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

Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

pewtrusts.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 691 posts

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#481

Post by throwaway0a5e »

missedthecue wrote: post #429
slg wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's people accurately recognizing that their home is the biggest purchase they will ever make in their life, it's almost completely done with debt, and most don't want to end up underwater. What is those people's second biggest purchase which is also usually done with debt? Does anyone believe that the government should enact policies to ensure that car prices always increase so they would be a better investment?…

Resale value is probably one of the number one things car buyers look at when shopping.

Look at what people actually do, not what they say for cheap virtue points online.

Reliability is way, way down the wish-list. People don't really consider it until all the other key features they want are very solidly satisfied. And even then the take rate is maybe 50%. For every jerk in a 4Runner or Pilot there's an equal and opposite jerk in a Landrover or Tiguan.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#482

Post by kaashif »

jaywalk wrote: post #303
ryukafalz wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your nice, quiet suburb is unlikely to get many high-rises if it’s actually far enough away from the nearest city center, because it doesn’t particularly make sense to build towers in the middle of nowhere. By contrast if your suburb is nice and quiet despite being right next to a city because decades of policy have locked it in place and it’s pricing people out… too bad? Other people need housing too and outward…

Too bad? Hilarious. Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else. If I wanted to live like you, I'd live where you do. And no matter how much you want my area to change (because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with) it's not going to.

> Stay in your concrete hellhole, and stop acting like you know what's best for everyone else.

So the side advocating for upzoning (allowing people to build what they want on their own properties) is "acting like they know what's best for everyone else" while you, advocating for strict limits on what others can do on their own properties according to your desires, aren't?

I guess we can make this consistent if you admit you're doing something you know isn't best for everyone else, and aren't even trying to. Which would be fine if you weren't using the state to support your aims.

If we don't do that, and both sides are trying to do what they think is best for everyone, this is a difference in degree not kind. There obviously need to be limits on any zoning.

> because you clearly can't stand for people to live in ways you don't agree with

You are in support of using the coercive power of government to restrict your neighbors from living in ways you disagree with, if those ways include building more housing!

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#483

Post by ghaff »

ryukafalz wrote: post #426
ghaff wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Upwards of 80% of the US population lives in urban areas Look up the US Census definition of "urban." In the town where I live, three houses around me are on 100 acres collectively--not to mention even more adjacent conservation land and that's classified as urban because it's near a smaller old mill town and only about 50 miles from a major city.

Without knowing exactly which town you’re talking about, I would posit that that’s likely still dense enough to have some pretty direct comparison points somewhere in Western Europe. It’s not like all of Western Europe is a city. Which doesn’t mean that the same infrastructure you’d see in a dense European city would make sense in your town, mind you. I just think that Europe and America aren’t as incomparable as som…

Well, it's a typical more rural New England town. There is zero public transit of any sort. Essentially no businesses in town except barely when they merge with an adjacent small old mill city. So even in the town center where there are some sidewalks basically nowhere to walk to other than the library or post office. About 7K population total.

About an hour drive from a major city.

Though not that different really from small English countryside towns I've walked through.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#484

Post by lotsofpulp »

game_the0ry wrote: post #327
VirusNewbie wrote: post #226

What's nuts is not just that investors get to buy homes, but that its tax advantaged to do so. Between prop 13 in California, to 1031 exchanges, there are plenty of reasons to invest in RE over even say the stock market. I don't get to do a 1031 exchange for my Meta stock into AAPL or something...

This was by design - the real estate industry lobbies hard.

In fact, the previous president signed a law removing 1031 exchange for everything except real estate. Coincidentally, the previous president is in the real estate business.

https://krscpas.com/the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-tcja-and-code-...

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#485

Post by noasaservice »

pickovven wrote: post #244
noasaservice wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If its my primary residence, then it's a place to live. If it appreciates, cool. I can make more money when I move somewhere else and use that to leverage my next house WHICH I LIVE IN.. If it goes down, bummer, but I can still use that to leverage my next house WHICH I LIVE IN. I bought the house to live there, not as a financial instrument. The financial thing is secondary.

Oh so you'll always sell your house for the same price you bought it for and never do anything wild like take out a home equity loan?

Did I not say that the primary thing should be TO LIVE IN?

If the market goes up or down, I cant do shit about that.

But you pick on the fact that I'm talking about a primary (and in my case, sole) residence, and this article is talking about parasites that buy hundreds or thousands of homes to then turn back around and gatekeep living spaces.

Id say tax those vultures out of a company. They do nothing good, and cause boundless suffering.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#486

Post by jjav »

xienze wrote: post #405
dqv wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I get the hate against institutional investors going in and buying up entire neighborhoods. But the sentiment that we should just abolish landlords is rather dumb IMO. There's a massive gap between someone being able to afford $1200 in rent and being able to afford a home with all of the added costs. As opposed to... being able to afford the rent with the same added costs? Take my area for example: rent in my neighb…

> So what are the added costs that landlords are "saving" renters from? Utilities will generally cost a bit more. But the real killers with home ownership tend to be large expenses that come due all at once. Roof needs to be replaced, AC unit needs to be replaced, major appliance replacement, foundation problems, any number of expensive things can and will come up.

> But the real killers with home ownership tend to be large expenses that come due all at once.

All these expenses (plus a profit margin) are built into the rent, of course.

Two ways the owner handles them: Either they have enough money saved that they can absorb the spikes in cost, or, they contract some maintenance plan they have to pay every month but smooths out the costs to avoid surprises.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#487

Post by ghaff »

bombcar wrote: post #443
ghaff wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Upwards of 80% of the US population lives in urban areas Look up the US Census definition of "urban." In the town where I live, three houses around me are on 100 acres collectively--not to mention even more adjacent conservation land and that's classified as urban because it's near a smaller old mill town and only about 50 miles from a major city.

Apparently the new "urban" definition is something like: >Adopting 500 persons per square mile (PPSM) as the minimum density criterion for recognizing some types of urban territory. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/03/24/2022-06... Which basically means anything "town-like" or higher is "urban". So most Americans live in urban areas even if they are in a tiny town in the middle of nowhere.

Yes. Most people see urban and imagine at least a 2nd or 3rd tier city in terms of population. Not a 5K person town that may or may not be within a not too long a drive of some sort of population center.

Urban in the sense of "don't need to own a car" is a much smaller slice--especially if you aren't adjusting your expectations.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#488

Post by jjav »

xienze wrote: post #407
inetknght wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a massive gap between someone being able to afford $1200 in rent and being able to afford a home with all of the added costs. Having recently bought a home, I think there isn't so much of a gap and in many cases the gap is inverted: it's cheaper to buy than to rent.

Key phrase here being “recently bought.” Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature that requires you to cough up $10K+ all at once. The mortgage is the _minimum_ monthly payment, not the maximum.

> Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature

By that time their fixed mortgage will be far below local rent, so the money they save vs. renting every month will easily cover those repair costs.

Re: Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

#490

Post by daoist_shaman »

twawaaay wrote: post #376

Except the problem isn't investors buying property. Investors are buying up property for rental because it is profitable because there is huge demand for it because a lot of people simply are unable to own their own house and that is because housing is getting expensive faster than salaries. The problem is government tied in stupid games while important problems like encouraging new, more affordable housing is set as…

> Also government sleeping on the job not including useful knowledge in school curriculum -- like basics of personal finances and economics.

Seems intentional at this point. Keep 99% of the population as useful, financially-illiterate workers who don't realize they are being exploited by the 1% ruling class to whom laws don't apply.

Post reply on HN