5 ms·

Seems everyone that bought a home for anything other than living in it. In the article they even mention: > The CoreLogic data shows that what it calls “mega”

Seems everyone that bought a home for anything other than living in it. In the article they even mention: > The CoreLogic data shows that what it calls “mega” investors, with a thousand or more homes, bought 3% of houses last year and in 2022, compared with about 1% in previous years, with the bulk of investor purchases made by smaller groups. So most of the percentage increase is done by mom-and-pop investors rather than groups like Blackrock, Vanguard, etc. With that said the article definitely tries to paint the picture that all of these investors are institutional ones, and burying that important lede. I get the hate against institutional investors going in and buying up entire neighborhoods. But the sentiment that we should just abolish landlords is rather dumb IMO. There's a massive gap between someone being able to afford $1200 in rent and being able to afford a home with all of the added costs.

inetknght 4y ago
> There's a massive gap between someone being able to afford $1200 in rent and being able to afford a home with all of the added costs. Having recently bought a home, I think there isn't so much of a gap and in many cases the gap is inverted: it's cheaper to buy than to rent.
- jiveturkey 4y ago
  GP is pointing to the economy of scale that comes with apartments in denser urban and surrounding areas. there’s a floor price for home ownership.
- xienze 4y ago
  Key phrase here being “recently bought.” Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature that requires you to cough up $10K+ all at once. The mortgage is the _minimum_ monthly payment, not the maximum.
  - rob-olmos 4y ago
    Homeowners insurance covers a lot of that stuff
  - jjav 4y ago
    > Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature By that time their fixed mortgage will be far below local rent, so the money they save vs. renting every month will easily cover those repair costs.
  - inetknght 4y ago
    > Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature that requires you to cough up $10K+ all at once. Only $10k? I've planned for and budgeted for repairs and additions averaging 20% of the loan for the lifetime of the house. It's still cheaper to buy than to rent even with 20% on top of PITI. It's cheaper because I'm paying myself when I pay my mortgage: if I decide to sell then a lot of that mortgage is now returned to me. You will never pay yourself the same way by renting. If I don't sell then 20% on top of PITI is what I was paying in rent anyway.
dqv 4y ago
>I get the hate against institutional investors going in and buying up entire neighborhoods. But the sentiment that we should just abolish landlords is rather dumb IMO. There's a massive gap between someone being able to afford $1200 in rent and being able to afford a home with all of the added costs. As opposed to... being able to afford the rent with the same added costs? Take my area for example: rent in my neighborhood has increased to $2000/month. My mortgage remains at $1500/month (taxes, insurance, HOA included). What added costs amount to $500 extra/month? It's not water, sewage, trash, electricity, or gas! Those costs exist for renters just as much as owners. It's not basic maintenance... that has not cost me anywhere near $6000/year. So what are the added costs that landlords are "saving" renters from?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- xienze 4y ago
  > So what are the added costs that landlords are "saving" renters from? Utilities will generally cost a bit more. But the real killers with home ownership tend to be large expenses that come due all at once. Roof needs to be replaced, AC unit needs to be replaced, major appliance replacement, foundation problems, any number of expensive things can and will come up.
  - dqv 4y ago
    I already addressed this: all these costs are already factored into the monthly rent. In my case I had to replace the dishwasher. I wanted a quiet one, so it ran about $1200. I bought it on credit and got 0% financing. So my housing price increases by $100 for the next year. Now if I were renting? $2000/month. The landlord gets the absolute cheapest dishwasher they can find. It maybe runs them $300. So the landlord would be saving me ... $-475. Paying $5700 extra a year to avoid a $300 added cost makes no sense. Paying $6000 a year in perpetuity for a one-time expense that lasts the next 20 years also makes no sense. The point is that the tenant is not being protected from any added costs, they are paying way above market value for them.
  - jjav 4y ago

inetknght 4y ago

> There's a massive gap between someone being able to afford $1200 in rent and being able to afford a home with all of the added costs. Having recently bought a home, I think there isn't so much of a gap and in many cases the gap is inverted: it's cheaper to buy than to rent.

jiveturkey 4y ago
GP is pointing to the economy of scale that comes with apartments in denser urban and surrounding areas. there’s a floor price for home ownership.
xienze 4y ago
Key phrase here being “recently bought.” Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature that requires you to cough up $10K+ all at once. The mortgage is the _minimum_ monthly payment, not the maximum.
- rob-olmos 4y ago
  Homeowners insurance covers a lot of that stuff
- jjav 4y ago
  > Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature By that time their fixed mortgage will be far below local rent, so the money they save vs. renting every month will easily cover those repair costs.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > Get back to us after you’ve had to replace the roof, had a water main burst, or something of that nature that requires you to cough up $10K+ all at once. Only $10k? I've planned for and budgeted for repairs and additions averaging 20% of the loan for the lifetime of the house. It's still cheaper to buy than to rent even with 20% on top of PITI. It's cheaper because I'm paying myself when I pay my mortgage: if I decide to sell then a lot of that mortgage is now returned to me. You will never pay yourself the same way by renting. If I don't sell then 20% on top of PITI is what I was paying in rent anyway.

dqv 4y ago

>I get the hate against institutional investors going in and buying up entire neighborhoods. But the sentiment that we should just abolish landlords is rather dumb IMO. There's a massive gap between someone being able to afford $1200 in rent and being able to afford a home with all of the added costs. As opposed to... being able to afford the rent with the same added costs? Take my area for example: rent in my neighborhood has increased to $2000/month. My mortgage remains at $1500/month (taxes, insurance, HOA included). What added costs amount to $500 extra/month? It's not water, sewage, trash, electricity, or gas! Those costs exist for renters just as much as owners. It's not basic maintenance... that has not cost me anywhere near $6000/year. So what are the added costs that landlords are "saving" renters from?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xienze 4y ago
> So what are the added costs that landlords are "saving" renters from? Utilities will generally cost a bit more. But the real killers with home ownership tend to be large expenses that come due all at once. Roof needs to be replaced, AC unit needs to be replaced, major appliance replacement, foundation problems, any number of expensive things can and will come up.
- dqv 4y ago
  I already addressed this: all these costs are already factored into the monthly rent. In my case I had to replace the dishwasher. I wanted a quiet one, so it ran about $1200. I bought it on credit and got 0% financing. So my housing price increases by $100 for the next year. Now if I were renting? $2000/month. The landlord gets the absolute cheapest dishwasher they can find. It maybe runs them $300. So the landlord would be saving me ... $-475. Paying $5700 extra a year to avoid a $300 added cost makes no sense. Paying $6000 a year in perpetuity for a one-time expense that lasts the next 20 years also makes no sense. The point is that the tenant is not being protected from any added costs, they are paying way above market value for them.
- jjav 4y ago