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

171–180 of 185 posts

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#171

Post by bpt3 »

esseph wrote: post #169
bpt3 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point, which is that adding a superlative in front of a concept you don't like doesn't make it more important or the problem more severe. And your reductionist take on wealth distribution isn't even worth discussing. Build more is the only option to actually fix the problem. The incentives could not be more aligned between home builders and home dwellers. Builders want to build, and there are dozen…

I don't know what the fuck "my kind" is, but you instantly threw away any validity you may have remotely had by jumping to some nonsense like that. I'm not "missing the point" because I don't agree with economic principles that got us where we are today. Doubling down on those very same principles thinking we will have a different outcome? Nonsense.

"Your kind" are the type of people who use terms like "turbo greed" and expect to have their opinions taken seriously.

It's not a coincidence that there's a huge overlap between people who use terms like "turbo greed", those who "don't agree" with the economic principles that have outperformed all known alternatives, and those who think that more state involvement is the solution to every problem.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#172

Post by Gibbon1 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #61
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…

I think another metric that's probably just as important is what percentage of those investors are large institutional investors vs. "Mom and Pop" landlords with one house for rent. I mention that because I remember reading during the pandemic that institutional investors generally make shittier landlords: they're quicker to evict, quicker to raise rents, less likely to work with a tenant on a payment plan, and they…

George Orwell made a comment that the landlord in the impoverished coal mining town he visited was usually an old widow.

Always gets me is the ideological contortions people will get up to in order to not face that California is short a couple million units of housing. Really the US has been investing in looting schemes and not in build out for the last 40 years.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#173

Post by grafmax »

tptacek wrote: post #170
grafmax wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah it does seem like we are talking around each other but I will try again to answer your question. It depends on the circumstances of the market. Imagine an extreme hypothetical example, where one investor owns 90 out of 100 houses. And one new house is built every ten years. That investor has pricing power. They can essentially charge whatever they want even if it’s means some houses they own are empty (withholdi…

So what you're saying is that the scenarios you're thinking of where investors hold houses, don't rent them, and still make money all require investors to have monopoly control of the housing market that is maintained regardless of the amount of supply added, and that rather than exploiting inelasticity they exploit irrational speculative bubbles. OK. This describes zero investors anywhere in the country. There is no…

My point with these examples is not that they represent the current investor market, but to provide straightforward examples of how factors other than supply can benefit an investors (since it seemed that this point was hard for us to get on the same page about). Instead my actual argument is that investors don’t need monopolies, just pricing power, which is what an inelastic market gives them.

The 19% stat & the mom-and-pop claim you are referring to is actually misleading for our discussion.

> This study included properties for short-term or long-term rentals, second homes, and vacation retreats but did not follow condos or build-to-rent single-family-home projects.

So it only refers to a subset of the housing market. For a better idea of the pricing power investors have we need to include other kinds of rentals. Also from the article:

> Census Bureau stats show 45% of households live in a place they don’t own, the third-highest share of tenants nationally.

The vast majority of that 45% is multifamily housing, which is typically owned by institutions.

This shows a broader picture of the housing market in California. There is huge institutional ownership of housing. It’s far from implausible that these investors lack pricing power.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#174

Post by koolba »

nikanj wrote: post #150
koolba wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We don't have to build enough homes for people if we just force the poorest people to leave the state" That’s literally what every other state with property taxes assessed on the current value of the home are doing. It’s why retirees move out of their larger homes when they no longer have children occupying the other bed rooms. It’s why you have actual turnover of housing to (generally younger) people that not onl…

It's a financially sensible, totally rational scheme to evict granny. Why not just build more homes so she can live close to family?

Build where exactly when the entire neighborhood is already built out (probably double so with the ADU rule)?

Or should we tear down some grannies houses to build multi floor apartment buildings?

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#175

Post by tptacek »

grafmax wrote: post #173
tptacek wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is that the scenarios you're thinking of where investors hold houses, don't rent them, and still make money all require investors to have monopoly control of the housing market that is maintained regardless of the amount of supply added, and that rather than exploiting inelasticity they exploit irrational speculative bubbles. OK. This describes zero investors anywhere in the country. There is no…

My point with these examples is not that they represent the current investor market, but to provide straightforward examples of how factors other than supply can benefit an investors (since it seemed that this point was hard for us to get on the same page about). Instead my actual argument is that investors don’t need monopolies, just pricing power, which is what an inelastic market gives them. The 19% stat & the mom…

I get that you want to make some other point, but my question was specific. I think we've hashed this out as far as we need to. Thanks!

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#176

Post by esseph »

bpt3 wrote: post #171
esseph wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what the fuck "my kind" is, but you instantly threw away any validity you may have remotely had by jumping to some nonsense like that. I'm not "missing the point" because I don't agree with economic principles that got us where we are today. Doubling down on those very same principles thinking we will have a different outcome? Nonsense.

"Your kind" are the type of people who use terms like "turbo greed" and expect to have their opinions taken seriously. It's not a coincidence that there's a huge overlap between people who use terms like "turbo greed", those who "don't agree" with the economic principles that have outperformed all known alternatives, and those who think that more state involvement is the solution to every problem.

Say "your kind" one more fucking time. You claim to know my kind.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#177

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

jimbokun wrote: post #143
mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article does state they were included, but is it "obviously" true that they should be? Who is more of an "investor", someone who purchases a primary residence to build equity or someone who purchases a second home to vacation in, spending large amounts of money to maintain it and allowing it to sit empty for long periods of time?

The latter.

In what sense? An investor seeks a return on their investment. The former achieves this. The latter spends money for pleasure. I suppose you could argue that they are an investor seeking non-monetary return, but in that sense everyone is equally an investor, just with different goals.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#178

Post by bpt3 »

esseph wrote: post #176
bpt3 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Your kind" are the type of people who use terms like "turbo greed" and expect to have their opinions taken seriously. It's not a coincidence that there's a huge overlap between people who use terms like "turbo greed", those who "don't agree" with the economic principles that have outperformed all known alternatives, and those who think that more state involvement is the solution to every problem.

Say "your kind" one more fucking time. You claim to know my kind.

Your kind also tends to be driven more by emotional response and feelings than objective measurements.

Re: 19% of California houses are owned by investors

#179

Post by esseph »

bpt3 wrote: post #178
esseph wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say "your kind" one more fucking time. You claim to know my kind.

Your kind also tends to be driven more by emotional response and feelings than objective measurements.

Thank you for proving exactly who I thought you were.
Post reply on HN