Should big corporations be allowed to buy single family homes

[TimHauck 1,843]

On 1/25/2023 at 10:50 PM, TimHauck said:

I think saying an investment firm would be "more than happy" to throw away $25k+ might be even more stupid than that....

Lol at @shorepatrol, what a dumbass

[craftsman 1,045]

On 1/25/2023 at 8:34 PM, TimHauck said:

No they’re not.  They “remodel” (aka paint and put new carpets and vinyl flooring in) in like a week.  They’re not going to want to miss out on $25k+ for a year.  I believe many of them also make the tenants do the yard maintenance so that’s more costs they’d have, plus utilities.

If everything is so terrible, why rent a home from them? It's a great country with a lot of good locations everywhere to find a decent place to live. I've never had any issues. 

[TimHauck 1,843]

6 minutes ago, craftsman said:

If everything is so terrible, why rent a home from them? It's a great country with a lot of good locations everywhere to find a decent place to live. I've never had any issues. 

Did I say not to?  I’ve heard they’re crappy to deal with, but it’s hard to find SFH rentals that aren’t from the big companies so if you want an actual house you might have to deal with it

[craftsman 1,045]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Did I say not to?  I’ve heard they’re crappy to deal with, but it’s hard to find SFH rentals that aren’t from the big companies so if you want an actual house you might have to deal with it

Fock no. I only stay in corporate housing if I do work for the company and they put me up for free. 

[TimHauck 1,843]

6 minutes ago, craftsman said:

Fock no. I only stay in corporate housing if I do work for the company and they put me up for free. 

Oh sorry I misread your post, I guess you were telling people not to.  But what I wrote is why they do

[TimHauck 1,843]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:49 PM, shorepatrol said:

No it doesn't. They are more than happy to remodel and sit on it for a year. 

Dummy

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

On 12/29/2022 at 3:20 PM, Djgb13 said:

Been seeing a lot of this. A lot of big companies would buy hundreds of single family homes and then rent them out. Effectively preventing people from becoming homeowners. Not only that, they raise the rent so high people can’t afford them. I’m talking making 3 times the rent, having above a 700 credit score, not having any roommates, etc. Making it difficult for people to rent. 
 

Now on the other side, this is a free market. So they’re allowed to do that. Should this be something that should become illegal or at least regulated or should they be allowed to keep doing it? 

You can't make something like this illegal. The money is broken, so it incentivizes taking out of loans and rent seeking. Fix the money, aka bitcoin, and it helps with this issue. Why? Simply because owning bitcoin will be more lucrative, so why own extra houses when they have all this upkeep and bring a smaller ROI.

[TimHauck 1,843]

5 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

You can't make something like this illegal. The money is broken, so it incentivizes taking out of loans and rent seeking. Fix the money, aka bitcoin, and it helps with this issue. Why? Simply because owning bitcoin will be more lucrative, so why own extra houses when they have all this upkeep and bring a smaller ROI.

Good point. If we switch to bitcoin no one will want to own houses as investments because they could be worth $500k one day and $200k the next

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Good point. If we switch to bitcoin no one will want to own houses as investments because they could be worth $500k one day and $200k the next

I get the skepticism. I don't expect anyone to believe in bitcoin who doesn't already. We have probably maxed out on bitcoiners for this cycle, and it won't be until the price gets back to $69k or jumps over $100k until it grabs more people's attention. Even if it's not bitcoin, the point is that the money is broken and a hard money system would help remove this problem

I really do think people who hold excess real estate are going to get torched at some point. Eventually these builders are going to over build. Especially since there is a concerted effort to reduce the population.

This may not happen for a decade or so since the Fed is most likely going to need to drop rates extremely low again, incentivizing more debt

[TimHauck 1,843]

Interesting video:

oh and @shorepatrol is still a dummy 

[Jeff Probst 38]

On 12/29/2022 at 5:54 PM, Hardcore troubadour said:

Blackrock is the Goldman Sachs of the Biden admin. They are all over it. Expect things to go their way. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  Ca-Ching 

So is HT

[TimHauck 1,843]

On 12/29/2022 at 4:47 PM, Djgb13 said:

Black Rock is a major one

Another interesting video here:

 

TL/DW, there is a concern with “Wall Street” buying up single family homes, it’s still a small part of the overall market for now at least.

And “Blackrock” isn’t really a player in buying up single family homes (although they are involved in building new rental communities), although a different company called Blackstone is.

So digby wrong again, but more of a name mixup and not nearly as dumb as his usual takes.  @Frozenbeernuts and @shorepatrol take the cake for dumbest takes in this thread for their claims that bitcoin will help the housing market or that corporations are happy to throw away $25K+ if they can’t rent out the houses for a year after buying them.

[Dizkneelande 839]

23 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Another interesting video here:

 

TL/DW, there is a concern with “Wall Street” buying up single family homes, it’s still a small part of the overall market for now at least.

And “Blackrock” isn’t really a player in buying up single family homes (although they are involved in building new rental communities), although a different company called Blackstone is.

So digby wrong again, but more of a name mixup and not nearly as dumb as his usual takes.  @Frozenbeernuts and @shorepatrol take the cake for dumbest takes in this thread for their claims that bitcoin will help the housing market or that corporations are happy to throw away $25K+ if they can’t rent out the houses for a year after buying them.

So this guy is saying the research conducted by the Redfin Investor Data team is false? 
 

“Investors bought 18.4% of the U.S. homes that were purchased in the fourth quarter, a record high.”

“Investor demand is stronger than ever as home prices increase, allowing investors to charge higher rents and sell flipped homes for higher prices.”

“Real estate investors bought roughly 80,000 U.S. homes worth a total of $50 billion in the fourth quarter, up significantly from a year earlier.”

“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”

“Investors had the highest market shares in Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville.”

Real Estate Investors Are Buying a Record Share of U.S. Homes February 16, 2022 by Dana Anderson and Sheharyar Bokhari

[lickin_starfish 1,496]

So here we have Timmy, shilling for Wall Street, just like he shills for Big Pharma. I'm starting to wonder if he works for the WEF.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,813]

12 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

So here we have Timmy, shilling for Wall Street just like he shills for Big Pharma. I'm starting to wonder if he works for the WEF.

Getting it wrong too. Again. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,813]

43 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

So this guy is saying the research conducted by the Redfin Investor Data team is false? 
 

“Investors bought 18.4% of the U.S. homes that were purchased in the fourth quarter, a record high.”

“Investor demand is stronger than ever as home prices increase, allowing investors to charge higher rents and sell flipped homes for higher prices.”

“Real estate investors bought roughly 80,000 U.S. homes worth a total of $50 billion in the fourth quarter, up significantly from a year earlier.”

“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”

“Investors had the highest market shares in Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville.”

Real Estate Investors Are Buying a Record Share of U.S. Homes February 16, 2022 by Dana Anderson and Sheharyar Bokhari

 

[Ron_Artest 760]

55 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

So this guy is saying the research conducted by the Redfin Investor Data team is false? 
 

“Investors bought 18.4% of the U.S. homes that were purchased in the fourth quarter, a record high.”

“Investor demand is stronger than ever as home prices increase, allowing investors to charge higher rents and sell flipped homes for higher prices.”

“Real estate investors bought roughly 80,000 U.S. homes worth a total of $50 billion in the fourth quarter, up significantly from a year earlier.”

“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”

“Investors had the highest market shares in Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville.”

Real Estate Investors Are Buying a Record Share of U.S. Homes February 16, 2022 by Dana Anderson and Sheharyar Bokhari

Check your date.

https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-drop-q2-2023/

And Democrats to the rescue

https://www.businessinsider.com/housing-market-affordability-investors-hedge-funds-wall-street-democrats-bill-2023-12

[Cloaca du jour 2,073]

My wife and I just live on cruise ships....cheaper than rent in NYC.

[Dizkneelande 839]

32 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Check your date.

https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-drop-q2-2023/

And Democrats to the rescue

https://www.businessinsider.com/housing-market-affordability-investors-hedge-funds-wall-street-democrats-bill-2023-12

Ok? Investors as a percentage are purchasing less single family homes this year than they were at their peak a year ago? That’s the same stupid argument Mooney tried to make when he said he lost weight by only gaining 25 pounds current year instead of gaining 50 pounds previous year. And investors are only buying up single family properties because the government made it lucrative for them to do so.

[jonmx 1,645]

On 12/29/2022 at 11:10 PM, TimHauck said:

I don’t think you can make it “illegal,” but a lot of HOA’s are putting in new bylaws with things like you must own the home for a year before renting it, which would effectively prevent these companies from buying them.

They are corporations, they are creations of the states.  You can put restrictions on them.  

[TimHauck 1,843]

2 hours ago, Dizkneelande said:

So this guy is saying the research conducted by the Redfin Investor Data team is false? 
 

“Investors bought 18.4% of the U.S. homes that were purchased in the fourth quarter, a record high.”

“Investor demand is stronger than ever as home prices increase, allowing investors to charge higher rents and sell flipped homes for higher prices.”

“Real estate investors bought roughly 80,000 U.S. homes worth a total of $50 billion in the fourth quarter, up significantly from a year earlier.”

“Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.”

“Investors had the highest market shares in Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville.”

Real Estate Investors Are Buying a Record Share of U.S. Homes February 16, 2022 by Dana Anderson and Sheharyar Bokhari

Did you read my post or watch the video?  None of this is in disagreement with it.  It’s a concern, but it’s not a large share of the overall market.

The video cites that about 25% of purchases in recent years have been made by investors. But half of those are from mom and pop investors that own between 3 and 9 properties.   Only 9% of that 25% (2% of total purchases) are by institutions with over 1,000 properties.

[IGotWorms 3,366]

2 minutes ago, jonmx said:

They are corporations, they are creations of the states.  You can put restrictions on them.  

Tell that to the conservative Supreme Court that decided Citizens United

[jonmx 1,645]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Tell that to the conservative Supreme Court that decided Citizens United

It was the correct descion, not for profit corporations, but for non-profits who want to express an opinion.   

[IGotWorms 3,366]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

It was the correct descion, not for profit corporations, but for non-profits who want to express an opinion.   

Well you have to either embrace corporate personhood or not. You can’t have it both ways, dumb dumb

[jonmx 1,645]

34 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Well you have to either embrace corporate personhood or not. You can’t have it both ways, dumb dumb

They are state creations.  You can establish special rules for corporations which treat different corporation types differently.   The problem with the campaign finance reform law was that even if it was an individual, that law would have made that ad illegal.   McCain-Feingold was a terrible anti-speech law which needed to be struck down.   The reasoning was poor and it would have been better if they took up a different case. 

[TimHauck 1,843]

45 minutes ago, jonmx said:

They are corporations, they are creations of the states.  You can put restrictions on them.  

Sounds like government oversight that Republicans say they don’t like

[thegeneral 1,472]

Some company or one person, doesn’t really matter, owning a large chunk of housing in a market is probably going to be problematic. 

[Dizkneelande 839]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Did you read my post or watch the video?  None of this is in disagreement with it.  It’s a concern, but it’s not a large share of the overall market.

The video cites that about 25% of purchases in recent years have been made by investors. But half of those are from mom and pop investors that own between 3 and 9 properties.   Only 9% of that 25% (2% of total purchases) are by institutions with over 1,000 properties.

I fail to see what difference the size of the investor makes. There’s also this -

Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.

[TimHauck 1,843]

Just now, Dizkneelande said:

I fail to see what difference the size of the investor makes. There’s also this -

Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.

Well the title of the thread is “big corporations,” so it’s not “big corporations” doing most of the buying.

I’d venture to guess there are a few geeks here that have or claim to have 3+ rental properties

[TimHauck 1,843]

29 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

There’s also this -

Mid-priced homes are becoming more popular with investors, making up 32% of investor purchases in the fourth quarter, a record high. Low-priced homes are still most popular with investors, making up 37% of purchases.

So 32% are “mid-priced,” 37% are “low-priced,” I assume that leaves 31% as “high-priced” and thus a pretty even split?

If anything some might argue that it could be a good thing if they’re no longer focusing primarily on low-priced homes, which have the most competition and buyers with fewer resources to compete with investors.

[IGotWorms 3,366]

1 hour ago, jonmx said:

They are state creations.  You can establish special rules for corporations which treat different corporation types differently.

Not according to the US Supreme Court. They are “people” with constitutional rights just like you and I

[IGotWorms 3,366]

15 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

If anything some might argue that it could be a good thing if they’re no longer focusing primarily on low-priced homes, which have the most competition and buyers with fewer resources to compete with investors.

It ensures others feel  pain too, but it’s not like they’re suddenly leaving the low priced homes alone. They’re ramping up everything to now include mid priced homes as well

[Dizkneelande 839]

17 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

So 32% are “mid-priced,” 37% are “low-priced,” I assume that leaves 31% as “high-priced” and thus a pretty even split?

If anything some might argue that it could be a good thing if they’re no longer focusing primarily on low-priced homes, which have the most competition and buyers with fewer resources to compete with investors.

Nobody is building any affordable housing. When you have an ultra lefty commie like the general and a fascist right wing authoritarian  like me in agreement, maybe you should sit it out. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,813]

2 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Tell that to the conservative Supreme Court that decided Citizens United

Lol. Zuckerberg.  300 million plus on one election.  You’re good with it. 

[TimHauck 1,843]

Just now, Dizkneelande said:

Nobody is building any affordable housing. When you have an ultra lefty commie like the general and a fascist right wing authoritarian  like me in agreement, maybe you should sit it out. 

LOL I'm not cheering on "big corporations" buying houses, I live in one of the markets named where they have among their biggest share (hence why I knew how dumb shorepatrol's earlier response was).  Just pointing out that many are overstating their impact.  But as I pointed out earlier maybe the one positive of this is that there are more rentals available of single-family homes, which previously were pretty hard to find.  Although unsurprisingly these companies don't seem to be very good landlords.

[TimHauck 1,843]

Also I don't really support "building affordable housing."   The market should dictate building new middle to upper class housing, and then the houses those people are moving out of should be the ones that are more affordable.

[IGotWorms 3,366]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Lol. Zuckerberg.  300 million plus on one election.  You’re good with it. 

News to me

[TimHauck 1,843]

11 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

It ensures others feel  pain too, but it’s not like they’re suddenly leaving the low priced homes alone. They’re ramping up everything to now include mid priced homes as well

Sure, but apparently they've slowed down recently, as I correctly predicted.   Will be interesting to see if they unload any of them if the market drops significantly like @edjr keeps wishing for.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,813]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

News to me

Of course it is. CNN didn’t let you know. 

[Ron_Artest 760]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Sure, but apparently they've slowed down recently, as I correctly predicted.   Will be interesting to see if they unload any of them if the market drops significantly like @edjr keeps wishing for.

And the Democrats are pushing legislation to stop it.  They should be cheering them on.