3 ms·

So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. > And apparently in 2023, private equity accounted for 44% of all residential home purchases. Not true. The actua

So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. > And apparently in 2023, private equity accounted for 44% of all residential home purchases. Not true. The actual headline is 44% of _flipped_ single-family homes were purchased by investors. Not overall purchases, and not private equity (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44-of-all-single-family-home-purchases-we/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/15/in-shift-44...) > but apparently private equity owns about 25% of all residential homes Also not true. Investors do own about 30% of US housing, but when you remember that around that number of Americans rent it's not surprising at all. Most of those investors are not private equity firms.

bmitc 2y ago
You can just say things that might as well be random, but it would be helpful if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true. I didn't just make up the numbers. I found them in articles. I could have and probably should have linked them, but I also wasn't claiming someone was wrong. > So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude that negates the point doesn't really imply being "astoundingly wrong" to me. Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing?
- smabie 2y ago
  Well what % do they own? It doesn't seem like you even know
  - bmitc 2y ago
    Do you know? It clearly isn't zero. And like I said, it's not the main point (it was literally a side point), and it is very hard to actually find an exact number, which should tell you something. If you find an exact number that's well backed, be sure to let us know.
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  > if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true I did. Follow that Washington Times link. > Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude We are talking about an order of magnitude here. You claimed private equity owns more than 10x more homes than is.trur, because you believed the 44% figure straight away. > Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing? Hard to define "acceptable", but yes, I believe around 30% of homes being owned by people other than those who live in them ok. Like, my mum, who owns exactly one property (for her eventual retirement, she gets housing through work right now) counts as an investor.
chomskyole 2y ago
> So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Let me nitpick too: is this really an accurate statement? The first rebuttal (flipped homes) highlights an actual error, though does not comment on how this error impacts on the statement made by op. It's not clear whether the second statement really highlights any issues, since it is not made clear why 25% vs 30% would change the argument. Nor is referenced how many of the investors are private equity firms. So in summary I think your opening statement really doesn't hold, given the arguments you present. Would you disagree? Is this really more an emotional argument dressed in pseudo-factual language?
specialist 2y ago
Does your errata challenge u/bitmc's thesis? Or must a layperson joining the chorus of critics making directionally similar points be utterly precise in every detail before their (obviously correct) broader points be taken seriously?
- dukeyukey 2y ago
  If someone claims private equity owns 25% of homes, and the figure is actually closer to 1%, then yes, the broad point is now wrong. Completely wrong. Catastrophically wrong.
  - specialist 2y ago
    Private equity shouldn't own any amount. Does it matter if the current amount is 10% or 25% or whatever? According to you, we must first agree on the precise size of the problem, before we even consider mitigation. Good grief.
    - dukeyukey 2y ago
      Why shouldn't private equity invest or build in rental property? We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them.
      - specialist 2y ago
        Them owning apartment buildings remains fine. They're now buying up residential single family homes. IIRC, 10% of homes in hot markets are being bought with cash, no questions asked (wave inspections etc). These private equity funds then rent those homes, with no intention of ever selling. Meaning families are competing with funds for the already limited stock. Meaning rentals are now becoming a fixture in neighborhoods.
      - sgarland 2y ago
        > We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them. I’m not, actually. Housing is a human right. If profit weren’t a motive, price would necessarily drop. For those who still can’t afford it (or who choose not to – a valid personal decision), local government should own and maintain rentals at cost. Have the board be made up of and accountable to citizens.

bmitc 2y ago

You can just say things that might as well be random, but it would be helpful if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true. I didn't just make up the numbers. I found them in articles. I could have and probably should have linked them, but I also wasn't claiming someone was wrong. > So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude that negates the point doesn't really imply being "astoundingly wrong" to me. Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing?

smabie 2y ago
Well what % do they own? It doesn't seem like you even know
- bmitc 2y ago
  Do you know? It clearly isn't zero. And like I said, it's not the main point (it was literally a side point), and it is very hard to actually find an exact number, which should tell you something. If you find an exact number that's well backed, be sure to let us know.
dukeyukey 2y ago
> if you pointed to actual data instead of just claiming things are not true I did. Follow that Washington Times link. > Pedantically arguing about numbers that don't have any correction of enough magnitude We are talking about an order of magnitude here. You claimed private equity owns more than 10x more homes than is.trur, because you believed the 44% figure straight away. > Are you saying that private equity and investors (and whatever nebulous definition people want to give that separates the two) own an acceptable amount of housing? Hard to define "acceptable", but yes, I believe around 30% of homes being owned by people other than those who live in them ok. Like, my mum, who owns exactly one property (for her eventual retirement, she gets housing through work right now) counts as an investor.

chomskyole 2y ago

> So much here is wrong I'm kind of astounded. Let me nitpick too: is this really an accurate statement? The first rebuttal (flipped homes) highlights an actual error, though does not comment on how this error impacts on the statement made by op. It's not clear whether the second statement really highlights any issues, since it is not made clear why 25% vs 30% would change the argument. Nor is referenced how many of the investors are private equity firms. So in summary I think your opening statement really doesn't hold, given the arguments you present. Would you disagree? Is this really more an emotional argument dressed in pseudo-factual language?

specialist 2y ago

Does your errata challenge u/bitmc's thesis? Or must a layperson joining the chorus of critics making directionally similar points be utterly precise in every detail before their (obviously correct) broader points be taken seriously?

dukeyukey 2y ago
If someone claims private equity owns 25% of homes, and the figure is actually closer to 1%, then yes, the broad point is now wrong. Completely wrong. Catastrophically wrong.
- specialist 2y ago
  Private equity shouldn't own any amount. Does it matter if the current amount is 10% or 25% or whatever? According to you, we must first agree on the precise size of the problem, before we even consider mitigation. Good grief.
  - dukeyukey 2y ago
    Why shouldn't private equity invest or build in rental property? We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them.
    - specialist 2y ago
      Them owning apartment buildings remains fine. They're now buying up residential single family homes. IIRC, 10% of homes in hot markets are being bought with cash, no questions asked (wave inspections etc). These private equity funds then rent those homes, with no intention of ever selling. Meaning families are competing with funds for the already limited stock. Meaning rentals are now becoming a fixture in neighborhoods.
    - sgarland 2y ago
      > We're quite happy for rental companies and small investors to own them. I’m not, actually. Housing is a human right. If profit weren’t a motive, price would necessarily drop. For those who still can’t afford it (or who choose not to – a valid personal decision), local government should own and maintain rentals at cost. Have the board be made up of and accountable to citizens.