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

91–100 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#91

Post by tptacek »

grafmax wrote: post #69
jsbg wrote: 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.

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.

People say this but then never draw the rest of the owl. It costs money, substantial money, to hold on to a house. As soon as you propose that you're going to close that gap by renting the house out, you're competing in the market with everybody else letting out houses, and supply-and-demand kicks in.

Can you explain the mechanism by which accumulating vacant houses would provide the same reward structure as crypto speculation?

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#92

Post by breakyerself »

grafmax wrote: post #69
jsbg wrote: 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.

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.

I'd never argue for an unregulated market. Just that we stop regulating them to benefit the few over the many.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#94

Post by tptacek »

gosub100 wrote: post #89
breakyerself wrote: post #42

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

A problem, not the problem. Regulations block new supply. If this cannot be overcome, why not add another regulation that private equity cannot own houses? There's no reason they should not be subject to CAs extensive regulations too.

Private equity owns virtually none of the homes in the municipality I live in, just outside the city of Chicago, adjacent to redlined neighborhoods with abysmal schools full of families who would love a chance at the resources we have. Despite insanely high property taxes that depress housing values, our home prices set new records every year.

Homeowners here would just love to spend a year workshopping regulations to prevent investors from buying homes. They know that those regulations would do nothing at all to address the scarcity that drives their home prices, and wouldn't result in them having to adapt to large numbers of new neighbors.

It's the exact same reason they obsess over inclusionary zoning ordinances (IZOs). Affordability is so important! That's why we need new, toothier regulations to ensure that no new housing projects here can ever pencil out for the developers.

PE is a complete sideshow. The root cause of the housing crisis is exclusionary zoning.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#95

Post by bpt3 »

akmiller wrote: post #93
breakyerself wrote: post #42

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

That's because it's not. That's a cop-out. Wealth inequality is the crux of the issue.

Then why is almost every metric of housing affordability highly correlated to housing availability?

Or maybe I am misunderstanding what "issue" you're referring to?

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#96

Post by mystraline »

yojo wrote: post #72
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…

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…

You're completely off the mark on this, and speaking like a landlord.

> 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.

First, when you have a renter, your payment is the "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%"

Nobody, except for IT can save in predatory environment like that, no matter how much you wish it so.

And you're double-dipping by having THEM pay your mortgage and handsome profit on top. And for what? A "let them eat cake" comment. Im sure someone paying 50% or more their income can 'save for a mortgage'.

Knowing this scam, by the time they save up 50k, the bank will demand 100k down. But landlords can just capitalize on existing equity. Its a scam, through and through, that punishes renters.

We do need residences. And they're simple to build. They're called "rent controlled apartments". But 'ewww socialism' rears its ugly head.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#97

Post by tptacek »

rconti wrote: post #66
jsbg wrote: 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.

Rents and home prices have repeatedly fallen in places that have authorized large scale new building. In the past, those price pressures were probably offset by large-scale moves from the northeast and midwest into the Sun Belt, but those appear to have mostly equilibrated now.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#98

Post by bpt3 »

mordae wrote: post #62
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.

2021 called, it would like its performative talking points back.

Build more housing, and "predatory" landlords will have more competition. The endless restrictions on residential construction are the root cause, not your envy of wealthy individuals.

Side point: There are many people who are in no position to own a home or have one built for them. Where do they live if there aren't any landlords?

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#99

Post by akmiller »

bpt3 wrote: post #95
akmiller wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because it's not. That's a cop-out. Wealth inequality is the crux of the issue.

Then why is almost every metric of housing affordability highly correlated to housing availability? Or maybe I am misunderstanding what "issue" you're referring to?

I'm not an economist but if you listen to Gary Stevenson talk about this very issue he discusses it in depth. But, when it comes down to it if EVERYTHING is getting more expensive that looking at on variable in one market can't be the crux of the issue.

When you have large transfers of wealth and the wealth gap grows significantly the only thing for rich people to do is buy up assets. Assets are fixed, so the share of assets owned by rich people are drastically increasing. This is inline with the # of houses owned by private investors and #'s of assets owned by other investors will reveal the same thing.

Post reply on HN