431–440 of 634 posts
This is not some secret cabal of market manipulators - it's a company trying to leverage their knowledge of the housing market into an investment, and they did not do well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the easiest way to make market rates higher is to, en masse, over-pay to force everyone into thinking that the house is worth more, Thinking Fast and Slow style?
They aren't in the market to flip in the short term though. They genuinely believe that these assets will appreciate in the coming years.
* New construction isn't going up fast enough, so the housing supply will decrease and
* the number of people that want to buy a home increases as long as the total population of an area increase. Bundle that with
* fewer people getting married, and you need more houses per person than before, and that further reduces the housing supply; AND, further that with the reality that
* houses are seen as an investment vehicle, so anything that reduces the value of a house rather than increases it causes people to recoil back because that's literally their retirement in there (see Australia's housing situation, for example)
It's a very, very good bet as long as major things don't change.
Former real estate finance professional, here. If you were hoping this was a sign of the real estate market falling and perhaps its your chance to get a bargain, think again. > The company is seeking roughly $2.8 billion for the houses, which are being pitched to institutional investors, according to people familiar with the matter. Institutional investors (Blackstone, Blackrock, Colony, et al) will be being in bulk,…
This would be easy to fix with legislative that makes property taxes much higher for investment home properties. I don't think I've ever heard of a politician even talking about that though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a fallacy perpetuated by unrealistic ideals. I bought a house for 175K at 24. I only make 50K a year. I don't have a college degree. Lot of people saying buying houses is hard, unrealistic, or impractical want to buy mansions with a 10 second commute to their workplace in silicon valley but the reality is most people are not living like that. Wage workers are still buying houses no problem in what are…
My ideal is for real housing prices to remain somewhat steady - ie. I don't like that I have to pay much more than inflation to get a house compared to what my parents pay. It'd be nice to be able to afford a house where I grew up without having to tie a ridiculous amount of my net worth up in this one very pricey illiquid asset, even if I could get the mortgage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one way to drive prices in your city down is to have some even that renders it undesirable (..., defund the police ...) there are so many problems with your post but the assumption that defunding the police is necessarily going to cause prices to collapse is probably the most obviously biased one. the idea that you should view housing as simply a matter of supply and demand and not consider any externalities is an…
> Another way to make rent more affordable is to raise the tax rate on income generated from residential rentals to the point that people are not buying up all of the housing stock for the sake of investment alone. Wouldn’t that just mean there would less rental opportunities because people wouldn’t rent out properties due to the increased tax burden? Not really seeing how such a plan would work out since it would in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most baby boomers (the ones getting all the blame) usually own one house, that they live in... even if the value goes up, they need a place to live in, and the high prices are pretty much everywhere, people actually want to live. The only ones profiting from baby boomers are their kids when they inherit the houses. Politicians are probably getting paid of by companies investing in housing and buying up hundreds or th…
> even if the value goes up, they need a place to live in, and the high prices are pretty much everywhere, people actually want to live. The only ones profiting from baby boomers are their kids when they inherit the houses. This leaves out one major factor: they need somewhere to live but that doesn't mean it needs to be the same real-estate market or size. Someone who sells a house large enough to have a family in a…
But considering that people tend to move to a few urban locations, the house prices in eg. florida got very expensive too... yes, they earn a bit more, but I don't believe that single house owners, moving from SF to FL (or wherever) are causing the housing crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be easy to fix with legislative that makes property taxes much higher for investment home properties. I don't think I've ever heard of a politician even talking about that though.
We have that in Michigan. Non-homestead property taxes. All it does is make apartments more expensive for renters. The cost is just passed on to the renter.
Scale it per property === take the average of taxes / homes, pass it along to the renter.
About the only way I can the cost not getting passed to the renter is for a "the government" to set the rental prices as if the home was under a rolling 30-year mortgage, taking into account PITI. Adding a property tax on top of that ONLY to the property owner, maybe exponentially per property owned, could curb companies like Blackrock.
That being said, I have very faith that a "the government" could do this efficiently/correctly/at all. Trying to trace down umbrella corps and whatnot would be cat and mouse. The US government can't even figure out who is cheating on their taxes as it stands.
Former real estate finance professional, here. If you were hoping this was a sign of the real estate market falling and perhaps its your chance to get a bargain, think again. > The company is seeking roughly $2.8 billion for the houses, which are being pitched to institutional investors, according to people familiar with the matter. Institutional investors (Blackstone, Blackrock, Colony, et al) will be being in bulk,…
I agree. I wish people understood more of what these "institutional investors" are doing. The Fed has essentially trapped us in a system where the likes of blackrock get access to essentially free Fed printing press money right of the rollers that they then use to buy up real assets at inflated prices, which only drives up the inflation that thereby also drives up the value of previous purchases at near zero rate int…
The fed is now so fucked it can't even raise rates without immediately causing property value declines as mortgages decrease. There really is no solution and we are in for horrific pain eventually. It's simply a question of how long they can stall it.
Former real estate finance professional, here. If you were hoping this was a sign of the real estate market falling and perhaps its your chance to get a bargain, think again. > The company is seeking roughly $2.8 billion for the houses, which are being pitched to institutional investors, according to people familiar with the matter. Institutional investors (Blackstone, Blackrock, Colony, et al) will be being in bulk,…
Every person or corporation that owns more than one residential dwelling should pay increased property taxes based on the number of residential dwellings they own. This is an easy problem to legislate away, our politicians are just too cowardly to decommodify housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be easy to fix with legislative that makes property taxes much higher for investment home properties. I don't think I've ever heard of a politician even talking about that though.
It'll drive up rents, but you could pair it with a renters' tax credit.