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

31–40 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#31

Post by crooked-v »

hk1337 wrote: post #22
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 wit…

Or in other words, small independent landlords (using that arbitrary 5-house cutoff) own 17.29% of Caliornia houses, and other landlords own 1.71% of California houses.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#32

Post by koolba »

nikanj wrote: post #17

California real estate is such a tragedy, as huge portions of the population are suffering from a housing shortage caused almost exclusively by not building enough homes. A majority of people own real estate, so they're happy with the status quo. Why would you put up with even the slightest personal inconvenience from added housing, if all it got you was a reduced value of your property?

> California real estate is such a tragedy, as huge portions of the population are suffering from a housing shortage caused almost exclusively by not building enough homes.

The real issue with CA real estate is prop 13. It directly disincentivizes selling your home as you would be paying significantly higher taxes on the same house (same value etc) somewhere else.

So if you do own a home, you’re much better off keeping it and renting it out rather than putting it on the market. The only thing stopping one from doing that is needing the home value itself as the down payment for their next residence. But even that can be avoided by getting a line of credit on your original house.

If you want to fix CA real estate, scrap prop 13, force granny to sell and move to the boonies (to avoid the massively ratcheted property tax she will now be paying), and you’ll have a massive supply of homes for sale.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#33

Post by nikanj »

koolba wrote: post #32
nikanj wrote: post #17

California real estate is such a tragedy, as huge portions of the population are suffering from a housing shortage caused almost exclusively by not building enough homes. A majority of people own real estate, so they're happy with the status quo. Why would you put up with even the slightest personal inconvenience from added housing, if all it got you was a reduced value of your property?

> California real estate is such a tragedy, as huge portions of the population are suffering from a housing shortage caused almost exclusively by not building enough homes. The real issue with CA real estate is prop 13. It directly disincentivizes selling your home as you would be paying significantly higher taxes on the same house (same value etc) somewhere else. So if you do own a home, you’re much better off keepi…

No amount of tax adjustments can fix not having enough homes for the population. Focusing on those is a red herring

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#34

Post by koolba »

nikanj wrote: post #33
koolba wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California real estate is such a tragedy, as huge portions of the population are suffering from a housing shortage caused almost exclusively by not building enough homes. The real issue with CA real estate is prop 13. It directly disincentivizes selling your home as you would be paying significantly higher taxes on the same house (same value etc) somewhere else. So if you do own a home, you’re much better off keepi…

No amount of tax adjustments can fix not having enough homes for the population. Focusing on those is a red herring

> No amount of tax adjustments can fix not having enough homes for the population.

If you raise property taxes then people will leave because it’s not affordable. Not just leave their homes, they will leave CA. That will both lower demand and raise supply.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#35

Post by taeric »

xoqem wrote: post #10

For anyone who didn't click into the article, the headline may be misleading without the sub headline, which currently is "Relatively speaking, California is not a hot spot for housing investors". The map graphic shows that 19% is lower than other large states (e.g. 22% in Texas, 21% in Florida, 20% in New York). And lower than other west coast states generally (22% in Washington and Oregon, 25% in Nevada, and 23% in…

It would probably be easier to understand if worded the other way? 81% of California houses are owner occupied.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#36

Post by jondwillis »

xoqem wrote: post #10

For anyone who didn't click into the article, the headline may be misleading without the sub headline, which currently is "Relatively speaking, California is not a hot spot for housing investors". The map graphic shows that 19% is lower than other large states (e.g. 22% in Texas, 21% in Florida, 20% in New York). And lower than other west coast states generally (22% in Washington and Oregon, 25% in Nevada, and 23% in…

Yeah but that nuance doesn’t fit into the current “California bad” memetic onslaught being peddled by my owners.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#37

Post by hk1337 »

crooked-v wrote: post #31
hk1337 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wit…

Or in other words, small independent landlords (using that arbitrary 5-house cutoff) own 17.29% of Caliornia houses, and other landlords own 1.71% of California houses.

It would seem but as someone else pointed out it's likely just houses and not multifamily homes. It's not really clear from the web site but it seems like it's just single family homes.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#38

Post by kamikazeturtles »

arcticbull wrote: post #26

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…

Who owns them probably has an effect on whether new housing will be built. A city of mostly renters will vote to have rent controls. Your property taxes are a percentage of the assessed value of your house, usually 1-2%.

If your houses value is increasing but rent is capped, the landlord business isn't going to look very rosy. No new rentals will be built. Of course, I could be wrong.

Interested in counter arguments

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#39

Post by taeric »

arcticbull wrote: post #26

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…

This kind of cuts to the problem of conflating housing to houses. Most short term living is almost certainly better served by things other than stand alone houses. Is why colleges are dominated by dorms.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#40

Post by fortran77 »

And this is _less_ than the national average. In fact, below the median.

From the article:

> By this math, 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm. By county, tiny Sierra has the most (83%) and Ventura the least (14%).

Post reply on HN