4 ms·
Yes, where I live, the banks are intentionally leaving the homes vacant. After the shit hit the fan in 2008/2009, the government bailed out a bunch of banks and
by tpxl 4y ago
Yes, where I live, the banks are intentionally leaving the homes vacant. After the shit hit the fan in 2008/2009, the government bailed out a bunch of banks and acquired a bunch of houses in the process. Those houses have been slowly leaking to market so they 'wouldn't disrupt the housing market'.
- bell-cot 4y agoMaybe. But, for a bank, carrying a load of vacant houses long-term is an expensive, risky, and unfamiliar adventure. Even if an "all in nice neighborhoods" hand-wave keeps the vandals, squatters, and looters away - you've still got property taxes, utilities, and upkeep. And "vacant" usually guarantees that no one notices stuff like leaking pipes until they get expensive.
- etempleton 4y agoI suspect the glut of bank owned homes might suddenly burst. Right now banks are finding it more profitable to rent these homes and own them as appreciating assets, but what happens if rental prices bottom out, or the banks need cash? I could see mass sell offs.
- kevviiinn 4y agoWhy would a vacant house have running water? They shut down the utilities, no?
- LatteLazy 4y agoI see this claim sometimes but I have never been able to find figures for how many houses banks are holding and are NOT for sale. I guess one of the upsides of non-zero interest rates (especially for banks) is that they suddenly have a big incentive NOT to sit on assets like this...
- etempleton 4y agoI don't know if it intentional, but a bank owned property in my neighborhood has been vacant for years and they will not put it on the market. I can only guess as to why, but my guess would be that they are underwater on the property and are willing to hold on until either market conditions improve or something happens to the property and they can collect insurance.