Live data from Hacker News

How private equity is changing housing

theatlantic.com

11–20 of 312 posts

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#11
post #3

Summary: they're pulling "starter homes" off the market, predominantly in nonwhite neighborhoods, and skimping more on maintenance/landscaping.

>and skimping more on maintenance/landscaping

I.e the kind of stuff everyone wants to do but can't justify flying so close to the sun on because they don't have a legal army say "we are in compliance and here's why" on their behalf when the municipal government comes looking for fine money or the slip and fall lawyer tries to make something their fault.

In "reasonable" (note for the bottom feeders, I did not say "free", I said "reasonable") markets the big guy has to do things to higher standards because his big pot of money will attract vultures looking for a quick buck if he does even slightly wrong.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#13
post #3

Summary: they're pulling "starter homes" off the market, predominantly in nonwhite neighborhoods, and skimping more on maintenance/landscaping.

"Skimping on maintenance" is capitalisms main and really only play. So many issues (housing, transport, utilities) are because "the market" won't ever pay to maintain.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#15

Ban corporate ownership of residences. Only individuals, Coops or condominiums. Cap how many rentals an individual can own. The government should also build massive amounts of housing. Everywhere of all types - apartments, townhouses, single family. After built transferred to the residents as coops.

It's interesting to think of the second-order effects of this. If these corporations can't invest in housing, they'd direct their money elsewhere. Maybe we'd see a stock market or commercial real estate boom. Maybe a proliferation of new ventures.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#16
I recently learned about Singapore’s seemingly excellent public housing system that is used by over 75% of its population. Singapore being so capitalist about everything else while carving out housing I think provides evidence that capitalism can be made stronger by keeping certain things away from strict market forces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_Singapore

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#17
post #4

I'm as pro capitalism as it comes but private equity should not be allowed to operate in the consumer housing market. They can develop and sell houses but cannot hold is my point of view.

More broadly, housing cannot be relied upon as an investment vehicle and remain affordable. Whether it's private equity or others is a moot point. The perverse incentive is there in that housing appreciates in value because of artificial scarcity. It's a 1-1 relationship.

I don't think this is contingent at all on the capacity to buy and hold, but on policies that limit building and financial instruments related to housing. The 30-year mortgage even. So now similar to the case with Social Security and public pensions abroad, politicians are playing a game of hot-potato not wanting to be the ones to have to make changes and upset the large aging voting bloc. Similar, too, because it's a generational wealth transfer.

Many items through market exchange have gone down in price over time owing to increases in efficiency (see: coffee makers). This can't be blamed on markets qua markets. It's adversarial policy that harms young workers.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#18
One of the issues the article doesn't mention is that these houses are effectively cheaper to purchase for corporate owners. Generally they can borrow money at a lower rate, but the ability of corporate owners to use depreciation on a new purchase to offset profits from previous purchases is more significant. Effectively they are redirecting money that would be paid in taxes into the payments on the new purchase.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#19
post #4

I'm as pro capitalism as it comes but private equity should not be allowed to operate in the consumer housing market. They can develop and sell houses but cannot hold is my point of view.

It won't change anything. Private equity is always a nice scapegoat, but it just exploits the same market forces as any other economic actor.

If you ban private equity, it's going to be mom&pop redevelopment companies doing the same. I give you an example of Vancouver. It banned foreign purchases: https://www.kelownarealestate.com/blog-posts/canadas-ban-on-...

The impact was literally non-existing. The prices continued to grow as Vancouver 's housing density keeps increasing.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#20
post #10
post #4

I'm as pro capitalism as it comes but private equity should not be allowed to operate in the consumer housing market. They can develop and sell houses but cannot hold is my point of view.

Not to be pedantic, but this would make you not so "pro capitalism as it comes". The ability to develop and sell houses, but not hold them (in service of rent-seeking) runs contradictory to the very core tenant of capitalism, which is private property and free markets. Socialism and supply/demand-markets are not mutually exclusive; it sounds like you're more amenable to a socialist or mixed-market system than you giv…

Except whenever you have inelastic demand or supply you are no longer in a free market.
Post reply on HN