Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How private equity is changing housing

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 312 posts

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#71

Post by immibis »

stego-tech wrote: post #70

Everyone wants to finger someone to blame rather than (before trying to) fix the fucking problem. Here’s a novel and brazen idea: if a domicile has been vacant inside a metropolitan area for more than thirty days, it’s up for grabs. Be it an apartment, a condo, a house, whatever, but if someone isn’t living in that space for more than thirty days, let folks claim it as abandoned property. Watch rents and values plumm…

Also stop fucking arresting people for living in unapproved locations or building structures that don't cost enough money, as long as they're not actually in the way of anyone.

Like, don't arrest people for sleeping under bridges unless they are sleeping in the middle of a footpath under a bridge. And don't go building footpaths under all the bridges to prevent them, either. Also tear down all the hostile architecture or at least don't arrest people for taking to it with angle grinders.

The free market is supposed to work by everyone solving all their own problems and then exchanging solutions with each other. If you claim to have a market but then arrest people for solving problems, no wonder you get a dysfunctional society.

Not saying that people living in tents on public land is a good long-term solution, but it's a step up from being completely shelterless, and since price changes happen at the margins, if it's even remotely viable, it may cause a market crash.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#72

Post by christkv »

ryuhhnn wrote: post #10
christkv wrote: 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…

Im capitalist in the belief of truely free markets. Im against monopolies or monopoly like structures. I can make a case for private equity being a cartel as well knowing how they use algorithmic platforms to price rentals thus collaborating on pricing while pretending they don’t. After all its a third party setting prices.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#73

Post by quamserena »

postflopclarity wrote: post #12

build. more. and this problem will go away.

this sounds nice, but neglects the fact that (1) materials cost has gone up and (2) zoning requirements exist. (1) means its just more expensive to build overall, and (2) means that a lot of proposals for apartment complexes get voted down.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#74

Post by stego-tech »

immibis wrote: post #71
stego-tech wrote: post #70

Everyone wants to finger someone to blame rather than (before trying to) fix the fucking problem. Here’s a novel and brazen idea: if a domicile has been vacant inside a metropolitan area for more than thirty days, it’s up for grabs. Be it an apartment, a condo, a house, whatever, but if someone isn’t living in that space for more than thirty days, let folks claim it as abandoned property. Watch rents and values plumm…

Also stop fucking arresting people for living in unapproved locations or building structures that don't cost enough money, as long as they're not actually in the way of anyone. Like, don't arrest people for sleeping under bridges unless they are sleeping in the middle of a footpath under a bridge. And don't go building footpaths under all the bridges to prevent them, either. Also tear down all the hostile architectur…

Literally this. Someone has to “lose” to fix this problem, and that loser has to be those with the most to gain from keeping the status quo as-is (developers, landlords, private equity, current homeowners, extortive townships/governments, etc).

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#76

Post by orwin »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #61
orwin wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the tax is set at say 2% of wealth (excluding primary home and _displayed_ artwork/collectibles), and that's above your income, just pay with your stocks at the valuation they have at tax day.

This assumes everything can be paid in liquid public equity, which is often not the case in any private or offshore investment. Additionally, the government now owns stock they can't realize without by definition causing a stock market decline. Sell stock that previously wasn't on the market, you exhibit permanent downward pressure.

> private or offshore investment.

I don't have a good solution for private investment, but for offshore public investment, you can have the same principle.

> Sell stock that previously wasn't on the market, you exhibit permanent downward pressure.

Which is a very, very good thing, to be clear. Because it lowers expectations of future returns, and make stock valuations not based on "i predict pension funds will automatically put their contributor money into those stocks", but on actual business information.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#77

Post by HexPhantom »

hardtke wrote: post #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.

It's wild when you think about it: a family scrapes together a down payment and pays full freight on property taxes, while a corporate landlord can roll one property's paper losses into the next deal and keep building their portfolio, tax-deferred

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#78

Post by HexPhantom »

SirFatty wrote: post #62

When we bought our first home, a townhouse, in the early 1990s the builder only sold to people that were going to live in said home. They helped save the down payment and made sure that utility payments (gas/electric) were under a certain amount each month (super insulated and heated with a hybrid hot water system). Bigelow Homes, they were on a few This Old House episodes in the 80s. It would be nice to see that aga…

That sounds like an absolute dream compared to today's market

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#79

Post by collinmcnulty »

api wrote: post #38
collinmcnulty wrote: post #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

We don't have a free market in housing at all. It's a cartel with restricted supply.

Who is “we”? Even within the USA that statement certainly isn’t true everywhere.

Re: How private equity is changing housing

#80

Post by SoftTalker »

stego-tech wrote: post #70

Everyone wants to finger someone to blame rather than (before trying to) fix the fucking problem. Here’s a novel and brazen idea: if a domicile has been vacant inside a metropolitan area for more than thirty days, it’s up for grabs. Be it an apartment, a condo, a house, whatever, but if someone isn’t living in that space for more than thirty days, let folks claim it as abandoned property. Watch rents and values plumm…

Many valid reasons for a property to be vacant. It may need renovations or repair and that can take a lot longer than 30 days. But maybe there's some time frame that makes sense.

I'm not convinced that commercial ownership is the problem. Or if it is, it's not a new problem. Slumlords have been around forever.

The main problem is we just don't have enough housing supply. Investor-owners can only hold units vacant to support higher rents up to a point. If there are enough vacant units available and enough supply that property values are not appreciating like crazy, someone will crack and cut the rent or sell out so they can get a better return on their money.

Post reply on HN