3 ms·

They like to throw out that 3% number to get people to stop looking into them. They fail to give the percentage of homes on the market they've been purchasing.

They like to throw out that 3% number to get people to stop looking into them. They fail to give the percentage of homes on the market they've been purchasing. In my market, it was more than 25% of all homes for sale. So let's explain away how removing a quarter of available inventory doesn't affect prices...

whimsicalism 3y ago
The 25% number almost certainly includes much smaller investors than these mega-corps that are being blamed. They are simultaneously responsible for bidding up the price of homes while paying far below the average price for a home in pretty much every state they are present in. Texas is effectively one of the only markets with a substantial proportion of new buyers being institutional investors and this is largely due to the number of dilapidated homes in the area.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Small investors aren't a problem? Bidding up the low end of the market isn't a problem? What? Housing should be consumption, not an investment, but the perpetual-ownership structure of property rights combined with low property taxes turns them into an investment. But not a "consume less today, produce more tomorrow, everyone wins" investment, it's the "rich people get paid for being rich" type of investment. Yes, many/most of those people are less rich than a corporation, but the problem is exactly the same: deadweight loss in the economy.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    Someone has to own it if people are renting it, and renting provides a valuable use case in the economy and makes places to live accessible to young people, poor people, etc. Renting is good - and requires the type of economic activity you would want banned. > Housing should be consumption, not an investment, Housing should be subject to market forces so housing developers can get signals about price. If people anticipate demand for homes is going to increase and start buying homes in anticipation of that (speculating), if we didn't have our stupid zoning laws, homebuilders would be able to build more homes and resolve the demand imbalance before it happened. This is a good thing. The problem is our stupid zoning laws, NIMBYism, etc. > deadweight loss in the economy. ...no
    - mcphage 3y ago
      > Someone has to own it if people are renting it, and renting provides a valuable use case in the economy and makes places to live accessible to young people, poor people, etc. It would be better if the people renting it and living there were the owner.
      - whimsicalism 3y ago
        How in this world do you imagine I would ever be able to move somewhere? I would have to buy the whole home?

whimsicalism 3y ago

The 25% number almost certainly includes much smaller investors than these mega-corps that are being blamed. They are simultaneously responsible for bidding up the price of homes while paying far below the average price for a home in pretty much every state they are present in. Texas is effectively one of the only markets with a substantial proportion of new buyers being institutional investors and this is largely due to the number of dilapidated homes in the area.

jjoonathan 3y ago
Small investors aren't a problem? Bidding up the low end of the market isn't a problem? What? Housing should be consumption, not an investment, but the perpetual-ownership structure of property rights combined with low property taxes turns them into an investment. But not a "consume less today, produce more tomorrow, everyone wins" investment, it's the "rich people get paid for being rich" type of investment. Yes, many/most of those people are less rich than a corporation, but the problem is exactly the same: deadweight loss in the economy.
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  Someone has to own it if people are renting it, and renting provides a valuable use case in the economy and makes places to live accessible to young people, poor people, etc. Renting is good - and requires the type of economic activity you would want banned. > Housing should be consumption, not an investment, Housing should be subject to market forces so housing developers can get signals about price. If people anticipate demand for homes is going to increase and start buying homes in anticipation of that (speculating), if we didn't have our stupid zoning laws, homebuilders would be able to build more homes and resolve the demand imbalance before it happened. This is a good thing. The problem is our stupid zoning laws, NIMBYism, etc. > deadweight loss in the economy. ...no
  - mcphage 3y ago
    > Someone has to own it if people are renting it, and renting provides a valuable use case in the economy and makes places to live accessible to young people, poor people, etc. It would be better if the people renting it and living there were the owner.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      How in this world do you imagine I would ever be able to move somewhere? I would have to buy the whole home?