331–340 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a report where you can see which areas have a high percentage of big investors (not just people who own 2-3 homes): https://go.lincolninst.edu/whoa-mapping-corp-ownership-repor...
Looking at the map one might conclude that big investors buying up single family homes is a recipe for affordable housing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Higher rent means more people will opt to buy. That's not necessarily a bad thing in perspective. Assuming the other side effect is a decrease in costs due to a lower profit margin.
I believe your comment is operating under the assumption that people are merely choosing to rent over buying because it's the more economically wise choice. That's not how things work in reality. Many people want to buy but cannot put up the initial costs.
This, monthly rent actually costs more here in Ireland than what you would pay monthly for mortgage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It will make very little difference in the end. I feel like there will be a difference between a handful of large corporations owning a majority of properties vs thousands of dentists and software engineers. Are you saying that all of these property owners are also soulless profit-optimizers? I remember watching some video of tenants being priced out of their rental apartments so when they tried to contact the prop…
> I feel like there will be a difference between a handful of large corporations owning a majority of properties vs thousands of dentists and software engineers. Are you saying that all of these property owners are also soulless profit-optimizers? Do we want to trade crazy high prices in the American real estate market for absolutely crazier high prices in the Australian real estate market? That is a bit simplistic t…
The key word here is "Wall Street". And this statement is playing off a popular misconception around corporate investors buying up American houses. There has been a bit of a panic around "Investors buying up all the property!!!" With people often citing Black Rock and Blackstone as the main culprits. But most of the "investors" buying up property are individuals purchasing investment properties. Here's an article on…
Controversial, but for affordability reasons, there even should be a cap on how many homes an individual can own for rentals. For the sanity in the housing market, members of society need to be driven to participate in other business activities for income/revenue, not rentals.
IF you want affordability? Tax land.
Doesn't matter who owns them. Your grandma or wall street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would this help affordability? If you restrict who can operate rentals, that will inevitably shrink the supply of rentals, which will raise rents.
Would it not also lower house prices, causing would-be renters to buy instead, reducing demand for rentals?
Yes mortgage is often cheaper than rental, but the whole tradeoff is the commitment, just like all kinds of services, if you pay 40 years up front you can get a good deal, but do you really want to take out a loan to do that?
Limiting landlords ability to buy property is reducing demand for construction, you want to increase demand for housing, not decrease it.
As I said in a sibling thread, it does suck that property owners are incentivized to raise their property values, preventing supply from reacting to demand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rich investors and companies effectively get to buy homes at a discount vs average joes. Suppose you had $100,000 in cash, and buy a house for $100,000. You'll not be paying 5% interest on a mortgage. But if you did not buy the house, you would be investing that $100,000 for a 5% return. So, you're either paying 5% on the mortgage, or foregoing 5% return for investing that money. The rich person is not getting a di…
Aren’t you forgetting something, like hmm, rent and appreciation?
Even if this goes through without a mountain of loopholes and exceptions, I doubt it will have a significant impact. "Wall Street Investors" implies they're targeting large institutional ownership, which is only around 0.5% of housing ownership as cited in the article. That number is also flat-ish or maybe decreasing depending on the chart you look at, from what I recall. Outside of a few metro areas where institutio…
The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. I think the most important factor is that housing prices, in the United States at least, are governed by how much a bank will lend. Very small but affordable houses will never be built because a bank will not finance a $10,000 loan over 30 years. In the same vein,…
People don’t have a natural feel for how little you need to alter flow to cause liquidity in a system to collapse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally, it should not be possible for random hateful people to easily get name/address records from local governments, but that's unfortunately not the world we live in yet.
They could just buy it from data brokers.
It creeped me out a bit and then I was angry when I realized it's the same way in the US, but maybe worse. In the US this is possible too, you just have to pay private data brokers and a bunch of middle men make a cheap buck. Employers sell your pay data, websites sell your address. Everyone makes a buck at your expense.
The key word here is "Wall Street". And this statement is playing off a popular misconception around corporate investors buying up American houses. There has been a bit of a panic around "Investors buying up all the property!!!" With people often citing Black Rock and Blackstone as the main culprits. But most of the "investors" buying up property are individuals purchasing investment properties. Here's an article on…
It's not that simple - the problem is that those institutions are market makers. They are a tiny portion of the market, but a huge driving force in setting and manipulating prices, because their properties get leveraged, instrumentalized, and securitized, with derivative products, speculation, and all sorts of incentives that you don't normally want operating in the arena of housing. The things that they do have mass…
If you doubt they will lobby to increase their profit, try proposing anything that has a 0.1% risk of their property value going down and see how they react.