If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund • Hacker News Board

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

#991

Post by jjav » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 2:51 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #556

maxsilver wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everybody opposed the rezoning and fought to defeat it. Why? That's kind of an important point. For example, unless this is NYC or similar, 49 townhomes is going to need a minimum of at least 110 parking spots (just to hold the occupants alone, assuming no one ever has guests ever). A realistic parking minimum should be 2.5 spots per townhouse. A lot of builders outsource their pollution to the local neighborhood,…

If you can only build dense housing in the places where there are no few jobs and few people it doesn't help much. The fact that the locals are by definition negatively impacted by new development is a great reason to take virtually all say away from the locals. Anyone who is already a home owner will find that increasing supply of homes a necessary function of the society decreases the value of the asset in which th…

> It's like they are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars in bags full of hundred dollar bills over your fence

Surely you realize that's not how it works. If the appraisal value goes up, the only receiving any money is the government from their increased tax collection. The owner didn't receive a penny.

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

#992

Post by zamfi » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 2:54 AM UTC

mixmastamyk wrote: post #972

zamfi wrote: post #923

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err…no one wants their neighborhood to suddenly have a bunch of new unknown people in it, right? You don’t have to be a nimby to be concerned about who you live next to. It’s not a “misconception” in that sense, especially if moving is impossible because of rent control, as you mention. Perhaps we need better protections around dealing with insufferable neighbors and other neighborhood changes’ negative impacts, and…

I live in a big city, and currently know maybe 1% of the neighbors if lucky. Unknown folks are not a concern.

I believe you, on the other hand, you’re one data point, and apartment buildings have stricter rules about acceptable activities and behavior (as I propose above).

Even in the biggest cities, apartment buildings often have board that approve sales and/or new residents.

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

#993

Post by mattnewton » Fri, Jun 11, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

xhrpost wrote: post #984

mattnewton wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original trillion in debt can be paid back with 50% "cheaper" dollars though, right? That's the "trick" as I understand it.

Yea I guess that's true, I feel like it only matters the first time you do it though. Like if year 1 you do $1T of debt, your debt burden after 1 year is $1T. In year 2, you inflate 50%, but need to borrow $2T. Your debt is now, in year 1 dollars, effectively (1 + 2) * .50 = $1.5T. Year 3 you do it again and take $3T in debt. Now effective debt load (in year 1 dollars) is (1.5 + 3) * .50 = $2.25T. So effective debt c…

But each time you take more debt on, you presumably get some value from it, and if that value is greater than the interest on the debt in real terms you come out ahead. It's not money for free, it's money for cheap.

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

#994

Post by batmanbury » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 2:42 PM UTC

ransom1538 wrote: post #162

Yes. This just happened to me. I put my home up for market %15 over market - was offered cash that same day by an investor. I didn't use an Agent to list (this is my 3rd home sell) and set my own buyer agent compensation on the MLS. Anyhow, they seem like pros.

And how did you list directly on the MLS without an agent?

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

#995

Post by ArkanExplorer » Sat, Jun 12, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

deathtraphomes wrote: post #301

My personal experience. With mega rental companies. I moved into one of Invitation homes a few years ago. Looked nice when we drove up, didn’t think about why all the windows were open when we signed paperwork. Their negligence nearly killed my family, and left us with life long injuries. The gas line was leaking natural gas, improper installation? the furnace and stove were emoting lethal levels of carbon monoxide.…

This is also a reason not to use gas anything inside houses - heat using heat pumps, cook using induction surfaces or electric appliances.

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

#996

Post by xenophonB » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #414

lliamander wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was from a series of predictions made by the WEF in 2016 about life in 2030[0]. The claim of many is that the WEF wants to bring about a world in which the vast majority of people don't have ownership. Reuters "fact checks"[1] this claim by saying that it was merely a prediction, and that it isn't actually a goal listed on their website. I find the fact check unpersuasive. The WEF says "you will be happy" about no…

It's pretty clearly just a provocative list of predictions and not a call to action. It's like a commercial from 1995 saying "You'll have a phone in your pocket everywhere you go". They're predicting it will be a major trend that consumers adopt because it will makes sense when it comes. It's not even that crazy of a prediction. There's loads of shit in my house that I use maybe once a year and I wouldn't mind sharin…

lol, it's clearly the direction they want things to go, be honest.

If it was something they thought was bad, they'd say so (as for example they do with prediction about climate change.)

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

#997

Post by xenophonB » Sun, Jun 13, 2021, 2:25 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #371

anthony_romeo wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "they"? Some article in a newspaper? A handful of researchers and futurists? Edit: Got it. It's from a list of unsurprising predictions from [at least] the marketing department of the World Economic Forum. Thanks.

It was from a series of predictions made by the WEF in 2016 about life in 2030[0]. The claim of many is that the WEF wants to bring about a world in which the vast majority of people don't have ownership. Reuters "fact checks"[1] this claim by saying that it was merely a prediction, and that it isn't actually a goal listed on their website. I find the fact check unpersuasive. The WEF says "you will be happy" about no…

I also not that supposed "fact check" contains a flat out lie;

They first say;

"false claims about the WEF have been conflated with conspiracy theories about the United Nation’s ‘Agenda 30’ framework"

then later on their "debunking" itself falsely conflates the WEF with the UN Agenda 2030, saying;

"False. The World Economic Forum does not have a stated goal to have people ‘own nothing and be happy’ by 2030. Its Agenda 2030 framework outlines an aim to ensure all people have access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property."

They claim the "proof" that the WEF is not promoting the "own nothing" society is that "their" Agenda 2030 framework promotes property ownership, but it isn't "theirs" at all, it's the UN's. They literally do the same thing to rebut claims about the WEF that they accused the "conspiracy theorists" of.

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

#998

Post by CRConrad » Tue, Jun 15, 2021, 6:39 PM UTC

sergiotapia wrote: post #503

@dang: Why did you change the URL from the original twitter thread? https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402434266970140676

Probably because https://mobile.twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402449561864... and, a little earlier, https://mobile.twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402448040997... show it's a thread by a raving conspiracy theorist. (Or, at best, someone very successfully impersonating one.)

EDIT: But yeah, crackpot or not, that's a lot more sources than just the one. So yes, a weird switch.

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

#999

Post by CRConrad » Tue, Jun 15, 2021, 10:48 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #531

pandeiro wrote: post #467

Aside from the distraction of the author's nuttery, the issue is probably the most salient one for the American middle class over the next century. Either very strong measures are imposed to limit / de-incentivize real estate speculation and hoarding, or the vast, vast majority of the population is entirely excluded from any kind of property ownership. And while simplistic 'conspiracy' thinking definitely is of a muc…

This comment refers to the original URL, https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402434266970140676 , which we've since replaced with the article it points to (in keeping with the site guidelines).

But a Twitter URL actually shows a thread, not just a single tweet. And this thread had a lot more links than just that single WSJ article. On the whole, I think the substitution was for the worse, not better. (And if the guidelines actually demand it, they need to be changed.)

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

#1000

Post by CRConrad » Tue, Jun 15, 2021, 11:04 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #472

throwawaysea wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, I think calling "The Great Reset" a 'crank subject' is itself a sign of conspiratorial thinking, or in the least, misleading/false information. I often see people label discussions of "The Great Reset" in this way, but that ignores the reality that the World Economic Forum literally branded their 2020 meeting as "Great Reset" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Reset ). If the WEF isn't a familiar nam…

"Crank subjects" are not subjects that are themselves fundamentally outlandish or unreal: they're subjects picked up by cranks and integrated into conspiratorial worldviews. Davos is a real summit that happens every year; it's also a crank subject because cranks integrate it into their NWO and similar theories. Your own Wikipedia link says this neatly: > According to The New York Times,[1 1] the BBC, The Guardian, Le…

> Davos is a real summit that happens every year; it's also a crank subject because cranks integrate it into their NWO and similar theories.

Well, I think they're only partly wrong: Of course Davos has always (since long before it was called the "WEF") felt like it's all about "the world order"... But it's made up of the rich and powerful -- so why would it want a new world order, when the old / current one is that the rich and powerful run the world?