EmÂ alternativa Ã Â anunciada criaÃ§Ã£o de fundos imobiliÃ¡rios de arrendamento habitacional, cujo esquema de funcionamento ninguÃ©m pareceÂ ainda terÂ explicitado devidamente,Â mas que, pelos contornos jÃ¡ anunciados, dificilmente serÃ¡Â um negÃ³cioÂ equilibrado para quem se acha na posiÃ§Ã£o mais dÃ©bil,Â envolvendo sempre Ã partida a transmissÃ£o da propriedade da habitaÃ§Ã£o,Â esta proposta de Andrew Caplin, Thomas Cooley, Noel Cunningham e Mitchell Engler, publicadaÂ em artigo de hoje no Wall Street Journal, parece deveras interessante, porque mais justa e razoÃ¡vel na partilhaÂ de responsabilidades e futurasÂ mais-valias:
The federal government needs to give taxpayers an ownership stake in the future. The SAM does just this. For example, a homeowner unable to support payments on a house purchased for $200,000 that today is worth only $150,000 might be offered a write-down of up to $50,000. But this would not be a free lunch.
With the SAM, once the value began appreciating above $150,000, the mortgage holders would be due their share. The details of the write down and the appreciation sharing could be tailored to different circumstances. But one way to give lenders a share of the upside would be to pay back some of the write down if the house is later sold, in the scenario above, for more than $150,000. This is a model in which both parties benefit, preventing default while giving future taxpayers a fighting chance at some real upside to the investment we’re forcing on them.