Archive for August 15th, 2011

Unleashing private capital to stabilize the housing market …

August 15, 2011

For a couple of years (literally), I’ve been blogging that the key to stabilizing the housing market is incentivizing private capital (i.e. investors) to buy up distressed properties and rent them.

Finally, I found somebody who’s thinking on the same track.

Daniel Indiviglio of the Atlantic agrees that “Investors Can Fix the Housing Market”.

He says to “Stop Trying to Prevent Foreclosures — Mortgage Modifications Aren’t Working” and to “Ignore Consumers — They Can’t Fix This Problem”

The first point is a gimme.

Regarding consumers inability to fix the problem, he argues:

Remember that home buying credit?

Yeah, it didn’t work out so well. Home sales rose for about a year, then they plummeted and prices began to fall again.

The problem is that consumers aren’t in any position to fix the problem, so you just pulled forward a little bit of future demand.

Most people who can qualify for and afford to own a home already have one at this point.

To clear out housing inventory, you’ll need to rely on people who have cash to spend. Most Americans don’t.

The essence of his answer: make real estate investment tax-free for the next couple of years.

I agree.

To refresh your memory, here’s my plan.

  1. Eliminate future capital gains taxes on any residential property bought in the next 2 years, and held for at least 3 years.
  2. Allow investors (i.e. landlords) who rent the properties to depreciate the properties on an aggressively accelerated basis (i.e. say, 5 years),
  3. Allow any excess tax losses from renting to be applied to ordinary income.

The likely outcome: a massive inflow of private capital to buy residential properties, housing prices would be bid up, folks would have access to affordable rentals, and the economy would be stimulated … REALLY stimulated.

>> Latest Posts

Flawed research … “retraction notices” surge

August 15, 2011

Punch line: An increasing number of published research studies – scientific & academic – are being “retracted” because the outcomes being reported can’t be replicated or are just plain fraudulent.

Geez.  If you can’t believe the journals …

* * * * *
From Thomson-Reuters & the WSJ …

Since 2001, while the number of papers published in research journals has risen 44%, the number retracted has leapt more than 15-fold.

Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year.

Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to a Thomson Reuters study of peer-reviewed journals world-wide.

 

image

>> Latest Posts