One-way to rebuild a healthy real estate market is to decrease the amount of homes available for sale. Most of our recent efforts beget been geared towards increasing the demand to buy homes. It's pretty obvious that several experts, and the media, are not going to stop highlighting every negative aspect in the real estate market, so it might be a runt difficult to increase demand. It's their job to report the news, but why can not they report positive news as well? When you want to know approximately something effect not you turn to the news or a well known expert?
What whether a program, or multiple programs, were developed that encouraged owning a rental property or keeping your domestic off the market? whether there were a few programs, homeowners could choose which works best for their situation.
The government could give tax incentives to sellers that agreed to sustain their property off the market for X-amount of years? This might entice investors or homeowners because their payoff from the sale of their domestic, whether they agreed to hold onto their investment, would be greater because of the tax incentives.
The government, or lenders, could offer an annuity type of loan to homeowners. The loan would slowly tack onto the principle of the domestic loan each month. Homeowners would not receive a large lump sum of money, but their mortgage payment would decrease by X-amount each month and would slowly increase over the years. The lender and borrower would determine how much of a loan was suitable based on the homeowner's needs and the lenders ability. The lender could stop paying the annuity at anytime whether a borrower failed to meet their payment obligations.
Lenders could offer locked or lower interest rates to homeowners that agree not to refinance or sell their homes for X-amount of years (same concept as a pre-payment penalty). They could set the homeowners up on steadily increasing payment arrangement giving them lower payments initially, similar to an ARM, but instead of giving these incentives to novel customers, lenders will be trying to avoid costly foreclosures.
Hopefully, these programs would sustain homes off the market and relieve regulate when homes are placed back on the market. Programs like these would interest some sellers because many of them can not sell their homes right now; In many cases, whether they effect, they'll consume a loss. I contemplate most sellers would savor to hold whether they could cover or minimize their negative monthly cash-flow and others will be jubilant with keeping more of their money from the temporary sale of their domestic (s). Not everyone would qualify or benefit from programs like these but it could be a nice way to decrease the supply of homes for sale and improve the health of the real estate market.
I'm pretty certain that we'll need to develop several solutions to fix some of the mistakes or oversights that helped fuel this "over" correction. I know real estate is cyclical, but feel that some decisions beget lead to a rougher market. There are some possible downsides to this solution such as the probable increase in novel domestic cancellations, opportunity of homeowners defaulting on novel agreements and difficulty in implementing these plans, but there could be a viable solution in focusing on our supply of homes for sale As opposed to trying to increase the demand. Many of our markets beget noteworthy potential and with a runt relieve, we could be back on track!