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

19% of California houses are owned by investors

ocregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#21

Post by readthenotes1 »

ehutch79 wrote: post #13
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Could you please explain why that's relevant?

Not the original poster, but I imagine one of the things that undocumented people have more trouble doing is getting a mortgage or signing a lease so having a landlord who will take cash definite benefit for that group of people.

There are also citizens who are undocumented because they are incapable of the legal work to reacquire valid ID for various reasons.

That line of logic you have to ask why California has such a low rate though!

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#22

Post by hk1337 »

jimmytucson wrote: post #15

To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was): > 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm. States with the highest share of investor-owned houses: > Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%. States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England: > Connectic…

And from the link on the page: https://www.ocregister.com/2025/07/16/where-in-california-do...

> Most of California’s single-family house investors are “mom and pop” types, according to BatchData.

> Small-fry owners, with up to five properties nationwide, control 91% of California investment houses.

> The rest is divvied up this way: Owners of six to 10 houses control 4% of California investment houses. Investors with 11 to 50 houses own 3% of this Golden State housing group. And 51 or more? Only 2% of investment houses.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#23

Post by mrtesthah »

kittensmittens wrote: post #18
mrtesthah wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reference to number of generations centers around recent guidance from USCIS to de-naturalize citizens based on broadly defined criteria. The current discourse in this country centers around suspending habeas corpus to mass-deport millions of people. How do you know who's "illegal" without going through judicial process? You look at their race. And in the end, that's always what it's been about.

I don’t agree in general that’s how the system works or how most Americans think. But again that has nothing to do with the OP. I thought you were asking about American culture and I wanted to clarify.

No, a majority of Americans don't think that way. But unfortunately mass deportation was the central platform of the Trump 2024 campaign, and race is now the defacto targeting criteria for ICE.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#24

Post by lotsofpulp »

jimmytucson wrote: post #15

To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was): > 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm. States with the highest share of investor-owned houses: > Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%. States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England: > Connectic…

High property tax rates means low ROI. You can be easily paying 2%+ market value in property tax in those northeastern states.

California incentivizes holding onto real estate with prop 13, which caps property tax increases to 2% per year for the entire time you or your beneficiaries own it. There are people paying less than $10k per year property tax on $3M+ properties, and they can rent for $7k+ per month.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#25

Post by mandevil »

jimmytucson wrote: post #15

To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was): > 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm. States with the highest share of investor-owned houses: > Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%. States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England: > Connectic…

Seeing Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming at the top makes me wonder if their definition of "investor-owned" is actually picking up vacation houses/second homes? Just those are all small states with significant vacation housing markets, wonder if that is driving things here.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#26

Post by arcticbull »

I mean someone has to rent, to renters right? Not everyone plans to live in the same place forever, and not everyone wants to put up the capital to buy a place. Some percentage of housing needs to be owned by investors to make that capacity available for short-term living. What's the delta between 19% and neutral?

California has a massive housing problem, which is just not building enough houses. Doesn't matter much to me who owns them.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#27

Post by rtkwe »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #14

I’m interested in the methodology they use to identify investor-owned homes. Are they comparing known resident addresses to the names on property tax records? How does it work when multiple members of the same family have different last names? It seems fairly common for members of different generations of family (including in-laws) to live in a house that one person owns. How are you distinguishing an investment from…

Easy first step is anything not listed as owned by individual people. Investors will have some type of business ownership arrangement in 99%+ of cases and individuals will rarely have an LLC or similar setup for their purchases.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#28

Post by mikeryan »

ashdksnndck wrote: post #14

I’m interested in the methodology they use to identify investor-owned homes. Are they comparing known resident addresses to the names on property tax records? How does it work when multiple members of the same family have different last names? It seems fairly common for members of different generations of family (including in-laws) to live in a house that one person owns. How are you distinguishing an investment from…

Most real estate investors will own inventory via an LLC - often one LLC per property so liability is limited to the value of a single property.

Simply looking for properties owned by corporations will get you really close.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#29

Post by jimbokun »

mandevil wrote: post #25
jimmytucson wrote: post #15

To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was): > 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm. States with the highest share of investor-owned houses: > Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%. States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England: > Connectic…

Seeing Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming at the top makes me wonder if their definition of "investor-owned" is actually picking up vacation houses/second homes? Just those are all small states with significant vacation housing markets, wonder if that is driving things here.

Well obviously those would be included. Anything that’s not owner occupied.
Post reply on HN