4 ms·
Your first statement is flat-out wrong. The supporting citation does not actually support it, though it hints at how institutional housing ownership has contrib
by underlipton 2y ago
Your first statement is flat-out wrong. The supporting citation does not actually support it, though it hints at how institutional housing ownership has contributed to housing price inflation. To wit: it explains how innovations during the GFC turned direct investment into an appealing proposition for investors. These investors helped to backstop housing values that would have fallen even further than they already had. In other words, the much-needed correction to the pre-GFC bubble that the GFC represented was disrupted and reversed.
The actual solution to housing price inflation is a full correction that wipes out the inflated value of housing in this country, cutting each property's worth back down to its intrinsic value. Affordability and use would reset to what the real market actually can sustain, as when the income tax forced wealthy property owners to divest of and demolish or convert their grand mansions into apartments for people to actually live in.
There is no housing shortage (Zillow has an obvious conflict-of-interest). There is no need to load even more money into the system by providing cheap money to builders (a naked corporate giveaway that will surely represent yet another wealth transfer from taxpayers to business-owners). Pop the bubble. Planning considerations can follow, once land and property values actually reflect their intrinsic worth. If you do it before that, you throw billions of dollars worth of resources and labor into misbegotten initiatives that do no good for the communities that they're supposed to serve (e.g., highway expansion).
- toomuchtodo 2y agoFannie Mae [1], a GSE, and the Federal Reserve [2] also provide data that confirms a housing shortage. I agree Zillow is potentially non biased, they are simply the most recent data point I've come across wrt to total shortage amount vs the slightly stale citations below. [1] https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives/us-housing-shortage https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives... [2] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2020044pap.pdf https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2020044pap... > The actual solution to housing price inflation is a full correction that wipes out the inflated value of housing in this country, cutting each property's worth back down to its intrinsic value. Affordability and use would reset to what the real market actually can sustain, as when the income tax forced wealthy property owners to divest of and demolish or convert their grand mansions into apartments for people to actually live in. Your thesis is not grounded in reality, and will never occur due to how durable the economy is (preventing mortgage defaults) due to structural demographics as well as how much equity exists in housing in the aggregate (~$17T as of this comment), preventing a correction from MBS investment failures. As long as demand outstrips supply, no correction will occur, as owners and sellers can outlast buyers. There is no bubble, housing is what housing is worth based on limited supply. The market can sustain this as long as people are willing to buy at the prices on offer, and if demand diminishes (unlikely due to population growth, household formation, and immigration), prices will slowly deflate over years as sellers organize themselves in time series by motivation. Gotta live somewhere. "We are selling to willing buyers at the current fair market price."
- underlipton 2y ago>While the United States does indeed have a national shortage of affordable housing Note, an affordable housing shortage, not a housing shortage. In other words, there are not enough suitable houses on the market at affordable price points, not an absolute shortage of housing. This does not need new builds to remedy, in full; transfer or rehabilitation of underutilized housing would be a major component of a solution. A major and full correction incentivizes owners and investors to sell-at-loss or walk away from unsustainable ownership of housing that then becomes available as affordable units. Affordable unit count must increase with the basic affordability of units. >as owners and sellers can outlast buyers. That's a big assumption to make. Unfortunately for owners, their housing values are tied to other parts of the economy that are not as resilient, and vulnerable to developments that are already well underway. For example, the commercial real estate market is going to correct, if not collapse. This is a certainty. Admittedly, the timeline has been shifted back, but through tactics that, ironically, reveal the fundamental weakness of the market. These are foundational holdings that support - as collateral, as capital - the positions of the entities who themselves support residential property values with their activities. You should also look for the rental market cartel to be broken soon. The RealPage lawsuits will dismantle the unlawful pricing power property managers have wielded. That will increase competition and affordability. Hopefully attacks on unfair pricing schemes ("specials" that amount to lowered rents that only apply for the first year) follow, further increasing affordability. >There is no bubble I'm just highlighting this so that others can see how disconnected your argument is from reality. >"We are selling to willing buyers at the current fair market price." Now you're just taking the piss. I'll bite the bait. We're both aware of the context of that quote and how it refers to grossly unethical, quasi-legal actions taken by a desperate entity on the precipice of biting the curb for their financial hubris and malfeasance. I don't know that you want to be taking that affect? It would mean that your stance is one that's in grave jeopardy if people figure out what you're doing before you can lie and cheat your way to safety.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]