3 ms·

I think your definition of "rich" is more my definition of "ultra wealthy", but even so I don't think the rich want to be landlords. We're still talking feeling

by bink 4y ago

I think your definition of "rich" is more my definition of "ultra wealthy", but even so I don't think the rich want to be landlords. We're still talking feelings rather than data. As far as anecdotes go the news media is full of stories of the ultra wealthy taking a bath on residential real estate in downturns. Sure, they might hold onto it for a year or so with an outrageous asking price, but they're also going to cut that asking price by 25-50% at the drop of a hat in my experience. I'm not really all that concerned with the real estate habits of the ultra-wealthy. Like most people (even on this site) I'm more concerned with general trends in neighborhoods with less than 2 swimming pools per property. And I just don't think those neighborhoods are going to hold out to the extent that values will not fall and properties won't be available for purchase. That's a myth, IMHO.

lazide 4y ago
Those aren’t the ultra wealthy, they’re .01%’ers. The ultra wealthy (of which a couple are familiar names like Bezos or Musk or Gates, but most of which don’t want to be known as it brings unwanted attention), pretty much never sell. Maybe if they’re rebalancing their portfolio somewhere. They also wouldn’t be landlords (in the sense you’re talking about), that’s what they hire people for. If the property is irritating them and they can’t offload it, then sure some won’t bat an eye at losing a couple million (or 10) on something. Most of them would stab their own mothers in the back for $100 though. But most of them literally never need to care to that level. In the Bay Area at least, the 1%’er wealthy areas like Palo Alto? Most of the city just… stops. I’ve seen it myself last downturn. You don’t need to be ultra wealthy to not need to sell if you hit a rough spot for a few years. They might lay off the gardeners though.

by bink 4y ago

lazide 4y ago

Those aren’t the ultra wealthy, they’re .01%’ers. The ultra wealthy (of which a couple are familiar names like Bezos or Musk or Gates, but most of which don’t want to be known as it brings unwanted attention), pretty much never sell. Maybe if they’re rebalancing their portfolio somewhere. They also wouldn’t be landlords (in the sense you’re talking about), that’s what they hire people for. If the property is irritating them and they can’t offload it, then sure some won’t bat an eye at losing a couple million (or 10) on something. Most of them would stab their own mothers in the back for $100 though. But most of them literally never need to care to that level. In the Bay Area at least, the 1%’er wealthy areas like Palo Alto? Most of the city just… stops. I’ve seen it myself last downturn. You don’t need to be ultra wealthy to not need to sell if you hit a rough spot for a few years. They might lay off the gardeners though.