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

131–140 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#131

Post by hk1337 »

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…

I don’t have a problem with it. I pointed it out because it seems to show Blackstone hasn’t bought up all the houses like people think.

People should rent what they can afford and need. Some people need the house with all its space, some only need an apartment.

The big thing is people shouldn’t be spending 50% of their monthly income on rent. It doesn’t help them, their family, or you. Likely, eventually, they’ll have trouble paying, you’ll have to evict them, their lives will be disrupted, their families lives will be disrupted, and you’ll have to spend time evicting them and finding a new tenant else you’re not making money.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#132

Post by mystraline »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #124
mystraline wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%" 25-50% is absurdly false. We own a second home which we've rented out for years (wasn't the original intention, but anyway ...). The rent covers mortgage, taxes, and upkeep. Profit is minimal, less than 10%. Once you factor in eventual renovations, like replacing the roof, floors, etc., there is no profit at all, or very little.

Go read the briefs from the Realpage lawsuit, and maybe you won't consider me much the fool.

I keep getting anecdotes as some sort of glorious rebuttals. No matter. When the people are at their last end and the guillotines come, I will not shed a tear.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#133

Post by bigbadfeline »

tims33 wrote: post #48
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…

But it is also the largest state with the most expensive home so on a $ weighted basis it is a big chunk of the national total.

Good point. Similar to how the share price of a company is meaningless, total capitalization is the only useful metric. Similarly, investors have gone to great expenses to commit their money into 19% of California's housing, greater expenses than any other state, even when considered on per-capita basis.

To understand the meaning of this, consider that supply/demand curves are naturally non-linear and even 5% increase in demand can double the prices.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#134

Post by grafmax »

tptacek wrote: post #127
grafmax wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure I answered your question. As long as scarcity effects outpace price declines investors are incentivized to retain vacancies, and it’s not just vacancies but pricing control over rent. The real housing market isn’t effectively modeled by your simplistic abstraction. If you look at a YIMBY darling like Austin, for example, investor owned housing has actually grown, as well as homelessness, despite a modest…

Your rebuttal here is a market in which prices declined . You're clearly trying to route around the question and answer some broader question I didn't ask about how the overall housing market works. I'm not interested. I asked: how can investors make money on this? Your answer is: they don't; they lose money, but I guess do it anyways in order to twirl their mustaches.

The investor class increased as did homelessness in Austin. Not only that but mortgage payments on the median priced home have increased in Austin, comparing 2018-2019 . Houses are even less affordable.

Investors can make money on price fluctuations and rent. And supply increases are neither immediate nor endless, despite what a simplistic model would hold.

Sadly we need structural solutions not superficial answers to the housing crisis.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#135

Post by tptacek »

grafmax wrote: post #134
tptacek wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your rebuttal here is a market in which prices declined . You're clearly trying to route around the question and answer some broader question I didn't ask about how the overall housing market works. I'm not interested. I asked: how can investors make money on this? Your answer is: they don't; they lose money, but I guess do it anyways in order to twirl their mustaches.

The investor class increased as did homelessness in Austin. Not only that but mortgage payments on the median priced home have increased in Austin, comparing 2018-2019 . Houses are even less affordable . Investors can make money on price fluctuations and rent. And supply increases are neither immediate nor endless, despite what a simplistic model would hold. Sadly we need structural solutions not superficial answers…

No, if they make money on rent, they're supplying housing and competing with all the other landlords.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#136

Post by bpt3 »

akmiller wrote: post #99
bpt3 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> 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.

Everything isn't getting more expensive. For example, housing prices and rents have gone down in areas where restrictions on new residential construction have been reduced.

> 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.

That's not the only thing for rich people to do, but it is something people who make smart financial decisions do.

> Assets are fixed, so the share of assets owned by rich people are drastically increasing.

They aren't fixed in any asset class, so there's no real reason to explore your point here.

> This is inline with the # of houses owned by private investors and #'s of assets owned by other investors will reveal the same thing.

CA actually has a lower than average percentage of homes owned by investors, and I haven't seen any evidence it's increasing by a meaningful amount.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#137

Post by bpt3 »

esseph wrote: post #123
bpt3 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20% of CA residents are homeless? Citation please!

That's not at all what they said.

To spell it out, they seem to be completely ignoring that those rental properties are not vacant. Instead, they house people, just like they would if they were owner occupied.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#138

Post by insane_dreamer »

mystraline wrote: post #132
insane_dreamer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%" 25-50% is absurdly false. We own a second home which we've rented out for years (wasn't the original intention, but anyway ...). The rent covers mortgage, taxes, and upkeep. Profit is minimal, less than 10%. Once you factor in eventual renovations, like replacing the roof, floors, etc., there is no profit at all, or very little.

Go read the briefs from the Realpage lawsuit, and maybe you won't consider me much the fool. I keep getting anecdotes as some sort of glorious rebuttals. No matter. When the people are at their last end and the guillotines come, I will not shed a tear.

enjoy the show!

irrelevant fun fact: people think that the vast majority of those who were visited by Mme La Guillotine during the French Revolution were nobles. In fact, the vast majority, ~85%, were from the "third estate" (commoners, which also excluded clergy).

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#139

Post by bpt3 »

mystraline wrote: post #132
insane_dreamer wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%" 25-50% is absurdly false. We own a second home which we've rented out for years (wasn't the original intention, but anyway ...). The rent covers mortgage, taxes, and upkeep. Profit is minimal, less than 10%. Once you factor in eventual renovations, like replacing the roof, floors, etc., there is no profit at all, or very little.

Go read the briefs from the Realpage lawsuit, and maybe you won't consider me much the fool. I keep getting anecdotes as some sort of glorious rebuttals. No matter. When the people are at their last end and the guillotines come, I will not shed a tear.

Please point me to the brief documenting that those landlords are making 25 - 50% profit.

And I see you showed your true colors with your second comment. I'm sure if the revolution you're praying for actually comes, you'll definitely be in the vanguard!

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#140

Post by esseph »

bpt3 wrote: post #137
esseph wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not at all what they said.

To spell it out, they seem to be completely ignoring that those rental properties are not vacant. Instead, they house people, just like they would if they were owner occupied.

20% of market capture does not cause homelessness, but there are many very valid arguments that treating housing as an investment isn't a stairway to ending homelessness.
Post reply on HN