are being bought by investors.
(4) the fee charged by a landlord includes maintenance, etc, which is a service not available when you own a home
(5) in your example, isn't the supermarket itself being a middleman? Should we put all the supermarkets out of business and make "poor people" buy their food directly from farmers?
(6) how is renting out real estate long-term worse than renting out cars, renting hotel rooms, renting power equipment, renting media, etc?

MTU is quite the anti-capitalist. I never would have guessed. He seems to assume that Hatty is able to buy up all of the residential properties in the relevant market. Or at least that's my interpretation of his comment. He doesn't talk to me anymore, or I would ask him to clarify that point. He also seemed to miss the part where Hatty said that he was increasing the housing supply by taking distressed properties and fixing them up.

As BC used to say that's factually incorrect.

__________________
2006 CL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2026 Genesis GV70
2007 Tiara 3200

I had a conversation a while ago with a customer of mine who felt renting was stupid. I feel like it can be and sometimes its not.

Take my renters for example. They are happy. They have lived here since 2008 and have no intention of leaving They take care of my place. they don't lose a wink of sleep worrying about taxes paid or sinks breaking. When the water line broke, who was up until 1 am in the cold rain fixing pipes in my ripped up driveway full of water? Me. Not them. Who worries about the air conditioning units not turning on one day or the roof leaking? Me. Not them. They just cut me a check for $775 each month and are done with it. I worry about the rest.

By the way, a paid for house is never really paid for. Taxes and maintenance are ongoing. And then count all the interest you paid throughout the years of paying the mortgage. Its a lot of money. Money a lot of people can't handle.

My tenants are not young, but most young people can't afford a home. They don't have the experience to fix things or the money. My old coworker is a 22 year old guy who barely makes a $525 apartment payment and I have a customer telling him he's dumb for renting and I think thats wrong. He could afford the payment on an older home probably but if anything were to go wrong he'd be screwed. Not a good position to be in.

I don't see a problem with someone renting a house to another person a making a little money off it. Its the payment for taking on all the risk and responsibility you don't have when you rent. it can even make a tenants quality of life better I suppose. My tenants drive a much nicer car than I do without any worry.

__________________
1984 300SD Orient Red/ Palomino
1989 560SEC
2016 Mazda 6 6 speed manual
1995 Ford F-150 reg cab 4.9 5speed manual

My tenants drive much newer cars than I do too....

Our rental is a stepping stone house.
It is perfect for the young couple who wants to buy, but aren't quite ready.
I think I am providing a service and am being fairly compensated for it.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Having been a landlord for over 30 years I can say for sure that it is not free money. You earn it by taking a risk and by being a diligent manager once you purchase the property. People often do not wish to buy and or cannot do it for whatever reason. Owning real estate is real work and there is no guarantee you will profit from it.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Good real estate investments are easy to spot, but only in hindsight. Having the vision, wherewithal, and cojones to actually do it is something else entirely.

There was an article in the ny times recently where they said that banks are now reluctant to loan for residential real-estate unless the applicant can prove they are spending no more than about 40% of their income for the house and related expenses. These are for traditional home mortgages. Accordingly, banks are not so big on the no document loans that were popular with self-employed people in the past. The article didn’t say if someone has 25% of the house value as a down payment if that would close the deal; it used to.

Commercial loans are quite another thing, and according to the architects I work with, that market is still a lot more restrictive than residential loans. Most are paying for that kind of thing with private funds.

I have no interest in that type of loan for residential (i.e. owner-occupied) property, but from what I understood from research, the 25% number is more like 35-50% down now.

^ A somewhat surprising detail, given the upswing of home sales in the last couple of years. Clearly, banks lack confidence in home values.

(Or lack confidence in their ability to quickly foreclose on owner-occupied property and protect their interests. But with monetary tightening, I wouldn't rule a 30% drop in values in some areas out by any means.)

^Wrt your 2nd sentence, it’s certainly possible, but with both the .gov and .com banks conspiring to not dump more homes on the market, and keep loan rates low, it seems a lot of enterprises are making formidable efforts to stabilize the market and even make it rise in several areas. Both residential and commercial construction are showing ongoing upticks. However, if the .gop gets back into the white house at the next election, a recession is a certainty.

^^^

Those efforts are misguided, and I hope they fail epically.

Rising home prices aren't a good thing -- they're already overpriced w.r.t. incomes in many areas. In this respect, Chris Christie has the right idea: let the banks foreclose with a minimum of gov't interference, and don't drag out NJ's already-long foreclosure process any longer. Lower prices and more homes for people who can actually afford them to buy.

Foreclosures should only be "prevented" if you have a genuine hardship or change in situation. Unemployment, health issues, death in the family, etc. Not because you were too effing stupid to read the terms of the loan that you took for 105% of your home's 2006 value (or to pay an attorney to explain it to you), and it reset to a higher rate from the teaser. In that case, hope the door thumps your skull on the way out.

Government shouldn't "prevent" them. Unfortunately, it is, and this makes it harder for banks to enforce loans, even if they make sense with respect to home values.