Live data from Hacker News

19% of California houses are owned by investors

ocregister.com

71–80 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#71
post #66
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The places where it's a good enough investment for investors to buy up real estate are in these high demand markets where housing supply has massively lagged demand. Homeowners may be satisfied that their home values have increased everywhere, but black Rock isn't buying houses in small towns in Idaho and ohio because the ROI isn't as high.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#72
post #22

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…

I’m one of those mom and pop owners. The decent ROI on renting out my starter home financed me adding an ADU to the lot, which I also rent out.

I’ve owned the house long enough that I’ve had several tenants churn out when they buy their own houses.

This doesn’t feel like a policy failure, IMO. Renters have the option to live in a free standing home while they save for a down payment, and “investors” have an incentive to increase density/add to the housing stock.

Not everyone is at a point in their life where it makes sense to own a home. It feels weird making a judgement that these people should be required to live in apartments.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#73
It was recently stated that 40% of owner-occupied homes are mortgage free: (https://www.fastcompany.com/91376388/housing-market-the-real...)

Various stats put the ratio of owner-occupied residences to renter-occupied residences at roughly 70% to 30% (https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/rent-statistics)

Since only 40% of those "owner"-occupied homes have their mortgages paid off, that means the bank owns the other 60%.

Doing the math, this means only about 28% of people actually own the place in which they live. The other 72% is owned by banks, investors, landlords, etc.

That fully 20% of homes in California - intended to be owned by families or individuals as their primary residence - are instead served out as rentals, and this is a low percentage compared to other states, is a massive indicator of the one the key issues facing Americans:

We don't own anything. Not even our own homes. Not even our lives, which we sell to others at a discount as "labor".

When we don't own anything, we have no stability. When we have no stability, we live in a constant state of uncertainty, which is just another word for "fear". Fear makes us act desperately or angrily or selfishly.

And the people who run everything use that fear to manipulate us into agreeing to be exploited by them - to work for them, vote for them, worship with/for/on them, etc.

If you actually want peace and freedom and liberty and all those things Americans claim to care about, we need to start by building stability in our lives.

That starts by taking back ownership of those things that belong to us through our efforts. The mortgage companies provide zero value to homeowners - they simply gate who gets to live in a home vs. who must pay for a rental, which is even more unstable.

Replace hierarchies with cooperatives. Stop using money as the exclusive determining factor of whether someone is housed, fed, clothed, or cared for.

Desperate people make lousy workers - ask any power and money pervert who believes in this system how hard it is to find good indentured servants who will just obey without complaining.

Stable, cared for people make excellent workers - fear may be a motivator, but gratitude is an even greater motivator. When people are stable and able to relax, they are more often willing to contribute toward keeping that stability. You see this when people who have "free" time spend it volunteering for their community.

If that stability comes at the expense of others, however, it's inherently unethical and leads us back exactly to the situation where we are now - where some people gain stability by manipulating others into working for them and stealing from them a significant portion of the value they create.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#74
post #63
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.

Hypothesis: investors rent out their investment housing (to make a profit) so it doesn't really reduce housing supply, it just shifts supply from owned to rented.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#75
post #43
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"We don't have to build enough homes for people if we just force the poorest people to leave the state" Yikes

> "We don't have to build enough homes for people if we just force the poorest people to leave the state"

That’s literally what every other state with property taxes assessed on the current value of the home are doing. It’s why retirees move out of their larger homes when they no longer have children occupying the other bed rooms. It’s why you have actual turnover of housing to (generally younger) people that not only want to live there, but are gainfully employed and can afford to do so.

It’s not some evil scheme to evict granny. It’s efficient allocation of a finite resource.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#76
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…

California houses are not popular with professional “landlord” investors because the cap rates (net operating income / house value) are poor. Rents are limited to what potential renters are actually able to pay, while the prices are very high.

On the other hand, during the upswing in prices, house flipping in California was really popular with investors because the (then) low interest and likely capital gain made things easy.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#77
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?

A majority of banks & investors own real estate. You think people have the funds to pay cash at market rate? I've got an even better idea though to deal with people like this. About time we give renters the same rights as labor unions. If you think it is an inconvenience now, wait until it becomes legal for renters to go on strike & landlords are forced to negotiate in good faith.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#78
post #62

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.

> pay someone to build them a house

On what land? With what planning permits?

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#79
post #32
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…

"Just force people to move out of the region", what a great plan.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#80
post #67

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

Percentage owned by investors doesn't really imply inventory vs demand, does it?

Investors tend to invest where the ROI is good. Which tends to be where demand is outstripping supply, but I don't think investor percentages would track that perfectly. I'd expect there to be confounding variables.
Post reply on HN