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

If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#531

Post by dang »

pandeiro wrote: post #467

Aside from the distraction of the author's nuttery, the issue is probably the most salient one for the American middle class over the next century. Either very strong measures are imposed to limit / de-incentivize real estate speculation and hoarding, or the vast, vast majority of the population is entirely excluded from any kind of property ownership. And while simplistic 'conspiracy' thinking definitely is of a muc…

This comment refers to the original URL, https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402434266970140676, which we've since replaced with the article it points to (in keeping with the site guidelines).

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#532

Post by phpsuks »

pandeiro wrote: post #467

Aside from the distraction of the author's nuttery, the issue is probably the most salient one for the American middle class over the next century. Either very strong measures are imposed to limit / de-incentivize real estate speculation and hoarding, or the vast, vast majority of the population is entirely excluded from any kind of property ownership. And while simplistic 'conspiracy' thinking definitely is of a muc…

I don't want to be that guy but I feel like Americans and majority of the democratic World have forgotten that the laws they keep criticizing are the ones THEY voted for.

Protesting is fine but I never see voters take responsibility for their own bad choices. They are heavily influenced by so-called influencers and vote according to them instead of their own thinking. CA Prop 13 is something people of CA voted for. It is obviously working for majority of the people in CA. So whats the whining about? People of SF elected Boudin and are not signing enough recall petitions, surely its working for most people.

Democracy doesn't guarantee utopia, their will be some people mad about the system. But they have to accept they are in minority. There is no conspiracy, voters need to take responsibility for their own wrong choices first.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#533

Post by dang »

otterley wrote: post #114

Link to actual article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-sell-a-house-these-days-... (Also, the article is now over two months old.)

We've changed the URL to that now. Thanks!

Submitted URL was https://twitter.com/APhilosophae/status/1402434266970140676

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#535

Post by jfrankamp »

OldGoodNewBad wrote: post #471
davidw wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still too long. The bill has not been fully implemented as cities have a few years to adapt it into their code. But you just keep pushing where you can.

You’ll find outside Portland that this is extremely unpopular and will eventually be defeated. Why don’t you keep your policies in your ruined destroyed burned unsafe city?

I've found density laws wildly accepted, its a building boom in Newberg as people add ADU's and more housing. I don't know where you get your information, but if you own a home in a growth boundary in a small town in Oregon, its "Lets build an ADU" time like never before.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#536

Post by maxsilver »

KptMarchewa wrote: post #527
maxsilver wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everybody opposed the rezoning and fought to defeat it. Why? That's kind of an important point. For example, unless this is NYC or similar, 49 townhomes is going to need a minimum of at least 110 parking spots (just to hold the occupants alone, assuming no one ever has guests ever). A realistic parking minimum should be 2.5 spots per townhouse. A lot of builders outsource their pollution to the local neighborhood,…

>A realistic parking minimum should be 2.5 spots per townhouse. A realistic approach in the face of coming climate doom would be max 0.5, for the people that really need cars as primary transport due to disability etc.

In theory sure, but that's not realistic, it just induces sprawl.

Great, you manage to artificially limit parking. So the new housing development moves another 10 miles outside of town, to get away from your artificial limit, and now their mowing down a cornfield out there instead for their build, so they can get the parking residents actually need.

If cities want to be a solution to climate change, they have to let people actually live in them. That means, they have to care about the price points of developments (they can't just keep deflecting and saying "luxury housing lowers prices in 50+ years when it trickles down") and they have to care about supporting residents actual transportation needs. (they can't just hide behind "everyone will bike or whatever").

Everytime they deflect on either of those, another farm or forest gets razed instead.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#537

Post by quickthrowman »

mumblemumble wrote: post #433
the_optimist wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re politically connected and influential, you get bailed out. Also, Blackrock is intermediating people’s pensions, so they’re ultimately just levering up retirees against the future generations of home buyers (empowered by the Fed). Think the politically connected Fed/DC/Davos crowd is simply going to just hand over power and influence?

Aha. So, basically, there are some failures in this particular market that make it more difficult for prices to correct themselves?

The Fed buying $40B of MBS bonds a month sure isn’t helping

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#538

Post by Lammy »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #170
cosmojg wrote: post #32

If only so many people didn't treat land and houses like investments, there wouldn't be such a disastrous hoarding problem. Henry George's Land Value Tax [1][2] seems like an obvious economic fix that would require a large fraction of the population to change how they think about land and natural resources, but most of them are invested in such a way (i.e. owning multiple houses on multiple parcels of land, often wit…

I’ve ranted about this before but CA Prop 13 not only makes housing a good investment, but one that you’re extremely incentivized to hold onto forever and never move. Two people can be living in houses next to each other valued around 1.5m, and one of them will be paying 1/10th the tax. If anyone wants to buy a house, they have to first be able to afford the property, so the barriers to entry are so much higher for t…

> CA Prop 13 not only makes housing a good investment, but one that you’re extremely incentivized to hold onto forever and never move

AKA "segregation with extra steps"

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#539

Post by werber »

Retric wrote: post #478
Justsignedup wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony is that density means more people, more homes, more availability. That means more jobs open up and makes the place more lively. More desireable. That means the house property value will go up. They are thinking "will this make the property value go down in the next 5 years"? vs "will this make the property value skyrocket in the next 10 years". We are catering to short-term gains at the expense of long-term…

That’s only true up to a tipping point when poor people move in. Parts of Detroit are a great example where poor people are diving down the value of houses around them. People essentially want to be surrounded by people of almost exactly their economic class to somewhat richer. To rich and stores they can’t afford to stay ie gentrification, to poor and you have to move ie white flight.

I'm not sure what parts of Detroit you're talking about, I can't think of a single neighborhood that is struggling with that problem, blight and abandonement? Sure.

Re: If you sell a house these days, the buyer might be a pension fund

#540

Post by ta1234567890 »

davidw wrote: post #125

Here's why investors buy up houses: they know your neighbors will do the dirty work of artificially constraining the housing supply, which makes it a good investment. Here's one who comes right out and explains this: > Meanwhile, local opposition to building is so commonplace and the approval process so cumbersome, time consuming, and expensive, even when a proposed project complies entirely with requirements, approv…

And, at least in California, realtors will always push prices up. It’s pretty much never in their best interest to lower the price. Even the buyer’s agent gets paid a percentage of the sale price, so if they try to lower it they’d be essentially working against themselves. And this is without even accounting for all the schemes realtors create (like listing below market to get a lot of offers and create artificially high demand to put pressure on the top offers to increase their bids as high as possible, as well as make them waive their contingencies).
Post reply on HN