7 ms·

Real-Estate Investors Bought 18% of the US Homes That Sold in the Third Quarter

23 points by trenning 5y ago

sakopov 5y ago
“You'll own nothing and you'll be happy.”
rossdavidh 5y ago
It would be interesting to know the ratio of new investors to old, in that mix. Are investors buying more houses because there are more of them, or because the same number buy more? Probably some of each, but it would be interesting to know which was the more important factor.
- gamechangr 5y ago
  Rates are so low that it's probably investors buying more houses.
rektide 5y ago
Here in Washington DC, 1.2m$ houses are being sold & almost universally converted to $750k+ condos. To me, it's fairly depressing. We go from nice, expansive, owned houses, to much more partial ownership of a single floor slice of property. This is a very obvious rapid change in the city. But I think there's a lot of other ways that real-estate investment is taking over property purchasing here, and in general, imo, making housing radically less and less affordable. Since I'm at my comment limit, replying with edit: yes this does "help" affordability. We do have to expand housing. But a 4 story house (3 + basement) being broken up like this (and losing a bunch of space to an expanded entry-way system+stair well): it's sad. It's real sad. DC used to have a history of making coops- of a couple adjacent houses getting together & building a much larger taller shared-building across the properties. That expanded the usable area. Conversely, rarely is the actual amount of space increased with this current system, and buyers get way way way less space/$ than buying a more out-of-reach unconverted house (whose prices are inflated by investors snatching them up). Rather than simply carve up what we have into smaller somewhat more affordable pieces (building over-produced condos), we should actually expand. This way now: it sucks.
- cafard 5y ago
  What part of town?
- unpolloloco 5y ago
  Converting a 3-story house to 3 condos is a great thing for affordability and housing availability. There (mostly) isn't room for new housing in DC, so upping density is the only way!
  - spaceflunky 5y ago
    Not reeeeally though. Because no new inventory is being created. Because amount of usable square footage actually decreases, you technically end up with less housing than you started with. You start with a house that comfortably fit a family of 5, to 3 condos that can only house 1 person comfortably.
    - unpolloloco 5y ago
      I mean, you get three households instead of one. And it's more likely 2 adults plus 1.7 kids in the house vs. 3 DINKs in the condos. Which points to the other problem of upping density: families who are able to move do so
    - kesselvon 5y ago
      You go from 1 household to 3. In densely populated areas, single family houses shouldn't really exist because its a huge waste of space, especially in places next to public transit.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  That's a net win, actually, as it increases the housing supply 3x. Which is precisely what Seattle needs. More housing comes from densification. That means more units per unit land, whether you're decreasing setbacks and clearances, building higher, or simply subdividing structures. This is in fact a classic city densification pattern.
- soared 5y ago

23 points by trenning 5y ago

“You'll own nothing and you'll be happy.”

It would be interesting to know the ratio of new investors to old, in that mix. Are investors buying more houses because there are more of them, or because the same number buy more? Probably some of each, but it would be interesting to know which was the more important factor.

gamechangr 5y ago
Rates are so low that it's probably investors buying more houses.

rektide 5y ago

Here in Washington DC, 1.2m$ houses are being sold & almost universally converted to $750k+ condos. To me, it's fairly depressing. We go from nice, expansive, owned houses, to much more partial ownership of a single floor slice of property. This is a very obvious rapid change in the city. But I think there's a lot of other ways that real-estate investment is taking over property purchasing here, and in general, imo, making housing radically less and less affordable. Since I'm at my comment limit, replying with edit: yes this does "help" affordability. We do have to expand housing. But a 4 story house (3 + basement) being broken up like this (and losing a bunch of space to an expanded entry-way system+stair well): it's sad. It's real sad. DC used to have a history of making coops- of a couple adjacent houses getting together & building a much larger taller shared-building across the properties. That expanded the usable area. Conversely, rarely is the actual amount of space increased with this current system, and buyers get way way way less space/$ than buying a more out-of-reach unconverted house (whose prices are inflated by investors snatching them up). Rather than simply carve up what we have into smaller somewhat more affordable pieces (building over-produced condos), we should actually expand. This way now: it sucks.

cafard 5y ago
What part of town?
unpolloloco 5y ago
Converting a 3-story house to 3 condos is a great thing for affordability and housing availability. There (mostly) isn't room for new housing in DC, so upping density is the only way!
- spaceflunky 5y ago
  Not reeeeally though. Because no new inventory is being created. Because amount of usable square footage actually decreases, you technically end up with less housing than you started with. You start with a house that comfortably fit a family of 5, to 3 condos that can only house 1 person comfortably.
  - unpolloloco 5y ago
    I mean, you get three households instead of one. And it's more likely 2 adults plus 1.7 kids in the house vs. 3 DINKs in the condos. Which points to the other problem of upping density: families who are able to move do so
  - kesselvon 5y ago
    You go from 1 household to 3. In densely populated areas, single family houses shouldn't really exist because its a huge waste of space, especially in places next to public transit.
dredmorbius 5y ago
That's a net win, actually, as it increases the housing supply 3x. Which is precisely what Seattle needs. More housing comes from densification. That means more units per unit land, whether you're decreasing setbacks and clearances, building higher, or simply subdividing structures. This is in fact a classic city densification pattern.
soared 5y ago