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

61–70 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#61

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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…

I think another metric that's probably just as important is what percentage of those investors are large institutional investors vs. "Mom and Pop" landlords with one house for rent.

I mention that because I remember reading during the pandemic that institutional investors generally make shittier landlords: they're quicker to evict, quicker to raise rents, less likely to work with a tenant on a payment plan, and they have fewer ties to the community. There was a concern that with all the eviction moratoriums during the pandemic that large landlords could wait it out, while smaller landlords got screwed and got out altogether in some cases, leaving their housing stock to be gobbled up by the shittier institutional landlords.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#62

Post by mordae »

breakyerself wrote: post #42

People don't like being told that the problem is a housing shortage.

Huh. So, like, maybe if rents were not spiking and people were not bleeding money to predatory landlords, maybe, hear me out, maybe they would instead pay someone to build them a house.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#63

Post by rconti »

verteu wrote: post #50

From my cursory analysis, "# of new housing units authorized" is by far the strongest predictor of rent & home values decreasing: https://i.imgur.com/BMsPrKY.png (r^2 = 0.47, P-value 0.000) Nothing else ("% of housing owned by investors"?) is even close. edit: Yes, obviously I included a time lag (3 years). [1] https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-investing-m... [2] eg, https://www.zillow.com/home-values/…

That's surprising to me, given the lag time between authorization and completion, and the dynamic of people moving into a given area vs moving out.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#64

Post by taeric »

kamikazeturtles wrote: post #46
taeric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Students stay in dorms "for the experience". I don't think any middle aged person is looking for any communal living type experience. Also, what do you mean by "short term"? Usually it only makes economic sense to buy a house if you plan on staying there for 5+ years otherwise closing costs and realtor fees eat away any savings you made from not renting. The period of our life where we are the most mobile and willing…

Don't forget that apartments are a thing. And are far far cheaper than houses. Both in terms of direct rental costs, and in terms of upkeep. Heck, the plumbing and electric are probably magnitudes cheaper to maintain for an apartment block than for a subdivision.

Directly to your first, though, most people stay in dorms for college because that is the best that they can afford. New students moving to a city to go to school almost by definition can't afford a house. I don't imagine that would be easy to ever change.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#65

Post by breakyerself »

jsbg wrote: post #52
breakyerself wrote: post #42

People don't like being told that the problem is a housing shortage.

Really. If obsessive zoning and building regulations didn't artificially restrict the supply then there would be no reason for anyone to "invest" in houses.

100%. I'm a far left anticapitalist, but facts are facts. Zoning, restrictive building codes, and the death of much of the housing construction industry post 2007. All contribute to housing costs and homelessness.

I'd like to see zoning opened back up for increasing density wherever it's needed, but I would also like to see a strong social housing policy.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#66

Post by rconti »

jsbg wrote: post #52
breakyerself wrote: post #42

People don't like being told that the problem is a housing shortage.

Really. If obsessive zoning and building regulations didn't artificially restrict the supply then there would be no reason for anyone to "invest" in houses.

That doesn't strike me as true at all. Nationwide, housing has generally been a "good investment", regardless of whether we're talking about an area that restricts supply or one that does not.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#68

Post by [deleted] »

rconti wrote: post #63
verteu wrote: post #50

From my cursory analysis, "# of new housing units authorized" is by far the strongest predictor of rent & home values decreasing: https://i.imgur.com/BMsPrKY.png (r^2 = 0.47, P-value 0.000) Nothing else ("% of housing owned by investors"?) is even close. edit: Yes, obviously I included a time lag (3 years). [1] https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-investing-m... [2] eg, https://www.zillow.com/home-values/…

That's surprising to me, given the lag time between authorization and completion, and the dynamic of people moving into a given area vs moving out.

[deleted]

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#69

Post by grafmax »

jsbg wrote: post #52
breakyerself wrote: post #42

People don't like being told that the problem is a housing shortage.

Really. If obsessive zoning and building regulations didn't artificially restrict the supply then there would be no reason for anyone to "invest" in houses.

An unregulated supply will still offer promising investment opportunities to those with enough money to buy them up. Look at crypto or private equity. These markets are lightly regulated. But prices are bid up by big money. Unfortunately just dumping regulation is unlikely to fix housing.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#70

Post by ekelsen »

fortran77 wrote: post #53
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…

> The real issue with CA real estate is prop 13 I don't want to be forced out of my home because the neighbors paid too much for theirs raising my "property value" and tax assessment.

They paid too much? The invisible hand my friend...
Post reply on HN