4 ms·
The ultra high net worth individuals I was referring to were $30M and up, not $1B and up. According to Le Wik, there are only 536 billionaires in the US. So if
by yummyfajitas 10y ago
The ultra high net worth individuals I was referring to were $30M and up, not $1B and up.
According to Le Wik, there are only 536 billionaires in the US. So if all of them have 10 10x sized properties, that's equivalent to taking 53,600 flats off the entire US housing market.
You can roughly triple that number if you assume every billionaire in Europe and Asia buys 10 10x sized flats in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_US_dollar_billionaires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_numbe...
Why don't you crunch your own numbers and see if you can make them come out different?
- AstralStorm 10y agoThe most real part of the problem is actually people investing into rental properties. It only takes a moderately sized rental company to take out many units off the sale market, especially over time due to reinvestment. Also holdings.
- crdoconnor 10y ago>The ultra high net worth individuals I was referring to were $30M and up, not $1B and up. They were also just the people who declared their residency as being in NY. Not overseas investors who want a foothold. I don't know about NYC but in London, high end developments are usually ~80% bought by these types of investors. They take up a ridiculous amount of prime real estate with their almost-always-empty pied-de-terre's. This is not even starting to count prices being driven up by high net worth investors buying rental properties in those same cities.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoAs I suspected, you can't even construct a plausible back of the envelope calculation that supports your points.
- crdoconnor 10y agoWas entirely unnecessary in order to tear holes in your calculation's assumptions.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoYou have not shown that the effects you cite are large enough to be significant.