Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mobile Home U

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mobile Home U

    “Don’t get too hung up on appearances,” Frank Rolfe reminded us as our tour bus made its way to the first of several trailer parks we would visit on a bright Saturday afternoon in Southern California. “Remember, you don’t have to live in these homes.”

    It was Day 2 of Mobile Home University, an intensive, three-day course on how to strike it rich in the trailer-park business. Seventy-five or so students had signed up for the class, which Rolfe offers every other month in different places around the country. Most of the enrollees weren’t real estate speculators; they were jittery members of a hard-pressed middle class. They were nervous about retirement. Or they were worried about their jobs moving overseas. Or they were making $100,000 a year, maybe even $200,000, but felt the need to earn more. All of them, though, had somehow come to see the lowly mobile home as their vehicle to financial freedom. “It’s about self-preservation,” one 42-year-old attendee told me. He had flown down from San Francisco for the seminar because he hated his job selling health care plans.

    Our first stop was Green Lantern Village in Westminster, a city of 90,000, landlocked between Santa Ana and Huntington Beach. Green Lantern is a giant patch of asphalt crammed with 130 trailers. We gathered in a circle around Rolfe and the lot’s manager and listened as the manager explained that rents at Green Lantern had been bumped up by more than 30 percent over the past three years. The Mobile Home U. students nodded appreciatively: They learned early in the course that one of the best things about investing in trailer parks is that ambitious landlords can raise the rent year after year without losing tenants. The typical resident is more likely to endure the increase than pay a trucking company the $3,000 it can easily cost to move even a single-wide trailer to another park. As Rolfe put it, an “extra $10 or $20 a month isn’t going to bankrupt anyone.” He compared the hikes with cable companies’ annual bump in fees, which get people into “the habit.” Raising rents by 30 percent might sound steep for trailer-park tenants, who at Green Lantern earn $40,000 on average, but the manager explained why that isn’t the case, as if he were reading from the 500-page instruction manual Rolfe distributed on the first day. For years, Green Lantern rented only to people 55 or older. But these days, the manager told us, a trailer is just as likely to be filled by a two-income family “making minimum wage at a Taco Bell.” There was a murmur of approval: Another early lesson was that whereas seniors tend to live on fixed incomes, greatly limiting their ability to absorb rent increases, working parents “can always pick up extra hours,” as Rolfe put it, even if they’re struggling.

    Rolfe is a tall, slouchy man with sad blue eyes and a mop of dark hair that has gone gray around the temples. He and his business partner, Dave Reynolds, started buying trailer parks together shortly after the subprime meltdown. Using their own money and millions more from outsider investors — including many who have been through Mobile Home University — they have been buying about two dozen parks a year. They now own 100 in 16 states (but none in California). By making what Rolfe calls a “contrarian bet on a poorer America,” they have posted an annual return of roughly 25 percent, a rate at which they and their investors are doubling their money about every four years. By catering to those living on the economic margins, their parks generated more than $30 million in revenue last year. More than half of that was profit.

    But the most striking aspect of their business is how happy their tenants seem to be. A few months after completing Rolfe’s course, I traveled to St. Louis to spend some time in a couple of parks that he and Reynolds own. (They let me choose where I wanted to stay.) To a person, the residents I met declared themselves satisfied with their landlords. A few, like Linda Wright, a former Walmart employee who has lived in the Jeffco Estates trailer park in Arnold, Mo., for the past 47 years, gushed about their ownership. Wright, who was the park manager when Rolfe and Reynolds took over early last spring, said the rutted roads in the park flooded every time it rained. Drug use was rampant, as were fights; the flashing lights from police cars routinely lit up the nights. When Rolfe and Reynolds bought the park, they repaved the streets and fixed the drainage system. They removed the most dilapidated trailers. And despite Wright’s being a thorn in the side of the previous owners, the new owners kept her on as a manager, drawn, Rolfe said, by Wright’s my-way-or-the-highway aggressiveness. “You get with the program in my park,” Wright, a slight, white-haired woman, told me with her arms crossed. “Or you’re out.”

    Can a business that’s trying to squeeze every dime out of the working poor still offer them a pretty good deal? “We can’t imagine wanting to live anywhere else,” said Wright, who scoffed when I pointed out she’s on the company payroll. “Trust me,” interjected her husband, John Wright, a retired auto porter. “If she was unhappy with something, she’d tell you.” To the extent that hers is a genuine and representative sentiment, the people involved with Mobile Home U. — instructors, enrollees, alumni investors — may represent the best thing going in affordable housing at a time when the nation’s need for low-cost places to live has never been greater.

    The mobile home as we know it appeared at the start of the automobile era as a pricey, wood-paneled plaything of the very wealthy — a way for them to travel in comfort on long trips before motels lined the roads. The trailer’s transition to housing was helped by World War II, when the federal government purchased tens of thousands of utilitarian trailers as a quick and easy way to house workers near factories producing war-related goods. After the war, small trailer parks popped up on college campuses to accommodate the influx of former soldiers under the G.I. Bill. It wasn’t until the ’50s that the mobile home became a low-cost residence that, despite its name, almost never moved once it was delivered to one of the thousands of trailer parks that were sprouting up around the country.

    There are 8.6 million mobile homes in the United States, according to a 2013 U.S. Census Bureau report. Some are a lone trailer on an individual’s property, while others might be parked on Native American reservations, but an estimated 12 million people, Rolfe says, live in an actual trailer park. That number is not likely to grow, we learned in Southern California, given restrictive zoning laws and the prohibitive cost of building a new park in the boonies, meaning supply is static even as demand for cheap places to live is high. “It’s just an absolutely great time to be in the mobile-home business, with all the people who have been displaced from their homes because of foreclosures or they’ve lost a job or what have you,” says Stu Silver, who runs a rival trailer-park seminar called SAM (“special advanced mentoring”) camp.

    In 2003, Warren Buffett paid $1.7 billion to buy Clayton Homes, one of the country’s largest manufacturers of mobile homes. The industry’s other boldfaced name is Sam Zell, the Chicago-based real estate magnate perhaps best known for his disastrous, debt-heavy takeover of The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and other dailies owned by the Tribune conglomerate. Zell is chairman of Equity LifeStyle Properties, which he took public in the early 1990s, when the company was called Manufactured Home Communities. With nearly 140,000 lots scattered across more than 370 communities, Equity LifeStyle is the mobile-home industry’s largest landlord. Given that at various times Zell has owned more office space, as well as more apartment buildings, than any other entrepreneur in the United States, it’s indicative of the riches to be made on this down-at-the-heels edge of the housing market that a mogul like Zell is so heavily invested in trailer parks. Not that the marketing departments at either Zell’s or Buffett’s company would describe one of its properties as a “trailer park.” They wouldn’t even use “mobile-home park.” Clayton builds and provides the financing for “manufactured homes” — grand things compared with the typical trailer — that end up in “manufactured-home communities” like the ones owned and operated by Equity LifeStyle. Its website features a montage of sun-splashed photos filled with tennis courts, swimming pools and lakes, and its properties often include clubhouses. “If you’ve never experienced the manufactured-home-community way of life, you don’t know really what a nice lifestyle it can be,” Chrissy Jackson, an industry consultant, told me. If nothing else, the look and feel of the communities she was talking about are several notches above the trailer park most of us imagine.

    Frank Rolfe rolls his eyes when he hears this kind of talk. He tells people he’s in the “mobile home” or “trailer park” business because that’s how customers talk. As for features like swimming pools? When Rolfe and Reynolds buy a park with a pool, they usually shut it down to rid themselves of the operating expense and the liability. Trees? They don’t cut them down, but they don’t plant many either. In their view, the root systems of trees are a threat to the sewer lines that crisscross any park. “We don’t like laundry rooms or vending machines,” Rolfe told the class. “We don’t like amenities of any kind.” They also prefer to buy used trailers to fill empty lots at their parks. That keeps expenses down for those paying both the lot rent, or “dirt rent,” which every resident pays each month, and the rent on their trailer — half of which can be applied toward purchasing any available unit. A used three-bedroom trailer can cost between $10,000 and $20,000, depending on its age, and take 10 years or so to pay for. The typical tenant who rents from Rolfe and Reynolds pays $250 or $300 a month in lot rent and another $200 or $300 if also renting a trailer. “The trailer park is people’s last choice,” Rolfe says, “and we recognize that.”

    There were 211,000 fewer units of public housing in the United States in 2012 than there were in 1995, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Federal spending on rental assistance programs has remained flat in recent years, according to the center, even as the number of households that the Department of Housing and Urban Development classifies as “worst case” rose by 43 percent between 2007 and 2011. A study by the Center for Housing Policy found that among renters who have a job, one in four was spending at least half of his or her income for an apartment. “We’re trying to make things as cheap as possible,” Rolfe said.

    While Rolfe, who is 52 and has a degree in economics from Stanford, can come off at times as a caricature of the coldhearted capitalist, during his Mobile Home University courses, he also gives voice to left-wing critiques about the profound fissures in our economy. One in five households, he told the class, lives on less than $20,000 a year. A significant portion of the 10,000 Americans who turn 65 every day are facing life on a fixed monthly income of $1,200 or less. He is an admitted profiteer thriving on the collateral damage caused by our winner-take-most economy, but he also is a zealous student of the constantly changing landscapes of American poverty. “The bottom line is Americans as a group are getting poorer,” he told his students — and while that’s bad news for those living on the economic fringes, it also means opportunities for those willing to take advantage of the trend.

    Rolfe was still in high school when a teacher helped him get a summer job at a local advertising agency in the Dallas area. “I felt like I found my place in the world,” he recalls. It wasn’t the creative side of the ad business that moved him but simply the camaraderie he felt working side by side with his fellow employees. “I wasn’t into sports,” he says. “I didn’t have many friends.” He was the first one in the office each day and usually didn’t leave until ordered to go home. To this day, he confesses, “I get sad on weekends because there aren’t other people around working.”

    Rolfe, who lives in a small town one hour south of St. Louis, has always looked older than his years, he says, so much so that when he was in his 20s, people mistook him for someone twice his age. Back then, he imagined he would earn an M.B.A. and maybe work at an investment bank. But his brother told him business schools wanted their students to have at least a year of practical experience, and so he went into the billboard business, buying first one billboard, and then a few more, until a decade later he was up to 300 when another company bought him out for $5.8 million. At 35, he had to decide what to do with the rest of his life.

    Before Rolfe bought a trailer park, he had visited only one, the Glenhaven Mobile Home Park in Dallas, when an out-of-town billboard client asked him to deliver a message to its manager. Rolfe says: “Invariably, the guy would open the door just wearing his underwear, totally hung over — ‘What do you want?’ ” Yet four months after selling his billboard company, Rolfe bought Glenhaven, a grim, junked-up, half-filled park, for $400,000. “The first thing I did was get a concealed-handgun license,” Rolfe says. “Because I was afraid I would get assaulted.”

    This was 1996, near the start of the Internet era. At that point, a great many Stanford grads were lured to technology by the fortunes that could be made investing in dot-com start-ups. Rolfe had a couple of million dollars in the bank and a newborn daughter at home. Someone in those circumstances might be expected to choose a field that doesn’t entail carrying a loaded pistol to work each day, but Rolfe couldn’t help himself once he calculated the financial potential of Glenhaven. He eventually made more than a million-dollar profit on that one park. And maybe just as important, he discovered that he was drawn to what was to him an exotic, fringe world that he had stumbled into.

    “I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t gamble,” he says. “I don’t travel, I don’t restore cars, I have no hobbies. I don’t do anything.” Trailer parks are his world, and after nearly two decades in the business, he can entertain his students with a near-endless repertoire of tales. One of the class’s favorites was the tenant who tried to drown his girlfriend — and then nearly became a murder victim himself when the same woman tried to saw off his head.

    “I love the weirdness,” is how Rolfe put it to me, apparently unaware of how it might sound to some that a man who makes his money squeezing a little bit more out of the working poor also finds entertainment value in the pathologies of the more miserable among them.

    After owning Glenhaven for a few months, Rolfe realized there was no reason to carry a gun to work. A year later, he also realized that he didn’t need to spend his days in the small manager’s office there. For a relatively nominal salary — these days, around $12,000 a year for the typical park plus a rent-free trailer — he could hire a manager and the day-to-day problems would be someone else’s. That freed Rolfe to roam the country in search of poorly managed parks to be bought on the cheap. His strategy drew the interest of a private equity firm that provided him with the money he needed to expand his empire. Rolfe had acquired two dozen parks when he reversed course, feeling emboldened by a spike in real estate prices that had potential buyers willing to purchase his properties for much more than he thought they were worth. By 2007, he had sold his entire portfolio, earning about as much on his trailer parks, he says, as he did from the sale of his billboard company.

    Rolfe was still winding down his business in 2006 when he met Dave Reynolds at an industry conference. The two competitors agreed over lunch that they could do a much better job teaching people the nuts and bolts of the trailer-park business than the pair who had asked them to serve as guest speakers. If anything, Reynolds knew more about trailer parks than even Rolfe. Reynolds had been born into the business; his parents owned a mobile-home court in Colorado. He went to school to study accounting, but doing the books for the family opened his eyes to the profitability of a world he shunned growing up. “I was the middle-class kid suddenly having to live among the poor,” he said about the few months he had to live in his parents’ park as a kid. “I hated it.” But Reynolds realized that he “could make three times what I could have made as a C.P.A.” He bought his first park in 1993, when he was 24.

    At first, Rolfe and Reynolds both taught the curriculum they created. But then a couple of years ago, Reynolds calculated the hours he was devoting to teaching a three-day course six times a year during boom times for the trailer-park industry. By that point, the two of them were searching the country for parks to buy. “There were better uses of my time,” he concluded. That meant more work for Rolfe, who was happy to pick up the slack. “Some people dream of going to the beach,” he says. “I dream of going to an office.”

    Mobile Home University costs $2,000. Somewhere between 30 and 40 people sign up for the course when it’s held in Denver, say, or Columbus, Ohio. But larger, more diverse crowds invariably show up in Southern California. At the Orange County sessions I attended, those enrolled included a pastor from a small church outside Portland, Ore.; a 26-year-old who made a small fortune playing online poker; and an Iraq war veteran who had recently completed a five-year stint in the military.

    As an instructor, Rolfe has a veritable Ph.D. in the habits and rituals of trailer-park residents. It’s as if he carries a map in his head based on trailer parks he has bought or at least contemplated buying and that gives him a fascinating, if perhaps narrow, view of his fellow citizens. Trailer-park residents living in the North, he told everyone, are rock-solid citizens compared with their counterparts in the South. For one thing, they tend to be neater and also more responsible. In Texas, for instance, 5 to 6 percent of their tenants are delinquent each month paying the rent, compared with less than 2 percent of those living in parks in Wisconsin, North Dakota or Minnesota.

    Rolfe avoids buying any parks in New York and California; both states are too “tenant friendly,” he said — too much in the way of time and money are required to evict someone who is behind on the rent. And forget Las Vegas, Phoenix and other locales hit hard by the subprime meltdown. The glut of cheap homes represents competition. “If we look on Zillow and see houses selling for $30,000 or $50,000, we’re walking from that deal,” Rolfe said. In most of the country, the key to calibrating the proper rent means knowing the price of a decent two-bedroom in the surrounding area. If the going rate is $700 a month, Rolfe said, then cap your lot rent at half that. And think long and hard, he warned the class, before crossing the $500 threshold. The industry “sweet spot” is a lot rent of $495, he explained, but raising it by another $5 “could mean death.” On the other hand, Rolfe said, you can always have your tenants pay for water, which is a trailer-park owner’s largest expense.

    Rolfe doesn’t offer much practical advice about overcoming any embarrassment in associating yourself with the trailer-park business. That, it seems, is something attendees have worked out for themselves before plunking down their tuition. Among those I spent time with in Orange County was Jefferson Lilly, who had made a lot of money working sales jobs at a series of Silicon Valley-based technology start-ups. “At first I was like, ‘No way am I buying a freaking trailer park,’ ” said Lilly, a clean-cut, 46-year-old Ivy Leaguer who lives in San Francisco. But when he discovered the price of apartment buildings and compared them with the cost of trailer parks, he found himself reconsidering. What difference did it make, Lilly asked himself, whether he bought a trailer park or an apartment building when he wasn’t going to live in either one?

    One of the first parks Rolfe and Reynolds bought together was the Holiday Manufactured Home Community in Pontoon Beach, Ill. It was there at this predominantly white, 217-lot park that I lived as Rolfe and Reynolds’s guest for the better part of a week last summer.

    A mobile-home park feels more like an army base than a neighborhood. A trailer is still a trailer, even with the vinyl siding and pitched roofs that are now common, and all but the priciest parks include the familiar Truman-era rectangular metal mobile homes and wooden ones that are also decades old. To maximize the number of homes that can fit in a park, trailers are arranged so passers-by generally see the sides of people’s rectangular boxes (spaced 15 to 20 feet apart) rather than their front entrances.

    Still, people make the effort to personalize their homes at Pontoon Beach. Everywhere I looked, I saw handsome wooden decks thick with potted plants, American flags, chimes and wooden birds whose wings twirl with the wind. The residents had planted shrubs and rose bushes and small flower beds bordered by rocks.

    I heard the occasional complaint during my time at Pontoon Beach — kids riding their bikes in the street, potholes patched instead of streets repaved — but they sounded like what you might hear at the monthly meeting of a suburban homeowner’s association. More typical was the view of Alisha Stanek, a 22-year-old high-school dropout with an 8-month-old daughter. Including the installment payments on a used, three-bedroom, two-bath trailer, she was spending $550 a month on rent. “I couldn’t find a house for even close to that,” Stanek said.

    Others even expressed feelings of superiority to those burdened with big mortgages or hefty monthly rents, including Barbara Watz. She moved to Pontoon Beach in 1978, a single woman in her 40s working at a blood clinic. She could have bought a tiny house on her salary, but a two-bedroom, one-bath trailer cost less per month than her car payment — and meant she was done with house payments after a few years. Now 76 and retired, Watz pays $285 a month in lot rent and spends her days reading murder mysteries and tending to her plants. Watz drives a 2010 Honda S.U.V. and has the money for small splurges. (One day when we were talking, U.P.S. delivered to her a box of wooden ducks dressed in yellow raincoats.) Her only complaint about living in a mobile-home park? “The trailer trash, redneck jokes I’ve been hearing since the day I moved in,” she said.

    There’s some nobility in the Rolfe-Reynolds business model. The parks they take over tend to be in lousy shape, and they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fixing them up. In that way, they’re the trailer-park equivalent of the developer who buys abandoned properties in the Bronx and converts them into livable places that are, at least, clean and safe. “There’s more money in decent than slumlording,” Rolfe told the class in Orange County. Run a lousy park, he warned, and you’ll never keep tenants. They’ll skip out owing rent, and it will cost you thousands of dollars to fix up the trailers they trash before leaving. Rolfe says he shudders at the thought of losing money to the multimillion-dollar negligence suits that result from cutting corners.

    A Rolfe-Reynolds park is, if nothing else, well run. Based on what I saw, tenants kept their lots junk-free and the grass mowed — or management will take care of things and send you the bill. Rolfe and Reynolds begin eviction proceedings on a tenant as soon as local laws allow, even if a tenant is just two or three weeks late in paying the rent. “Ours is a strict ‘no pay, no stay’ policy,” Rolfe says. The practice helps rid their parks of bad seeds and ne’er-do-wells — though that’s little consolation to the newly laid-off tenant who now has to simultaneously think about finding a new job and a new place to live, while facing the possibility that he’s about to lose whatever equity he has in his home. And most do have considerable equity invested, given that four out of five are paying only a monthly lot rent, which means they own their trailer outright or are making payments to a third party. If their trailer parks can be viewed as part of the new safety net, it’s a fragile one.

    The trailer park also seems a bad deal for the manager. After all, it’s the managers who deal with a clogged sewer line or the unstable tenant behind in his rent — in exchange for a low-paying job that doesn’t even offer health insurance. Yet Rolfe has a point when he argues that it’s often better than most of the alternatives. He mentions Linda Wright, who manages his park in Arnold, Mo. “What was she making at Walmart: $13 an hour?” Rolfe asked. “For $25,000 a year, she had to be in that store eight hours a day, driving there, had a boss. Now she’s making close to the same with us, in her own house. She’s her own boss.”

    Rolfe confesses to feeling some guilt that he owns the largest house in his hometown while his customers are making do in cramped quarters. It breaks his heart, he confesses, when they evict a family even as he tells himself it’s for the best. He acknowledges he has made millions of dollars warehousing those living on the economic margins. But what if you simply want to keep your monthly living expenses low so you have a nest egg for emergencies — or have the option to take in a movie or buy some wooden ducks every once in a while? Or what if Pontoon Beach is simply your best option? With around 10,000 lots scattered mostly across the Midwest and the Central Plains, Rolfe and Reynolds are about equivalent in size to a public-housing agency in a midsize city — and in an important way, they play the same role. Those living in public housing are generally required to pay up to 30 percent of their household income as their share of the rent. Rolfe and Reynolds’s tenants pay on average closer to 20 percent. And unlike the civil servants working for a housing agency, their managers know they must enforce the rules or they’re out. “We go through managers like crazy,” Rolfe says.

    Their tenants, though, tend to stay if for no other reason than a lack of options. The average resident has “such bad credit,” Rolfe said, that it would be a deal-killer for most landlords running credit checks on potential tenants. Those who are retired are thankful that they own a place of their own, even if it’s only a metal box, because it allows them to live on the little they have. And here Rolfe and Reynolds are providing safe, low-cost housing to those who can’t afford to pay more or choose not to.

    “We’re the Dollar General store of housing,” Rolfe said, adding, with an amiable grin, “If you can’t afford anything else, then you’ll live with us.”
    Gary Rivlin is a reporting fellow with the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute and the author of “Broke, USA,” about businesses catering to the working poor.
    Editor: Dean Robinson





  • #2
    Re: Mobile Home U

    I occasionally do work for a mobile home landlord/slumlord. Amazing what some of these 30+ year old POS trailers rent for. Some have no central air or heat. Just a window unit. He rents one double wide for $1100 month way out in the middle of nowhere. The fools renting it don't seem to realize they are spending an extra $300+ month in driving expenses just to get "cheap" rent. Or they have dogs and other pets they can't afford that nicer homes won't allow. And bad credit of course. I have mixed feelings about it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Mobile Home U

      Originally posted by flintlock View Post
      I occasionally do work for a mobile home landlord/slumlord. Amazing what some of these 30+ year old POS trailers rent for. Some have no central air or heat. Just a window unit. He rents one double wide for $1100 month way out in the middle of nowhere. The fools renting it don't seem to realize they are spending an extra $300+ month in driving expenses just to get "cheap" rent. Or they have dogs and other pets they can't afford that nicer homes won't allow. And bad credit of course. I have mixed feelings about it.
      Agreed.

      I've had some big opportunities to make some quite considerable profits over the past decade+ BUT it would have meant preying on this segment of the population.

      The working poor.

      I'm ALL for making money. But I feel compelled to do so with a clean conscience.

      We're fortunate to not have the problem of losing sleep at night worried about making payroll or the mortgage payment.

      We choose not to lose sleep at night worried about the morals/ethics of our bank balance.

      Predatory capitalism….I'm not a fan….I can't stop it….but I can choose not to participate in it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Mobile Home U

        this seemed an appropriate placement under the New Normal . . .

        New Capital Could Raise Airbnb Value To $10 Billion


        Airbnb is poised to join the 11-digit club.

        The company, which was created nearly six years ago as a way to help people find spare rooms and couches to sleep on, is in advanced talks to raise more than $400 million in capital, a round of financing that would value it at more than $10 billion, people briefed on the matter said on Thursday.

        Such a valuation would surpass that of Hyatt, the 57-year-old hotel stalwart, and make Airbnb the latest technology start-up firm to gain an eye-popping net worth. Investors hungry for a piece of the fastest-growing start-ups have opened their wallets, hoping to get even a small piece of the action before what they hope will be a giant payday.

        But Airbnb, a centerpiece of what has become known as “the sharing economy,” is also drawing increasing scrutiny from regulators concerned about safety, rental laws and tax collections. The company has become a point of contention among landlords in big cities, as well.

        Leading the potential new fund-raising round is TPG Growth, the investment firm that already has a stake in the car-ride service Uber, the people briefed on the matter said. Other prospective investors include the Dragoneer Investment Group and T. Rowe Price, one of these people added.

        The discussions, which were first reported by The Wall Street Journal, are continuing and may still fall apart, these people cautioned.

        Despite murmurs of a new technology bubble, valuations appear to be rising unchecked. Last month, Facebook — itself worth nearly $170 billion — paid more than $16 billion for the messaging service WhatsApp, a bid that some analysts have described as reasonable given the acquired company’s growth prospects. Dropbox, a provider of online storage, has been appraised at about $10 billion, while Palantir, a sophisticated data analysis firm, has raised money at a $9 billion valuation.

        The pace of investments appears to be accelerating. Venture capital firms spent $8 billion in the last three months of 2013 investing in the likes of Pinterest, the fast-growing social network, according to data from CB Insights. The hope, as ever, is that these start-ups will eventually be sold or go public at still higher valuations.

        “I’ve never seen people so encouraged,” said Colin C. Blaydon, a professor at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business. “There will be big winners, and investors don’t want to miss out.”

        Others view the valuation race more skeptically.

        “We’re seeing valuations go nuts,” said Jim Ellis, a lecturer at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business.

        Even so, Mr. Ellis conceded that many of the companies now enjoying the limelight are a far cry from those that rose and fell during the dot-com bubble. Many start-ups now have business models that can lead to sustainable revenue and profits.

        Airbnb appears to be one of them. Founded in the summer of 2008, the company has since become one of Silicon Valley’s most celebrated and one of its most disruptive. Its marketplace lets people rent out their homes, from couches to entire houses, drawing an estimated 11 million guests in more than 34,000 cities.

        Airbnb makes money by taking a cut of each transaction. With 600,000 listings on the company’s site, that could translate into significant revenue. The company doesn’t disclose its financial information.

        Under the business model, one shared with Uber, homes and cars are not just possessions but potential sources of revenue. The model also allows customers to pay lower rates than those charged by traditional service providers like hotels.

        But with the disruption that companies like Airbnb and Uber promise comes greater legal scrutiny. Airbnb has faced challenges from regulators concerned that the service allows homeowners and renters to avoid paying taxes. Other government agencies are investigating whether these start-ups run afoul of state laws governing rentals.

        New York’s attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, has subpoenaed Airbnb for information on customers in the state who he suspects may be illicitly using its services for their main income. Airbnb has moved in court to quash the information request; a hearing is scheduled for next week.

        And Uber has battled taxi and limousine commissions in a number of places, including Washington, where the established industries have argued that the service violates local regulations.

        Those potential hurdles have failed to daunt prospective investors. TPG Growth, for example, participated in a fund-raising round for Uber last year that valued the service at $3.8 billion.

        Investors are betting that Airbnb will continue to show enormous growth. Its last fund-raising round, in 2012, valued the company at $2.5 billion. Should its latest efforts to raise capital succeed, it will carry a higher valuation than Wyndham Worldwide, whose market capitalization stands at $9.3 billion, or Hyatt, whose market value is $8.4 billion.

        The round would also put a valuation on Airbnb more than twice that of HomeAway, a publicly traded vacation rental company that carried a value of $3.8 billion as of Thursday.

        Airbnb’s current investor roll reads like a list of Silicon Valley’s biggest venture capital firms. Among them: Sequoia Capital, the only outside investor in WhatsApp; Andreessen Horowitz, an early backer of Facebook; Founders Fund; and even the actor Ashton Kutcher.





        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Mobile Home U

          Mike Krieger

          I can’t say this is surprising. After all, with average peasants, I mean citizens, now priced out of the domestic housing market (Zillow recently showed 1 in 3 homes are unaffordable) due to billionaire financiers and foreign oligarchs buying up all real estate in cash purchases, American serfs now will find out where the “elites” think they belong. In trailer homes, naturally.

          Oh, but the story gets better, a lot better. As is generally the case in the USSA these days, crony capitalist oligarchs have perfectly positioned themselves to benefit financially from the final transition of Americans to neo-feudalism. Recall that in my post from last October titled, Carlyle Group’s Latest Investment…Trailer Parks, it was noted that trailer park owners share the following attractive quality:


          Our customers have no alternative shot at homeownership, nor do they [normally] even have the credit scores and quality to seek anything better…They never leave the park they are in, and the revenues are unbelievably stable as a result.

          Sure, we know from the Dark Ages that peasants on the land stay put. Same concept here. However, it gets even better than this. America’s number one hypocritical, crony capitalist, Warren Buffett is also positioned to benefit.

          From Bloomberg:

          Want to buy a trailer park? Freddie Mac wants to give you a loan.

          The unit of the government-owned mortgage giant that funds apartment buildings is set to begin financing manufactured-housing communities, the company said in a statement today.

          The firm is broadening its reach in the multifamily segment of the housing market as it seeks to fulfill its mandate to provide affordable options for low-income families. The McLean, Virginia-based lender will work with established companies in the industry across the U.S., said David Brickman, the head of multifamily operations at Freddie Mac.

          “It’s rounding out our ability to touch the affordable housing space,” Brickman said today in a telephone interview. “Manufactured housing is a big piece of rural affordable housing.”

          Warren Buffett, the billionaire chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., lamented the punitive rates charged to purchase factory-built homes in his 2009 annual letter to shareholders.Berkshire owns Clayton Homes Inc., a builder of manufactured housing.





          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Mobile Home U

            Can capitalism not be "crony"?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Mobile Home U

              Originally posted by Southernguy View Post
              Can capitalism not be "crony"?
              A friend of mine ran his own title company, with his wife as a RE broker. A nice tag team for local investment. What always pissed him off was the good ole boy clique which he wasn't a part of. Since he was born and raised elsewhere he was always something of an outsider.

              These arrangements are inevitable in human affairs. What's damaging is when monopolies enjoy cronyism on a national scale. Then we're all . . . well, you know.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Mobile Home U

                Socialism is crony too. Putin and the oligarchs.

                Communist China- families of party leaders own many of the key businesses

                No matter what the political system the elites always profit at the expense of the common man.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Mobile Home U

                  China and Russia are not socialist. They do not even pretend to be. Even if the ruling party in China is called "communist". As per the discussion of "other systems"...too long to engage here.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Mobile Home U

                    Back when cars were bigger and trailers were smaller, it was easier to move on if the rates went up. Dad just backed the family car up. The 'mobile' part of 'mobile home' isn't what it was.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Mobile Home U

                      Cripes! The tone of the original article makes my blood boil. The insistance on calling these homes trailers and these communities trailer parks just furthers the negative stereotype. Reporters who do stories about this industry insist on using that term. According to federal HUD regulations, mobile homes built post-1976 are "MANUFACTURED HOMES" not trailers. That's the accurate term. A trailer is something you drag behind a truck. RV parks have hookups for trailers. Those are not Manufactured Homes. Do sports reporters call racehorses donkeys? No. Do automotive reporters call trucks cars? No. A truck is a truck, a car is a car, an SUV is an SUV. Accuracy is expected by reporters in those fields, but not in our industry.

                      This article went out of its way to feature scumbag, low-life predatory landlords who celebrate the worst of the industry. The writer makes it look as if we're all either preying on the poorest of the poor or catering to wealthy snobs, when that just isn't true.

                      Slum parks give the manufactured home community industry a bad image that the rest of us pay for. The entire stick-built home industry isn't similarly tainted by the presence of slum house neighborhoods. The apartment complex industry isn't similarly tainted by the existence of apartment slums. How many articles feature successful apartment slum landlords and make thinly veiled derogatory comments about the people who live in their properties? I guess those stories just aren't as colorful, lacking wooden ducks and all. But reporters go out of their way to give the impression that manufactured home communities are slummy trailer parks, and their inhabitants are trailer trash.

                      The company I work for is small. They locally own and manage seven manufactured home communities. We call them mobile home communities because that's what customers call them. They sure as hell aren't "trailer parks". There are two all-age communities. The one in Tucson is old but attractive, well-kept and stable with full occupancy. It has a pool, a clubhouse, a little playground, and laundry facilities. It has beautiful desert landscaping. Many of the tenants have lived there for decades. The majority of them are working-class hispanic families. Lot rent is $363/month plus utilities. The company spends a lot of money on infrastructure maintenance and improvements. The manager works his fanny off keeping the park in good repair.

                      The community in the Phoenix metro east valley has been troubled. Fifteen years ago there was a waiting list to get into that community, but Phoenix now seems to be a corridor for more transient population. We run criminal, financial and landlord dispute background checks on every tenant applicant. Still, no sooner do many move in than they default on their rent. It takes about 3 months to evict them, by which time they've trashed their home and we have to renovate it again. We did a major expulsion to get the riffraff out. Now the park is 20% vacant. So rental income is down 20% while we're paying to renovate seriously damaged homes. Nobody here is getting filthy rich off the backs of the downtrodden poor!

                      Idiot carpetbaggers who go into this business expecting to get rich after a weekend course go out of business fast. They run down the parks, hurt their tenants and give the industry a bad image. This is a hard business to do well, and by "well" I mean turn a profit while providing clean, safe housing for people who don't have a lot of money or credit, or who don't want to go into debt for their housing, like me.
                      Last edited by shiny!; May 02, 2014, 11:58 AM. Reason: sentence order

                      Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Mobile Home U

                        Been waiting, Shiny!, for your turn at bat.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Mobile Home U

                          Originally posted by shiny! View Post
                          Cripes! The tone of the original article makes my blood boil. The insistance on calling these homes trailers and these communities trailer parks just furthers the negative stereotype. Reporters who do stories about this industry insist on using that term. According to federal HUD regulations, mobile homes built post-1976 are "MANUFACTURED HOMES" not trailers. That's the accurate term. ...
                          its kinda 'funny' isnt it - that this same bunch - "journalists" - who bend over backwards in using (contorting) euphemisms to convey (spin) things in as politically correct-speak as possible when they want to make something look good (see anything to do with obama/lib-dems politix/policies) - but can/will be so 'honest' with something like this

                          methinks its got more to do with realtor advertising revenues than anything else?
                          in other words: dont wanna give any potential house buyers any ideas that 'relocatable structures' might make any kind of sen$e for people who dont want to/cant come up with the scratch to fill the realtwhores/title-ins/banksters pockets full of their BS fees/commish's/premiums

                          might give too many the idea that they DO have options to simply bending over for one of their (lamestream media) fave advertisers
                          Last edited by lektrode; May 02, 2014, 11:52 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Mobile Home U

                            Originally posted by lektrode View Post
                            its kinda 'funny' isnt it - that this same bunch - "journalists" - who bend over backwards in using (contorting) euphemisms to convey (spin) things in as politically correct-speak as possible when they want to make something look good (see anything to do with obama/lib-dems politix/policies) - but can/will be so 'honest' with something like this

                            methinks its got more to do with realtor advertising revenues than anything else?
                            in other words: dont wanna give any potential house buyers any ideas that 'relocatable structures' might make any kind of sen$e for people who dont want to/cant come up with the scratch to fill the realtwhores/title-ins/banksters pockets full of their BS fees/commish's/premiums

                            might give too many the idea that they DO have options to simply bending over for one of their (lamestream media) fave advertisers
                            Lektrode, that's an interesting observation. You've got me wondering now...

                            Manufactured homes are the most affordable housing there is. Lenders are happily making high risk auto loans to people who have no business buying expensive cars, yet they won't loan to people for a home that costs no more than a car. It sure does seem as if someone wants to force people into buying stick-built houses, doesn't it?

                            Up until about 13 years ago, people could easily get financing to buy new or good condition used homes. No more. They can get a loan to buy a car but not a manufactured home, even though technically speaking, manufactured homes are registered as motor vehicles with VIN numbers. Very few people have the cash to buy a new home outright. Ditto for community owners. This makes it very difficult to bring new units in to fill empty spaces.

                            With lending dried up, there are almost no new manufactured homes being made anymore. Extremely large companies like Hometown America have enough capital that they can contract directly with manufacturers. They will order a run of new homes made for them that go directly into their communities. Small companies like ours can't get financing to do that, so our communities are aging.

                            In order to secure the best financing, parks have to be near "full." In the park I live in we have quite a few very old homes that aren't habitable and aren't worth renovating, but for purposes of financing we can't afford to remove them because we can't fill the empty spaces with something better. These old homes are a blight.

                            Tenants (rightfully) want us to get rid of them (we'd like to as well) but if we did that we wouldn't have gotten the financing to do the million dollar sewer hookup, pool resurfacings and road repaving projects this past summer.

                            Newer homes, even if we could get them, are also much larger than the older homes they'd be replacing. Our spaces can't accomodate them. A lot of cities hate manufactured home communities (the stigma which I refer to) so they write prohibitive barriers into their codes making it unduly hard for manufactured home communities to upgrade compared to the easier requirements that apartments and houses have to comply with. As a result, many old parks just get older and more decrepit, furthering the vicious cycle. I've gotten into heated arguments with my city's head of zoning and our mayor, both of whom express their despite for "trailers" and "trailer parks". Amazingly stupid of them, since these "trailer parks" are the lifeblood of the snowbird business which is the lifeblood of our city.

                            Manufactured homes are the red-headed stepchild of housing.

                            Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Mobile Home U

                              money doesn't talk, it swears . . .

                              We had a couple over last night for dinner and the husband was itching to talk about the Clipper's owner. Sterling. Doesn't he have the right of free speech? Wasn't this a private conversation - all sweetness and light.

                              My take was 1) corporate sponsors were leaving the Clippers en masse. 2) the players were threatening a boycott, which had the potential to go league wide. 3) It's just the first round of the NBA playoffs - many fans wait for the playoffs to pay any serious eyeball time to roundball - subsequently this is where the big advertising bucks begin to flow.

                              The NBA is a billion dollar business, owned by billionaires. Morality had nothing to do with the lifetime ban. (Sterling had been a known racist for decades) He had now done the unpardonable - he became a fiscal liability.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X