4 ms·

Discouraging investment in housing will have exactly the opposite effect that you intend.

nobodyandproud 5y ago
Would you mind explaining? Upfront investment by building-out to provide supply is the policy that we need. Yet current policies favor rent-seeking and parking-funds in desirable areas, leading to properties that owned but actually vacant (e.g., most of London or Vancouver Island).
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  A larger secondary market leads to more capital being available in the primary market that directly funds new construction that adds housing stock and renovation that prevents its depreciation. >>but actually vacant (e.g., most of London or Vancouver Island). Most of London and Vancouver Island are not vacant.
  - nobodyandproud 5y ago
    > A larger secondary market leads to more capital being available in the primary market that directly funds new construction that adds housing stock and renovation that prevents its depreciation. I don’t buy this. The speculators who make-up the secondary market are not the ones who make money by tearing down and building new properties. There’s no value added to these speculators and is akin to domain squatting. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/empty-homes-vancouver-report https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/empty-homes-vancouver-report Vacancy is a problem in most areas of Vancouver. London also had similar issues.
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      The higher the price, the more potential projects are cost-effective to move ahead on. The secondary market generating demand in the primary market is a universal property of all markets. >>The speculators who make-up the secondary market are not the ones who make money by tearing down and building new properties. The investors who tear down and build new properties are motivated entirely by the market price that a unit can fetch on the market, which is largely determined by the speculators in the secondary market. >>Vacancy is a problem in most areas of Vancouver. The article says the vacancy rate is 8.2% in Vancouver, which is a far cry from most houses.
      - nobodyandproud 5y ago
        > The investors who tear down and build new properties are motivated entirely by the market price that a unit can fetch on the market, which is largely determined by the speculators in the secondary market. But how is this at all related to the secondary market speculators? People who make a living by holding on to properties and flipping them on a price increase. This only exacerbates the lack of supply.
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>But how is this at all related to the secondary market speculators? Speculators inject capital into the real estate market. They often bring outside capital into it, and then keep it in the real estate market instead of taking it out. Housing prices are simply a matter of the interplay between the supply of capital interested in housing, and the supply of housing, i.e. supply and demand in housing, and more speculators pushes up the demand side of the equation, leading to higher prices. In fact, that's what the critics of real estate speculation always point to as to why it should be discouraged: they push up prices (which is a bit simplistic: the increase in prices in multi-dwelling units is temporary as long as zoning doesn't prevent developers from building more dense developments. Only the price increase in single family homes is permanent). What the critics miss is that rising prices is what funds supply expansion. Ceteris paribus, a market with more speculators will have higher SFH prices, more units, and lower rental rates, and rent is the true cost of housing (the purchase price is the cost of investing in housing).
        nobodyandproud 5y ago
        Injecting capital doesn’t magically increase the supply of real estate. If my goal is to hold on to a single family house and sell it for a profit later as is or with just some touch-ups, it’s still a single family residence. The speculation just increased the cost of the land. If my goal is to tear down the single family home and replace it with a two-family home or a small apartment; that increases the supply. Both involve speculators, but only the latter increases the supply. Why shouldn’t policy discourage the former—a market inefficiency, but a very sane local maxima—and encourage the latter?

Would you mind explaining? Upfront investment by building-out to provide supply is the policy that we need. Yet current policies favor rent-seeking and parking-funds in desirable areas, leading to properties that owned but actually vacant (e.g., most of London or Vancouver Island).

CryptoPunk 5y ago
A larger secondary market leads to more capital being available in the primary market that directly funds new construction that adds housing stock and renovation that prevents its depreciation. >>but actually vacant (e.g., most of London or Vancouver Island). Most of London and Vancouver Island are not vacant.
- nobodyandproud 5y ago
  > A larger secondary market leads to more capital being available in the primary market that directly funds new construction that adds housing stock and renovation that prevents its depreciation. I don’t buy this. The speculators who make-up the secondary market are not the ones who make money by tearing down and building new properties. There’s no value added to these speculators and is akin to domain squatting. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/empty-homes-vancouver-report https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/empty-homes-vancouver-report Vacancy is a problem in most areas of Vancouver. London also had similar issues.
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    The higher the price, the more potential projects are cost-effective to move ahead on. The secondary market generating demand in the primary market is a universal property of all markets. >>The speculators who make-up the secondary market are not the ones who make money by tearing down and building new properties. The investors who tear down and build new properties are motivated entirely by the market price that a unit can fetch on the market, which is largely determined by the speculators in the secondary market. >>Vacancy is a problem in most areas of Vancouver. The article says the vacancy rate is 8.2% in Vancouver, which is a far cry from most houses.
    - nobodyandproud 5y ago
      > The investors who tear down and build new properties are motivated entirely by the market price that a unit can fetch on the market, which is largely determined by the speculators in the secondary market. But how is this at all related to the secondary market speculators? People who make a living by holding on to properties and flipping them on a price increase. This only exacerbates the lack of supply.
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>But how is this at all related to the secondary market speculators? Speculators inject capital into the real estate market. They often bring outside capital into it, and then keep it in the real estate market instead of taking it out. Housing prices are simply a matter of the interplay between the supply of capital interested in housing, and the supply of housing, i.e. supply and demand in housing, and more speculators pushes up the demand side of the equation, leading to higher prices. In fact, that's what the critics of real estate speculation always point to as to why it should be discouraged: they push up prices (which is a bit simplistic: the increase in prices in multi-dwelling units is temporary as long as zoning doesn't prevent developers from building more dense developments. Only the price increase in single family homes is permanent). What the critics miss is that rising prices is what funds supply expansion. Ceteris paribus, a market with more speculators will have higher SFH prices, more units, and lower rental rates, and rent is the true cost of housing (the purchase price is the cost of investing in housing).
        nobodyandproud 5y ago
        Injecting capital doesn’t magically increase the supply of real estate. If my goal is to hold on to a single family house and sell it for a profit later as is or with just some touch-ups, it’s still a single family residence. The speculation just increased the cost of the land. If my goal is to tear down the single family home and replace it with a two-family home or a small apartment; that increases the supply. Both involve speculators, but only the latter increases the supply. Why shouldn’t policy discourage the former—a market inefficiency, but a very sane local maxima—and encourage the latter?