6 ms·
The corporate mega landlords will own a large chunk of all housing in the future, and never release it back to the market. The idea of houses being owned by pe
by andrewstuart 3y ago
The corporate mega landlords will own a large chunk of all housing in the future, and never release it back to the market.
The idea of houses being owned by people will decline over time until it's only for the mega wealthy - everyone else is a renter.
The companies building up their portfolio of residential housing include Blackrock Capital and JP Morgan - say hello to your new landlords.
The governments could do something about this but they won't.
It's coming to Australia too - the Treasurer Jim Chalmers has met with these corporate mega landlords and he has explicitly stated he is working to "clear away the barriers to investment".
The socialists in Berlin are working to stop the corporate megalandlords - filthy socialists - all they think about is "the people" - no-one consider the needs of Blackrock Capital and JP Morgan...
- throwaway5959 3y agoI mean, at some point, people will be so broke there won't be anything left to take, so there's that.
- irrational 3y agoDevelopers will still build new homes that won’t be owned by these companies.
- t-writescode 3y agoWhere I live, they're building mostly *apartments*, not *condos* and not *houses*.
- dpc050505 3y agoI work on a lot of condo towers as a high rise window cleaner. I'm seeing new builds get picked up by institutional investors all the time.
- r00fus 3y agoThere was this story a while back where builders couldn’t find buyers so they sold to Blackrock at a 20% discount so they could get out. High interest rate policy isn’t fighting inflation it’s just transferring wealth upwards even more.
- pbj1968 3y agoI would like to know more about being a high rise window cleaner.
- clipsy 3y agoLand is not fungible ("location, location, location," as real estate agents often say) and good land is often constrained by zoning and other local regulations. Being able to buy a lot in the middle of nowhere with no access to jobs or other basic necessities is not terribly useful unless you are already independently wealthy. A truly widescale and permanent adoption of WFH might move the needle on this sort of thing, but (checks WSJ) gosh, whaddya know, it turns out Wall Street is fighting tooth and nail against WFH adoption.
- dylan604 3y agoMaybe, for that first sale. Then, a housing bubble bursts, those first sales get foreclosed, and the bankers get the houses anyways.
- kyleyeats 3y agoThe first houses they bought up were in Congress.
- r00fus 3y agoMan this is so on-point it hurts.
- alexfromapex 3y agoShould not default to a defeatist attitude like this. Governments will do something if enough citizens complain and not a minute before.
- asynchronous 3y ago*if the right citizens complain and in the right ways
- digitalpacman 3y agoLike abortion?
- samplatt 3y ago>Treasurer Jim Chalmers has met with... Can I get a source on that? As an Australian this affects me.
- andrewstuart 3y agoHere you go..... https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-2022/media-releases/treasurers-investor-roundtable https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/jim-chalmers-202... "addressing barriers to investment within the housing sector;" Read the list of attendees.
- Gustomaximus 3y ago"There is a massive opportunity in promoting greater investment in sectors that deliver both strong returns for investors and strong returns for our community." While there is balance, overall it's more; investors or community, choose one.
- Narkov 3y agoThis is a misinterpretation, IMHO. You are assuming from the attendee list that this is about these banks and super funds outright owning the housing asset whereas a more reasonable interpretation is about those organisations funding construction and financing of the assets for private ownership.
- andrewstuart 3y agoYou choose to make the most charitable interpretation in favor of the government.
- samplatt 3y agoAgreed. It's almost impossible to REALISTICALLY interpret "addressing barriers to investment within the housing sector" in any way that would benefit the working class. What is this "round table" going to propose? That the banks all put in money to build a bunch of houses and then give them away for free?
- Gustomaximus 3y ago> It's coming to Australia too Is here. Was having an ethics chat with a friend involved with one group and their main point is this makes it better for renters as corp owners give long term stability for a 'home' vs private investors who turnover property. That was the only point that resonated to me but overall I see this as a real loss for society to take away home ownership from people, or make it so difficult. There something in most peoples core that wants to own their home. Given the pain points it's inflicting on so many people it's amazing how little political reform there has been other than the first home buyers grant, which was really more about economic stimulation that helping property ownership.
- wbl 3y agoWe can make more houses
- thatguy0900 3y agoCorporations will own everything in city's, but don't worry, you can buy a house in the middle of nowhere! Oh, and those corporations are heavily against work from home, by chance.
- wbl 3y agoAll US cities are far below the size they would be with building up.
- Gustomaximus 3y agoAnd if corporations own the land?
- frankfrankfrank 3y agoIf the people of the left and the right could set their banker fueled squabbles aside for a while, they could affect laws to, e.g., massively tax institutional home ownership, so it drives them out of the market and brings prices down, and massively tax anything over two homes and anything over a certain square footage per person, etc. all to drive the prices down. Or did that matter, simply not letting that bankers flood the country with foreign nationals that will drive prices ever higher and stoke inflation.
- comte7092 3y ago>If the people of the left and the right could set their banker fueled squabbles aside for a while I’m astonished that you’d think the impediment to your proposals would be the left. Centrism discourse has run amok.
- safety1st 3y agoThe great red herring which divides ordinary people on the left and right has always been the "culture wars" - particularly political correctness/DEI/wokeness/whatever the flavor is depending on your decade and ideological leaning. Elite Democrats, Republicans and members of the capital class are very experienced at fanning the flames of that divide so it continues to distract the working class from a historic multi-decade privatization and consolidation of wealth which these real estate acquisitions are just the next leg of. America has fallen for that trick hook, line and sinker quite frankly, more so than seemingly any other country on earth
- clipsy 3y agoHaving been the target of the right's culture wars, I can assure you it certainly does not feel like a "trick" to me and the idea that writing me off as a lost cause will magically fix all of America's problems is frankly disgusting. This reads as little more than a rationalization of bigotry.
- safety1st 3y agoThanks for calling me a bigot, you're definitely elevating the discussion /s The point isn't that there are no culture war issues that matter - for example I'm pro choice and pretty disturbed by recent right wing activity on that front It's that the culture war is basically unwinnable and if people fixate on that to the exclusion of economic issues, everyone but Blackrock and Goldman Sachs will end up owning nothing. Blackrock is laughing its way to the bank every time you start a flame war with some imaginary bigot. Classical Marxists, classical liberals, hell classical conservatives have actually been making this point for years and they've all been called bigots for it
- kornhole 3y agoIt is the new subscription economy. You will own nothing and be happy.
- dehrmann 3y agoHousing can't be both affordable and an investment, and people voted for "investment."
- lbrito 3y agoIt's mildly amusing that this is happening basically as a consequence of capitalism and yet there is no shortage of Americans mocking the "slavish" Europeans that live in rent societies. Seems like the US is also turning into a rent society, only the landlords are much less regulated corporations as opposed to very strictly regulated parts of government.
- WillPostForFood 3y agoThe corporate mega landlords will own a large chunk of all housing in the future, and never release it back to the market. According to the source data for the article: 42% OF SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY INVESTORS WERE CONVERTED TO RENTALS 45% WERE SOLD BACK (flipped) So they are in mostly back on the market. This is where the data from the article is from: https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-impact-of-institutional-buyers-on-home-sales-and-single-family-rentals-05-12-2022.pdf https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-i...
- clipsy 3y agoIn one iteration, 42% are converted to rentals and 45% were "sold back" -- but to whom were they sold back? If they were sold to other investors, they go through another 42% reduction. And so on, for however many iterations there are until it ends up in the hands of someone who actually wants to live there.
- wardedVibe 3y agoLand value tax would solve this. And if most people end up renters, they've killed their middle-class allies against a robust LVT among home owners.