Live data from Hacker News

Investors bought a quarter of US homes sold last year

pewtrusts.org

541–550 of 691 posts

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

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And move where? Most of the cities that are growing have a housing crisis. Most of the cities that are shrinking can have major safety issues - see @pontifier's misadventure in Pine Bluff, AR[1] for a particularly extreme anecdote. 1. https://maxread.substack.com/p/the-man-who-bought-pine-bluff...

There can be a vicious cycle driving safety concerns. If people being jobs to the area (pontifier didn’t) then things can get better. There are countless other towns and cities and they don't all have a safety problem. There are plenty of smaller cities in Appalachia that could be good candidates.

I’m curious what cities you have in mind.

I’ve spent time in Western, PA and while it’s definitely a lot safer than Pine Bluff, feels like there’s lots of issues with pollution, blight, and opiates even with fracking jobs and money coming into the area.

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

#542
post #286

I have considerable experience in the Real Estate backend software industry, and so am occasionally contacted by headhunters hiring for Real Estate Investment startups. Here's a typical reply that I give to them: I am philosophically opposed to "investing" in real estate, as your industry exists entirely to snatch up affordable housing from actual homeowners as a get-rich-quick scheme, benefiting those who are alread…

Seems naive though. Wouldn’t that argument apply to investing in almost any product people need?

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

#543
post #469
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1000 is too high a threshold. I wonder what it would look like if you dropped to 50 or 100. I hang out in RE circles. Anecdotally it seems that probably most of these are bought by people who have just 1-20 properties - regular folks who have regular jobs but are looking for ways to supplement their income and hopefully quit their jobs. Owning merely 5 extra homes is not enough to replace income, and in some markets…

Ah yes, regular folks who buy 5 extra homes to supplement their income.

Pretty much.

They're "regular" in that their income is not high - significantly less than me, and I earn significantly less than SV folks. Nurses, journalists, people working at the bank, etc. Many don't have a degree. None come with money.[2]

My wife would bug me often to "look into real estate", and a cursory look always seemed insane - no way is it outperforming the S&P long term! Finally I decided to look at it in depth, and although I personally did not get involved in RE investing, I did see how it works.

Owning 5 extra home sounds like a wealthy person, but the reality is most of these people aim to earn about $200/mo net profit on each of these homes. The rest of the money goes into paying off the loan, repairs, saving for vacancies, property management, etc. You can make a lot if the property/rent appreciates significantly, but most of these folks do not rely on it. And then on top of that there are some tax benefits.

The trick is finding ways to finance it, and finding good deals. The typical house for sale on the MLS will not earn you money and will likely be a loss unless it happens to appreciate. So most of these folks are looking for deals: Properties that banks will not approve loans to purchase because they are in such bad condition. Say a house, if in good condition, would sell for $300K. However, it's in very poor shape and the owner needs money. His balance on the loan is $100K. You pay him $150K or $200K in cash, spend $50K to get the property up to code, and rent it out.

But who has $150K cash lying around? Not these guys. So they find rich people who'll lend it to them (including the $50K to repair) at 12% interest rates. The idea is that it will take 3-6 months to bring the property up to code, so even though the rates seem high, the absolute amount you pay on that interest is not that high. Once it's up to code, the house is worth the market rate of $300K. You refinance, pay the original lender his balance, and can either sell the house (flip), or rent it. You often get some extra cash this way to help finance the next deal.

The beauty of it all? It's low risk. These are non-recourse loans. If you miscalculated and the deal isn't going to be profitable (e.g. the cost to repair is a lot more than estimated), the lender cannot come after your home, car, bank account, etc. They only get to keep the property you bought. You get no hit to your credit.

Of course, because of this, most such lenders will want you to put in some money (e.g. $20K). And they'll want to see how you made the repair estimates, etc. They'll lend you money only if they agree with your analysis.

Real estate is really one of the few options accessible to most - as opposed to, say, a 401K that requires an employer to offer it. It's a lot safer and simpler than most other investments. If you compare it with trying to understand the stock market, you begin to wonder why people invest in the stock market at all. Within a few months of reading and studying, you'll know all you need to know to start making money. So yes, that's why so many "regular" people are in it: It's simple[1], and they don't have access to other ways of making money. Few will lend you $150K to put into the stock market. But many will lend you that amount for real estate investing.

[1] "It's simple. Buy low, sell high. It's so simple even Donald Trump can do it!" (Common refrain you'll hear).

[2] Now above I'm talking about traditional real estate/rentals. If you go into AirBnB, the profit margins can be much higher. Over $1000/mo net profit per unit. I know one guy who was probably earning less than $70K/year in California study how to do STRs, and he's doing very well now. 2 years in made over $350K net/year, and growth is rapid - he expects to hit $1M/year soon. Obviously, he's an outlier, and he did have to work hard at it (quit his real job) but everything he did is very accessible to regular folks.

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

#544
post #465
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is because it is incredibly difficult to build new housing. Zoning is the supply constraint.

LA for example is built into the 90% range of its zoned capacity today of 4.3 million people with a population of just under 4 million by official counts (higher in actually no doubt). Meanwhile, in the 1960s when homes in LA were actually affordable, the population was 2.5 million, with a zoned capacity of 10 million. That means if we want to make LA as affordable as it was in the 1960s, then we should zone the city…

That's insane. More fun LA facts. LA produced ~60k housing units out of a goal of ~80k over the last 8 years. Their goal for the next 8 years is 450k. They are starting at least 1 year late due to the COVID eviction moratorium. Right now you still cannot Ellis Act an occupied property to demolish it. I would wager that they will not meet their goal.

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

#545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* people find the stability of the known more compelling than the danger of the hypothetical. Employers want to be where their clients and employees will be, residents want to be in a place with decent shops and services. This kind of chicken/egg problem is usually the failure of most planned towns, and the only successful ones are usually a new capital or something because the government doesn‘t care as much. And ev…

"And those are the relatively straightforward problems, to say nothing of places with high crime, bad schools or other complex societal issues." It seems every city has areas within it with these issues. So this shouldn't affect the possibility of moving to areas that have decent schools. And there are solutions to many, like private schools can be a good option especially if the yearly cost is less than the property…

> So this shouldn't affect the possibility of moving to areas that have decent schools.

It doesn't, but how much cheap land in Goldilocks-type areas really exists? The housing price problem is already becoming national in scale.

> It doesn't have to be a huge influx, nor all at once.

That ship sailed a long time ago. It already is. It turns out 1% of Californians leaving annually is still half a million people swarming other places. You cannot run into a town in the Mountain West or PNW where locals aren't complaining about Californians driving up prices. Encouraging more people to do this is going to exacerbate the problem.

> Shops aren't as much of a concern today with internet delivery.

There's still a baseline. To use your example of Appalachia in a different comment chain, consider that people in 40 counties in West Virginia today are food deserts without easy access to fresh food. Instacart is more expensive and not available everywhere.

https://www.wvpublic.org/podcast/inside-appalachia/2015-10-0...

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

#546
post #125

One insidious bit here is that as lower-income people are priced out by increasing rents , they can't even go downmarket because of things like this: Investors Are Buying Mobile Home Parks. Residents Are Paying a Price https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/27/us/mobile-home-park-owner...

This is true, similar to what's going on in Australia.

It used to be that you could move into a decent but affordable suburb, 2-3 hours from a major city. That's not really happening anymore for under 1M AUD.

So even just "getting your foot in the door" is sort of out of reach for most people. Interesting times.

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

#547
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if housing was cheap enough that paying the mortgage was around the same as what it now costs to rent. There definitely needs to be some rentals, but I believe that there needs to be controls over how many and the rental price.

I have good news for you! How many rentals are available is closely controlled in most parts of the US. This is one of the things zoning accomplishes. It's possible that the outcome may differ slightly from what you want, however. Rent controls are unfortunately very similar in key ways. They've been tried, and the results may not quite line up with what you might be hoping for.

> How many rentals are available is closely controlled in most parts of the US.

Technically true, but practically false. Yes, zoning exists in most of the US. And yes, most people have no trouble converting a region to residential zoning. I've known people on both sides, and most of the problems are the opposite - people who want to run businesses in a residential zone. I've yet to meet a single person who couldn't go the other direction.

There's a process to getting approval to build a house/apartment complex. You simply follow the process and get approval. Most of the US is not the Bay Area, Seattle or NYC.

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

#548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The people in Landrovers care less about losing money than the people in Honda Pilots, because they have a lot more of it to spare. I'm not sure they're comparable consumers for this reason.

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

#549
post #286

I have considerable experience in the Real Estate backend software industry, and so am occasionally contacted by headhunters hiring for Real Estate Investment startups. Here's a typical reply that I give to them: I am philosophically opposed to "investing" in real estate, as your industry exists entirely to snatch up affordable housing from actual homeowners as a get-rich-quick scheme, benefiting those who are alread…

Seems naive though. Wouldn’t that argument apply to investing in almost any product people need?

No. It's an argument against rent-seeking and predatory market tactics.

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

#550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should stop pretending it's a choice between single-family houses and 30 story high-rises. There are lots of seattle neighborhoods, for example, where people bought single family houses 20, 30, 40 years ago because of the character of the neighborhood and now suddenly the yimbys have changed the zoning to accept seven story buildings. A good friend of mine has lived in and cared for his home for 25 years and now t…

The fact that the change is “sudden” is a direct result of the fact that the ability to build has been restricted for so long. If building densely had been allowed all along, things would get built out whenever it made financial sense to do so, and you’d be able to see the trend coming gradually from a mile away. But now you’ve got all these low-density areas right next to (or in!) cities that have had artificial lim…

The public transit infrastructure will make a huge difference, in my opinion. The light rail heading north into suburbs where there's tons of space to build will make living outside the city itself much more bearable for people who work in the city. A modest single family home may still cost $1.5 million in the city, but at least people will have better options that don't mean a two hour commute.
Post reply on HN