ADVERTISEMENT

I think I may agree with this

-CarlHungus-

Platinum Buffalo
Feb 9, 2007
6,822
6,983
113
As much of a capitalist as I am…and am guilty of being an investor in real estate….

I think I’m ok with this.

Maybe this will be something extra and I agree on? I’m willing to hear arguments otherwise.



 
The status quo is just driving up the affordability of single-family homes. This is a contributing factor in the problems with squatters as well.

The numbers in Atlanta are crazy.

"Institutional investors make up over a third of recent single-family home purchases in metro Atlanta. In fact, three corporate landlords alone own almost 11% of the city's single-family rental market — over 19,000 homes — according to a recent study from Georgia State University and Rutgers University researchers."
 
  • Like
Reactions: -CarlHungus-
So keeping my corporation from buying investment property shouldn't be allowed? Should corporations be allowed to invest and build housing?

This is all another "boogie man" argument. The same imbeciles trying to limit entities from buying housing are the same ones ignoring who actually impacts the price of homes the most: The Federal Reserve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marc22
So keeping my corporation from buying investment property shouldn't be allowed? Should corporations be allowed to invest and build housing?

This is all another "boogie man" argument. The same imbeciles trying to limit entities from buying housing are the same ones ignoring who actually impacts the price of homes the most: The Federal Reserve.

Looks like it's for single family homes, not apt/condo complexes. And it doesn't keep them from buying it, it just puts a tax on it.

Nothing puts more skin in the game in seeing the community thrive than home ownership.

I don't want a world with a bunch of renters and corporations owning all the houses. We seem to be headed in that direction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imherdfan
This is all another "boogie man" argument. The same imbeciles trying to limit entities from buying housing are the same ones ignoring who actually impacts the price of homes the most: The Federal Reserve.

I agree with the Federal Reserve part. Don't forget recent increases in insurance, utilities and property taxes. Remember there are also "hidden" taxes built into insurance and utilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
Idiots. While it may sound good guess what happens? They raise everybody's damn property taxes and especially anybody that is a landlord.

So let's say me and rifle form up a LLC and buy a house to rent. They will hammer our LLC. Just happened to a guy I work with. Hey let's get the landlords. Just hammered him and his son who bought a condo to fix up and rent.

This will have reverse consequences and also guess what? They will raise the rent to pay for the tax increases.
 
If I recall from a recent meeting the first time homebuyer income has grown from $58k to $117k in just 3.5 years. Hmmm... 3.5 years...
 
are the same ones ignoring who actually impacts the price of homes the most: The Federal Reserve.
That's conventional thinking, but that isn't what is happening now. Today's mortgage rate is pretty low compared to where it has been over the past 55 years, except for about a 10 year period that was spaced between 2008-2021.

Let's say an average Atlanta metro single-family house is $400k. Including taxes, a reasonably low HOA, home insurance, 20% down, and a fairly average (compared to the last 10 years) interest rate of 4.2, you're paying about $2050/month.

Current interest rates are quite high compared to the last 10 years but are quite low compared to outside of that short span of years. Even with a quite high rate of 6.5% compared to the last 10 years, that same homebuyer is only paying about $2450/month.

Do you think an extra $400 per month is keeping people from buying a $400k property, especially knowing they will be able to refinance within the next 3-5 years and get rid of that $400 addition? Not really.

The federal funds rate is not really impacting the price of homes in this market. The lack of available homes is what is the cause.

Conventional thinking is that as interest rates increase, homes on the market sit longer, and prices eventually tumble. In many areas, that phenomenon is not holding true. My unincorporated little town went from a population of 0 about 10 years ago to a population of about 12k now. They are continuing to build thousands of homes, and they continue to fly off the market. Exactly four years ago, a friend who lives a few blocks from me bought a single-family home for $1.1MM. Last month, she listed it for $2.3MM (other than a pool and hot tub, she hasn't done much to it). After realtor fees, she will easily make $1MM on that even though the interest rates have jumped from 2.8% when she bought it to nearly 6.8% now. The Fed having that higher rate hasn't impacted housing prices like historically has been the result. Her house, and others all over this region, aren't impacted when prospective buyers don't have much of an option if they want to get in the game due to lack of availability.

Starter/first-time buyer homes? Sure, the rate will impact them a bit more, but there are still enough buyers that homes aren't sitting and having their price impacted by it.
 
New listings “fly off the shelf” for one reason, there are not enough homes being built or listed for sale. MLS listings were over 1.4 million 7-8 years ago, fell as low as 800,000 during COVID and have been less than a million during the entire Biden presidency.


Part of this is definitely massive pre sales to institutional investors because those houses never officially get listed.

People are significantly overpaying for houses based on illusionary influences. The illusion is that market/demand forces are driving prices, but they are not. These private equity firms are willing to buy entire, multi- hundred home subdivisions and let them sit empty just to constrain supply. The artificial supply constraint drives up prices with no underlying real economic reason other than manipulation.

Companies like Black Rock have one goal, end private ownership of houses. Once they do that they can extract money from every person for the rest of their lives. How will they do that? Greatly overvalue prices, dump into any weakness causing rapid devaluation (like happened in 08/09) and then buy everything for pennies on the dollar. They have the assets to handle that short term volatility, home owners that overextend to buy don’t.
 
New listings “fly off the shelf” for one reason, there are not enough homes being built or listed for sale. MLS listings were over 1.4 million 7-8 years ago, fell as low as 800,000 during COVID and have been less than a million during the entire Biden presidency.


Part of this is definitely massive pre sales to institutional investors because those houses never officially get listed.

People are significantly overpaying for houses based on illusionary influences. The illusion is that market/demand forces are driving prices, but they are not. These private equity firms are willing to buy entire, multi- hundred home subdivisions and let them sit empty just to constrain supply. The artificial supply constraint drives up prices with no underlying real economic reason other than manipulation.

Companies like Black Rock have one goal, end private ownership of houses. Once they do that they can extract money from every person for the rest of their lives. How will they do that? Greatly overvalue prices, dump into any weakness causing rapid devaluation (like happened in 08/09) and then buy everything for pennies on the dollar. They have the assets to handle that short term volatility, home owners that overextend to buy don’t.
It is insane how much the valuation continues to skyrocket on these homes. A house along my regular running route sold two years ago for $760k, some executive with Ollie's just purchased it a few weeks ago for $970k.
 
?
So keeping my corporation from buying investment property shouldn't be allowed? Should corporations be allowed to invest and build housing?

This is all another "boogie man" argument. The same imbeciles trying to limit entities from buying housing are the same ones ignoring who actually impacts the price of homes the most: The Federal Reserve.

Government policies created the issue to begin with. The subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 that was caused primarily by Clinton's and Barney Franks' housing and lending policies.


I remember having a conversation with what I used to think was a pretty intelligent guy. He was talking about how great negative amortizing home loans were. I countered this was a recipe for disaster for numerous reasons, which is exactly what happened.

The result - the government bailed at the (ir)responsible parties out on the backs of the taxpayers...


"As for who directly benefitted, Lucas found that the main winners were the large, unsecured creditors of large financial institutions. While their exact identities have not been made public, most are likely to have been large institutional investors such as banks, pension and mutual funds, insurance companies, and sovereigns."
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
New listings “fly off the shelf” for one reason, there are not enough homes being built or listed for sale. ..
Yep. What we are currently seeing has very little to do with the fed rate and much more to do with just not enough houses. If people want to be in the game and buy, they are forced to pay higher (even though a rate increase usually lowers prices).

I’ll concede one minor part to KY Jelly’s and the piece of shit as a human’s claim: the increased rates have resulted in current home owners refusing to put their home on the market, since they don’t want to get stuck having to buy with a rate 2X+ as high as what they have. So that impacts the available houses number and is partially to blame on the fed rate increase.
 
Builders aren't going to go on a limb and sit on a bunch of unsold inventory. That's a hard lesson to learn. Instead of building 100 homes in a neighborhood they build 20(examples). There is also more money in building the bigger homes. Americans used to be ok with the 1300 squar foot rancher. Not now. They big builders have this stuff down to a science just like Amazon or Walmart.
 
Builders aren't going to go on a limb and sit on a bunch of unsold inventory. That's a hard lesson to learn. Instead of building 100 homes in a neighborhood they build 20(examples). There is also more money in building the bigger homes. Americans used to be ok with the 1300 squar foot rancher. Not now. They big builders have this stuff down to a science just like Amazon or Walmart.
What about minimum size requirements?
 
?


Government policies created the issue to begin with. The subprime mortgage crisis of 2008 that was caused primarily by Clinton's and Barney Franks' housing and lending policies.


I remember having a conversation with what I used to think was a pretty intelligent guy. He was talking about how great negative amortizing home loans were. I countered this was a recipe for disaster for numerous reasons, which is exactly what happened.

The result - the government bailed at the (ir)responsible parties out on the backs of the taxpayers...


"As for who directly benefitted, Lucas found that the main winners were the large, unsecured creditors of large financial institutions. While their exact identities have not been made public, most are likely to have been large institutional investors such as banks, pension and mutual funds, insurance companies, and sovereigns."
Which is why “banning sales” to anyone is a horrible idea. At some point, this asset class will fall out of favor for the big boys, as all investments do. The cost of maintaining these properties will result in the sale of the property, and price correction.

But as your article pointed out….once again, another failed big govt policy. This is what the minions crying for fairness and equity ultimately becomes.
 
Which is why “banning sales” to anyone is a horrible idea. At some point, this asset class will fall out of favor for the big boys, as all investments do. The cost of maintaining these properties will result in the sale of the property, and price correction.

But as your article pointed out….once again, another failed big govt policy. This is what the minions crying for fairness and equity ultimately becomes.

I agree in principle. However the correction you mention wasn't absorbed by the investors or the lenders, it was absorbed by the taxpayers, the same ones currently getting priced out of the market. Too big to fail...

Are you familiar with Clinton's and Barney Frank's policies that basically virtually everyone qualified for home ownership?
 
I agree in principle. However the correction you mention wasn't absorbed by the investors or the lenders, it was absorbed by the taxpayers, the same ones currently getting priced out of the market. Too big to fail...

Are you familiar with Clinton's and Barney Frank's policies that basically virtually everyone qualified for home ownership?
I'm talking about a correction that will take place in the future. Not the too big to fail situation
 
Financial failure is a fairly reliable 10 or so year cycle:

1979 - oil embargo
1990 - S&L failure
2000 - dot.com crash
2008-09 - housing crisis
2020 - COVID

I’ve kind of become convinced it has to be one of two things - stupidity is cyclical or these things are manufactured because they are the biggest wealth transfer schemes imaginable.
 
Financial failure is a fairly reliable 10 or so year cycle:

1979 - oil embargo
1990 - S&L failure
2000 - dot.com crash
2008-09 - housing crisis
2020 - COVID

I’ve kind of become convinced it has to be one of two things - stupidity is cyclical or these things are manufactured because they are the biggest wealth transfer schemes imaginable.
The older and wiser I get and they way info is available now, I am of the conclusion we have been fed a lot of bullshit throughout our time. A lot of starts in DC and by the power brokers of the world.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT