Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#751

Post by SavantIdiot »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #673
SavantIdiot wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then your thoughts are incorrect. Portland, Ore. is facing a huge housing crisis because single-home zoning prevented increasing density. Without the ability to create more housing on existing land, there is a shortage. It's that simple. They recently passed a law allowing more dense developments, and that will create more supply. There are currently 10 apartment projects in flight in the city, so there is no cabal c…

Yes, I’m familiar with that narrative. Perhaps it is reality in _Portland_and_handful_of_other_places. In that case, you’re actually specifying the different case of solving a real housing shortage, not a manufactured shortage. I routinely take 3-mile walks through my neighborhood in NE Los Angeles. There are at least two homes on each block that are unoccupied. The nearby stack and pack developments don’t offset the…

If I understand your argument correctly, you are making an un-evidenced claim that a cabal of housing developers are conspiring creating a housing shortage despite the biggest housing boom in the US since post WW2, while also claiming single-dwelling zoning as the root cause is somehow just an anecdote?

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#753

Post by BurningFrog »

brightball wrote: post #218
davidw wrote: post #125

Here's why investors buy up houses: they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply, which makes it a good investment. Here's one who comes right out and explains this: > Meanwhile, local opposition to building is so commonplace and the approval process so cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, even when a proposed project complies entirely with requirements, approv…

I just experienced something similar to this and it makes me wonder if much of this is just perception. We recently dealt with an out of state builder pushing to have a property that was zoned Neighborhood Commercial to be rezoned to something more flexible so that he could build 49 town homes with 49 parking spots on 5 acres of land. Everybody opposed the rezoning and fought to defeat it. The project would have been…

For one thing, the zoning was probably there because the local NIMBY opinion.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#754

Post by joe_the_user »

bennysomething wrote: post #612
davidw wrote: post #125

Here's why investors buy up houses: they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply, which makes it a good investment. Here's one who comes right out and explains this: > Meanwhile, local opposition to building is so commonplace and the approval process so cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, even when a proposed project complies entirely with requirements, approv…

They know that the current government planning regulations mean that getting anything built is extremely difficult. They know that due to supply and demand that this makes property a wise investment. Blame planning regulations. I read recently that Japan and new Zealand scrapped various regulations and this led to stabilization / lower of property prices. Near me, someone is sticking up protest letters at bus stops c…

A neighbor was complaining just the other day about a developer want to build two houses on a sliver of land in our small historic town. I've got no reason to support this. There's space to build an apartment building near me but no one want to do that (a building, in fact, burned down a while back and hasn't been rebuilt).

Neighbors want no development. Developers want to build more of the ubber expensive houses the neighbors want to protect. You need regulations that encourage dense, ideally very dense, housing. Enough dense housing and you can "preserve the character" (if not the home values) of the smallish towns.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#755

Post by nostrademons »

reverend_gonzo wrote: post #710
nostrademons wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of this is changing - I've heard that Redfin agents (who are employees - they don't split commissions the way other brokerages do) get paid a bonus structure that's tiered based on list price. So at the time they show you the house, the bonus they get if you buy it is already set, regardless what you pay for it. They still do have an incentive to show you more expensive homes, but they don't have an incentive to…

See, I used to think that maybe with the different compensation structure, Redfin agents' interested might end up being more in line with the buyers. I ended up working with one, and realized that is absolutely not the case. First, yes, Redfin agents don't get commissions the way traditional real estates agents get commissions. However, Redfin agents do still want to close as many deals as possible. Also, while real…

It works for a certain type of buyer, one who basically wants to drive the process themselves and just needs an agent for guidance. This described us pretty well, and many other Millennials. We basically just wanted an agent because we were househunting during COVID and needed one to literally get in the door, and to help guide us through the paperwork and process since we were FTHBs. Redfin was great for this; our agent didn't pressure us to buy or steer us toward any particular homes, then he had a bunch of useful information when it came time to negotiating and putting in an actual offer.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#756

Post by krferriter »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #357
tengbretson wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't this accelerate the displacement of less wealthy home owners in neighborhoods that are being gentrified?

Many counties in Texas have solved this by setting a 10% maximum year over year increase in property/land tax for people LIVING in their homes. There are also locks and exemptions carved out for those over 65 and disabled veterans.

Yeah there should be exemptions (i.e. standard deductions) to help low-income people (retirees with low savings, such as those dependent on social security or disabled, etc) and for people's primary residence.

What we don't want is a 50 year old who fully owns a $2 mil house and has $15 mil in the stock market and $1 mil in cash to be exempted from most property tax, but a 30 year old with $200k total assets to be on the hook for the full property tax rate. That doesn't make sense.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#757

Post by mixmastamyk »

ryandrake wrote: post #507
OldGoodNewBad wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why artificially? People move into single family dwelling neighborhoods because they have lower crime and better schools. There’s nothing artificial about selecting the best environment for yourself and your family. Is it necessary to artificially editorialize when you’re making what is, at its root, a thinly veiled socio-political point?

I agree. I moved to a suburban single family home neighborhood specifically because I like the environment of a neighborhood with suburban single family homes. That suits me and my family. Others might like low-rise apartment buildings and townhomes, and they should have access to neighborhoods with that type of housing. Others might like high-rise apartments, and those neighborhoods should be available too. Why is i…

Nimbys fight against higher density housing everywhere. Read the BANANA definition up thread.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#758

Post by helen___keller »

ivalm wrote: post #730
dcolkitt wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what? What business is it of the local government? Why can't we just let consenting adults make their own personal decisions about the details of the housing and parking they choose to live in? Some people may only need limited parking. Some people may not need any parking. Maybe they're making a mistake and will regret it. Maybe not. Maybe nobody wants that, in which case the developer will pay the cost. Who car…

Because there are external costs. The “consenting adults” narrative is false. Not enough parking means people living there will use street parking in nearby areas affecting the residents of those communities. This happens all the time.

This line of dialogue is a very strong demonstration of how car-centric transportation model leads to a perverse anti-social urban development mindset. Unused parking is quite literally the least productive and least attractive use of land, I simply can't fathom seeing it as attractive.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#759

Post by ghaff »

michaelmrose wrote: post #587
nradov wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More homes and more people doesn't necessarily make an area more desirable. Many people prefer space, privacy, and quiet. Those things are more important to them than property values.

That is fantastic for retirement but 80% of people who live in Urban areas value above all else seemingly proximity to jobs which are driven themselves by the proximity of many people which is often driven by the proximity to desirable features like ports.

>who live in Urban areas value above all else seemingly proximity to jobs

Many jobs are in the suburban areas near metros rather than in metros themselves. SV is somewhat unusual in that a large swath of suburban area is as expensive or more expensive than in the city itself. This isn't the case with a lot of cities.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#760

Post by mixmastamyk »

paganel wrote: post #601
davidw wrote: post #125

Here's why investors buy up houses: they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply, which makes it a good investment. Here's one who comes right out and explains this: > Meanwhile, local opposition to building is so commonplace and the approval process so cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, even when a proposed project complies entirely with requirements, approv…

> they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply And then the same middle-class (mostly white, with some Asian mix on the West Coast) plays the "revolt game" of supporting the Afro-American and Latino US population, blaming the latter's condition only on racism, totally ignoring the class war now unfolding in the States of which they (said middle-class) are the "baddie…

This comment is too on the nose, but there is truth to it. In the hypocrisy of urban nimbys, oblivious to the fact that their actions directly contribute to income inequality.
Post reply on HN