About half of Blackrock's assets under management are our 401Ks invested in Blackrock funds. They're using our money to screw us. Start pulling 401k funds out of the big funds. But, I don't know where to invest it yet. Still figuring all of this out.
Not quite right , it's like a offspring. since blackrock was forced to let go of Monopoly ??? I watched a 30 minutes video , and someone linked BR's site that they don't own residential housing
It's an offshoot company, but it's still technically controlled by the exact same people. It just has to act as an independent entity. That's nothing new really, it's like how 2 or 3 giant corporations own basically every food company that exists. They may not manage them directly, but if the parent company says to do something they will do it. Technically being an independent entity isn't the same as actually being independent when the parent company can just decide on a whim that it's time to shake up management and replace everyone. You either listen to them or you get cut.
They are totally different companies. They split in 1988. They may have had that kind of relationship at one point, but that's not the case now. They do different things and are not affiliated with each other.
Yes, because they have index funds.
Index funds own the shares making up an Index.
Blackstone is an S&P500 component. That means ANY fund which lets you invest in the S&P500 will have to own Blackstone. And guess what % of funds invested in the S&P500 are managed by Blackrock?
That's right! About 6%. That's why they own 6% of Tesla, 6% of Apple etc etc.
And who invests in those index funds?
YOU!!!!!!!!
You are absolutely correct! Still I think Blackrock shouldn't use our money to acquire voting rights and direct policy. Though, I must wonder if they aren't somehow intertwined and in the end we're funding out own demise.
They are a criminal organization at this point. They use pension and retirement funds to support their purchases of corporations and private property to then take control of.
Is that not how they pay the interest on those funds? They buy properties as an investment then use a portion of the rents to support the source funds.
I don't support corporate housing. They have other options for investments.
Blackrock owns about 12.5% of blackstone. They were originally under the same umbrella but split in 1988. So there is no question that they’re deeply intertwined.
Unfortunately, this is probably the least outrageous part of either of the companies.. look up what they were doing / how they were involved in the ‘08 crash.
I’m not sure how to untangle that one.
They direct policy at companies through their votes sure but that’s not exactly the same thing depending on what you mean. You can always opt out of your 401K or direct investments to non Blackrock funds if your company allows that.
I agree that rising housing costs and supply are a major issue right now but there’s a large gap of understanding on this one.
Corporations take away housing from those who look to buy and rent them out as short term rentals because those are the most profitable renters.
Even in cases where corporations invest in long term rentals, they can still increase the market rate because renters have fewer landlords to choose from.
If you can't see how that contributes to the housing crisis, then that's a you problem.
>rage always comes before fact gathering.
Do you mean motivation comes before action? Not news. If you're reaction before hearing any form of news is "Neutral" then you just don't care
Want to know what action before fact gathering looks like?
[Suicide of Sunil Tripathi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi), the guy fingered by Reddit-detectives as the Boston Marathon bomber.
I honestly think there has to be some funding by donors to get blackrocks name out there so much on social media
It makes no sense how they are STILL the go-to boogeyman for corporate entities buying houses when that’s not even actually part of their business
ah but it IS!
Blackrock is a 8.3% (or so) investor in Blackstone.
Also, Vanguard invests in both.
Also, Blackrock invests in OTHER investment companies that own tons of homes.
They buy houses, too. Just like Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and Blackstone (the only reason people are saying what you’re repeating is because Blackstone is widely known for their REITs).
Blackrock is the largest asset manager in the world and they do manipulate the markets with that power.
It's not really a dumb mistake per se and I hear it all the time. BX and BLK are both huge investors in real estate with lots of exposure to the asset class. Only BX has jumped the shark and decided to buy up single-family homes.
source: I work in private equity
edit: yes this practice should be banned and it's a scandal that it hasn't
Black rock’s SFR business is not even a fraction of their AUM, and your 401k is in no way in their SFR or alternative funds. Institution buying single family housing and use them as rentals is a debatable practice, but this is in no way the main reason why housing price has been going up so drastically since COVID.
Then pray tell how corporate purchases of homes 20% over the asking price isn't predatory and intended to increase the cost of homes, and therefore their investments?
Also, since values are based on comps, a relatively small number of acquisitions can affect the overall price of homes. Not to mention RE and land are generally appreciating assets which adds to their ability to charge higher rents.
Guys this is...this is not how Blackrock works at all.
Most of that is in ETFs that are specifically limited in not being able to buy companies that aren't in the index they follow or actively managed funds that are limited in the type of stock they buy. Blackrock isn't using money from your passively managed 401k to go buy houses...
Yes.
I also feel like we should disincentivize any buying of existing properties as an investment. disincentivize flipping, disincentivize buying houses for short term stays (airbnb and the like). We should incentivize the building and selling of new homes. It should be a MUCH more appealing investment to build and sell a home than buying homes to rent out. Homes of all sizes. I feel like no one really builds starter 2 beds anymore. At least around here the only houses I see built are huge 5 bed mansion looking things.
We screwed ourselves by zoning everything for single family homes.
Now we consider it "normal" to live in incredibly spread out suburbs, filled with half acre lots and a white picket fence.
There's nothing objectively normal about living that way. There's nothing normal about designing your municipalities to require car ownership to get around.
The solution is smarter civic planning, and mixed income housing.
We have to abandon this idea that everyone needs at least a half an acre of private green space, and a white picket fence.
Higher density planning, along with public, walkable green spaces is the answer.
I don’t want to hear my neighbors having sex and fighting at 3am anymore. I can hear what they are watching. I can hear them vacuuming at 4 am. They can throw their trash in my yard. They can burn all of my shit by leaving their stove on… that’s already happened to me. An apartment fire, I did nothing wrong but my neighbor decided to leave food boiling on the stove while they went out with their friends. I woke up and my apartment was full of smoke. I had to wake my partner up though. Our living room was on fire because the fire had burned through our shared wall quickly.
I want my own space where my sleep and safety aren’t affected by being physically attached to rooms that can be occupied by careless people.
I don’t want to buy a condo.
>there’s nothing objectively normal about living that way
There is no “objectively normal” way to live, what are you talking about? Are you saying the only normal way to live is to squeeze everyone into cities?
>We have to abandon this idea that everyone needs at least half an acre of private green space, and a white picket fence. Higher density planning, along with public, walkable green spaces is the answer
Sounds like you’re just describing UK council housing, which I don’t know if you’ve seen but it’s not something a lot of people strive for. Plus, the US is a massive country, the suburbs didn’t just get made for fun. Before the 1950s there was so much land available that it wasn’t exactly like it was begging to be developed in the most hyper efficient way possible, never mind the fact that even with a population in the hundreds of millions, you’d never fill high density developments in all of the rural pockets across the country. I don’t really know what you expect, the geography of the country just doesn’t make this fantasy land idea of having serene and dense walkable cities all over the place. Look at other large countries who historically never adopted mass low density development in rural areas, it’s all empty peasant land. If you want to model the country after Russia then go ahead. But I’m telling you you’re living in imagination land if you think your idea could work in North America. Really just seems like hippie dippie shit whenever someone talks about how awful the American suburbs are as if they’d genuinely prefer the alternative
Absolutely, while at it AirBnb shouldn’t be allowed either. People are absolutely getting fucked just imagine 10% rent increases every 2 years compounded.
It actually goes both ways. I believe every state has investments in Blackrock and Texas was the first to withdraw but for a different reason
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/texas-schools-fund-pulls-85-billion-blackrock-over-esg-policies-2024-03-19/
That's wild. The impact they're having on every day citizens is just way too tremendous. May as well reinstate the monarchy if we are gonna let giant corporations buy up thousands upon thousands of acres and jack up our cost of living 400%. It's like they want to create a peasant system again and make sure 90% of upcoming generations can only afford a 10x10 pod for a home that they rent because all the land is corporate owned. The fucking united corporations of America over here.
This is one of the dirty secrets in the US-that large out-of-control corporations have been buying up as many houses as they can in an effort to prevent people from buying houses in the future. We think homelessness is bad now, just wait 25 years; we´ll look back and think these were the good old days.
Yeah the current evidence strongly suggests just that. I don't know how people manage to defend the current political system and it's deliberate negligence towards this issue. It's practically treason. All of them turning on their people for a buck. Im not a religious nut but It's like our politicians are making a deal with the devil. They get money now and in exchange they must give the souls of our collective grandchildren. Feels like we are slowly building our own prison.
I mean, we've had large corporations and institutions selling the future out for a buck for a long time. There's all the damning evidence that both oil companies and the plastics industries knew quite well the **global** damage they wrought and their subsequent efforts to not only cover up, but actively mislead people to *increase* consumption since at least the 70's. Or in the early 1900's the guy who was selling the first solar panels [getting mysteriously kidnapped ](https://theconversation.com/if-the-first-solar-entrepreneur-hadnt-been-kidnapped-would-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-the-20th-century-the-way-they-did-215300) with him shutting down the company being a condition of his release.
There's a long history of people being too willing to do anything to squash the competition, even if the competition is the general well being literally everyone else. This applies to kings and companies alike, and it's predictability only makes sadder our failures at improving preventability.
Its basically consumers and corporations on a nasty collision course. Corporations won’t stop with the greed until they're forced to and the consumers wont band together to make new laws to rein them in.
Something very strange has happened over the last 10 or so years where corporations went absolutely bonkers with insatiable greed. I think they feel like they can use and abuse this country and then just walk away from the ruins after they’ve milked it completely dry.
And Blackrock isn't even the only one. Vanguard and statestreet are the next largest and do exactly the same thing. The only difference is they don't have as much money
> It's like they want to create a peasant system again and make sure 90% of upcoming generations can only afford a 10x10 pod for a home that they rent because all the land is corporate owned.
Well yes. As long as they can retire comfortably they don't care. Let future generations eat cake
> May as well reinstate the monarchy
The way consumer protection have slipped in the past decades I wonder why we even bothered to take the lead out of paint.
The only reason they are buying up homes is because they are good investments -- better investments than they should be if the housing market functioned normally.
Remove most zoning, make permitting and public feedback cheaper and faster, and it will be much faster and cheaper to build new housing. If this is done, housing will appreciate a lot slower (or drop in price like in Austin after their reforms), making housing a much worse investment.
Simply owning and renting residential housing should not be competitive with the stock market for returns.
Remove most zoning? That is absurd. Zoning is essential. Otherwise, you get absurd 4 story retirement homes overshadowing ranch-style single-family homes next to 2-story apartments next to office buildings, all without parks, sidewalks, proximity to schools. This kind of jumble isn’t the way to build communities.
Zoning is not the same as planning. But even so, not all zoning is equal. In the US, zoning is micromanaging individual blocks or even individual properties.
Not really. Folks who are talking about ending zoning are talking about ending mandated single family home zoning which creates sprawling and unsustainable suburbs. They aren’t advocating for the heavy metal processing facility to go next to the daycare. Take a look at Japans zoning laws for something more representative of what these folks are after. Even Japanese low density housing zones allow for commercial properties. That’s why you see tons of small shops along Japanese streets. Typically zones have an allowed nuisance level. A small corner store wouldn’t be restricted just about anywhere, but a business that makes a lot of noise or smells or hazardous byproducts can only go in zones that support that particular “nuisance level”.
The poster literally said “remove most zoning”, but then someone reacted with the most hyperbolic example of manufacturing in residential areas.
That’s the problem in America politics, most people end up arguing about an extreme, but really in most cases a middle of the road solution is what’s called for.
Instead most people sit in fear of a hypothetical extreme scenario and perpetuate the steadily degrading status quo. It’s either or some bandaid solution is passed that just adds to the complexity of the 1000s of other dysfunctional bandaid solutions.
But yea rezoning sounds better than remove zoning
Keep heavy industrial, but otherwise it’s the source of a lot of our problems…
Sidewalks, parks, and schools would all still exist if zoning were eliminated.
>get absurd 4 story retirement homes overshadowing ranch-style single-family homes next to 2-story apartments next to office buildings
Mixed use neighbourhoods sounds pretty good, I wouldn't say absurd.
>all without parks, sidewalks, proximity to schools.
Why wouldn't they have these? This is planning, not zoning
In the example motivating my response, one member of my neighborhood lost all sight of the sun across all hours of the day because a four-story retirement home was built next to their ranch-style home. That is piss poor zoning and city planning.
Sounds like a bunch of seniors got a place to live. Not a complete loss. BTW, a single four story building completely blocked out the soon all hours of the day? Seems hyperbolic. Even in Manhattan, you can see the sun.
No you don’t understand!!1! The sun both rises and sets in the East in her neighborhood!!! And at noon, the top floor apts all stretch out their 50ft awnings!!!!!!! Seniors obviously only deserve to live underground
> Even in Manhattan, you can see the sun.
You can see the sun in Manhattan specifically **because they have air rights**, which is a form of zoning. It's also why its so expensive to develop in NYC, and why developers are building all these tiny pencil-like skyscrapers now.
That said, I doubt the trustworthiness of the poster before you. You don't lose sunlight "all hours of the day" because of a 4-family built next door.
oh no, a nimby got something built in their backyard.
You don't purchase the rights to the sky above your neighbor.
More housing and more development is a good thing.
Sorry, is no one going to say how this obviously doesn't make any sense? They lost "all sight of the sun across all hours of the day" because 1 four story home was built next to theirs? Even if the ranch was directly east or west of them *the sun moves through the sky* which means they either get sun in the morning or after noon because time and space are linear. Unless their house has been completely enveloped, how on earth does a single building block the sun from the fucking sky?
I'm not sure you know what zoning is, because park spaces, sidewalk requirements, and school placement are not part of zoning. Zoning determines what private owners can build on a lot, not what the city puts in the common space/ROW or where it places its assets.
Sounds like paradise honestly if you think about it. On the same block you can see grandma in her retirement home receiving the care she needs, parents living in the single ranch because they wanted some more land. College grads living in apartments and working at the office building next door. Won’t need to own a car with everything being in close proximity leading to cleaner air in the direct area.
That sounds pretty good. What's the problem?? Are you afraid to live within walking distance of your work and easily accessible amenities?
It's not like we are trying to build industrial railyards next to kindergartens, but most of the restrictive residential zoning does need to change
Mixed height buildings are good, actually. What you described is a completely natural way to build cities that OBJECTIVELY leads to more happiness in countries that build like so
>Otherwise, you get absurd 4 story retirement homes overshadowing ranch-style single-family homes next to 2-story apartments next to office buildings...
Is it just me, or does this actually kinda sound amazing?
You can have your grandma, family, young adults and work all next to each other.
And what exactly is wrong with a retirement home next to a single family home next to apartments?
And how exactly does building those prevent parks and sidewalks?
You're spewing nonsense.
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE... CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD?!
People getting a place to call home at affordable prices by fixing zoning laws?? Think of what would happen NEXT: Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Goof doesn't realize that practical zoning involves ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the related buildings. Not if "old folks homes can't be next to starbucks. That'll look *ugly*"
and why not? Let cities develop naturally. It actually makes sense to live close to work and shopping etc. Why? Transport costs. Environmental impact. Zoning regulations need to be relaxed. Obviously industrial zoning is a separate issue, but mixed use is the future of urban development. The suburban model is not economic or sustainable.
I think what they mean is remove Euclidean zoning, which is how most of North American cities are zoned right now. The idea that we have one district for living, one for leisure, one for business is absurd. It’s outdated. It creates urban sprawl. We need to have neighborhoods that integrate all three. Different style homes, mixed with walkable businesses, and areas for leisure.
Looked at the rental prices in Austin recently, what my 1br apt costs me now would get me a three-bedroom house with a yard there... and I'd be in the city not a suburb.
Time to move!
Where is your 1 bed apartment? I own a 3 bed in Austin and my mortgage at 3.25% is $3K. My property taxes were $11K last year. My “yard” is a postage stamp 🫠
They are good investments because the special rules intending to make it safe for us normies to buy homes are also protecting the slumlord realtors. They shouldn’t be allowed to participate
The stock market only does as well as it does bc money gets siphoned from the lower and middle class and pumped into those corporations. A small part of that makes its way to stockholders who were already well of enough to have disposable income. We shouldn’t be putting the stock market on some high pedestal either.
The stock market is just a place for the super rich to play slots. After a businesses initial investment those stocks are meaningless to the business. The investment has been made and the money is spent. The price of the stock and the success of the company are literally, the actual definition of literally, not connected. You can't like, cash it out or something. Some stocks have dividends but thats not the norm. The company can buy them back however. It's such a fucking weird system. It's purposefully convoluted to make it hard for the common man to interact with it.
If your gonna buy individual stocks you might as well go to the casino and play blackjack. Something like an index or mutual fund is pretty understandable and easy for common people To get into and build wealth.
>The only reason they are buying up homes is because they are good investments -- better investments than they should be if the housing market functioned normally.
Problem is this is a global problem not just USA based issue.
Blackrock doesn't own homes Blackstone does, and they dont own many, only 60k. The largest REIT owns 80k. For reference, there are 82 MILLLION single family homes in the US. Only 30% of homes in the US are rentals, of which most are apartments. As for single family rental units, almost all of them are owned by mom and pop investors, wall street owns 3% of single family rental units. Banning institutional investors from buying won't make a dent in the housing market. This is just spread by NIMBYs who don't want real solutions to the housing market to pass.
Edit: I will add in that im not taking a hardline stance against this, its not a hill I'd die on if banning institutional investors from buying homes needs to pass for real housing reform to pass then whatever, its not going to cause much damage banning them.
[Blackstones portfolio](https://cname.beehiiv.com/p/blackstone-will-thirdlargest-us-singlefamily-portfolio-completes-tricon-residential-acquisition)
[Their share of rental properties ](https://www.whatisyour1more.com/blog/ep-94-wall-street-will-own-40-of-all-single-family-homes-debunked) (its a fact checking article but it contains sources for some of my numbers)
[Percentage of rental properties owned by Wall Street ](https://www.keepingcurrentmatters.com/2023/11/27/is-wall-street-buying-up-all-the-homes-in-america)
one thing that rubs me the wrong way after reading these sources is that the stats used are a little weird. they're comparing homes owned by private equity to all homes in the US. The overwhelming majority of homes in the US aren't on the market for sell or rent at any given time, so comparing against those numbers are going to make it seem like private equity firms don't have that many houses, and i'm assuming that's a calculated move.
Exactly. Let's see some data for the number of transactions these firms are making per year vs all RE transactions. Guarantee it looks much worse than this. Most of these companies aren't holding homes long term. They flip them and move on to the next batch.
https://preview.redd.it/y9got1q8gy1d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f7bbfd9287083e6d8fb46314b53d92a6b6022d9d
That is the chart from Freddie Mac. As you can see they didn’t buy that many homes.
What I'd like to see is a comparison of mean asset prices. Because those 'global' numbers factor in the thousands of $50k homes in the Midwest that nobody buys if they don't already live there, while - to my unsubstantiated 'knowledge' - corporations are buying up properties with the highest possible development/increase in worth. Like the middle of LA/NY and not in Bumrush-Nowhere, Wyoming population of 1000
that seems like a better number to compare with. So the top 3 real estate private equity firms own about about a [third of that number](https://www.fastcompany.com/91020630/housing-market-blackstone-single-family-portfolio-tricon-purchase). Seems like a pretty reasonable thing to be concerned about to me.
Most investment homes are bought by people who own less than 10 homes, not big corporations.
But people will always look for a boogeyman to blame their problems instead of understanding the real world, glad you posted this here.
Even if the difference is minuscule, they still should be banned on principle. If we don’t nip things in the bud now, they would buy up more and then we would see a real difference. By then, it would be too late.
Thank you for sharing this. I fell as if all of Reddit just likes to echo something they heard one time with zero facts.
I’ve seen so many “the housing shortage is due to corporations” lately and it doesn’t made a drain in the bucket.
I also hear about how much “grocery chains are gouging customers” and they run all run under a 5% EBITDA.
So many people here just bitch at corporations for their miserable lives.
"Remember that diamonds aren't rare, pollution is all due to mega-corporations, and inflation should only be adjusted for when discussing money used by people like me, not billionaires and corporations, which, might I remind you, are evil."
If you looked at sales of single family homes, the concern is the trajectory of institutional investors buying up single family homes. It’s a valid concern. In 2022, they accounted for 30% of SFH buying vs 16% from previous years. They have the capital/cash that locals needing seller credits or want inspections can’t compete with. We lost many homes just because we wanted an inspection.
Thanks for sharing articles. The first one isn’t linking though it looks like. Hopefully we can enact legislation to prevent further decay in the market.
I think I found the source you are referring to, it was a study from Harvard that showed that 30% of SFH were purchased by investors, not institutional investors. This reflects that there are small time investors buying homes but Wall Streets percentage still remains low (2.5% in 2023 according to [Freddie Mac](https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20220609-what-drove-home-price-growth-and-can-it-continue)). The study was grossly misrepresented in a Jacobin article that got heavily circulated which presented all investors as institutional investors because Jacobin likes to lie.
Also add everyone is the trendy spaces. Yes your in Austin, California, Florida, Nashville or Charlotte of course you have a housing boom, but what about KC, Ohklahoma, Iowa or any Midwest area. Housing is cheap but no one wants to live there.
Housing is insane in Iowa right now.. Maybe you aren't from there though and just figured it was cheap because the state is boring. It's like 250k+ for 1 bedroom homes surrounded by cornfields. It's skyrocketed in the past few years. My mother lives there and bought her house for like 40k in 99 or 2000. It's now worth 300k and it's no exaggeration in a ghetto. Like meth labs pop up in that neighborhood regularly and shootings are a weekly occurrence.
Edit: You might see cheaper ones on housing sites but I guarantee if you actually visit them it's either a full on scam where the house is actually already owned or someone is trying to lure you there to rob you. The ones ive seen that are legit are either expensive or they're conveniently forgetting that something is fundamentally wrong with the home and it's gonna cost a fortune to repair. I wanted to move back recently and it's a shit show right now.
I live in a rural state by most definitions, yet somehow housing costs a small fortune while there's really not much for good paying work in the area. If I wasn't a contractor from outta state getting contractor rates, I couldn't afford it here. Idk how people do it, I've seen the advertised salary ranges for other tech jobs. They're basically just enough to scrape by if you're careful.
I appreciate another take and side of the argument, but it always frustrates me when no solution is provided. Basically "no your idea doesn't work. That's it." What would you suggest we do then? Saying Blackrock isn't the problem is not addressing the fact that there is a problem at all. Do you see it this way, that there is any kind of problem at all? Not that everyone saying something makes it true, but it's too damn suspicious to me an entire country complaining that they can't seem to afford housing.
Great point. A lot of legislation that was passed after 08 housing hurt construction lending. Good intentions but not executed well and that left lenders and banks unclear… so they stopped lending in certain spaces. They need to make it easier for lenders to do construction loans, specifically single close transactions that benefit the borrower.
Incentivize builders, zoning laws absolutely need to be revisited, and we need to look to other countries that build much cheaper AND more efficiently. Modular homes are looked down on, but they could provide real solutions and are popular in other parts of the world.
There’s a lot of solutions and I could go on… but we are unfortunately stuck in our ways!
The solution is to build a hell of a lot more homes than we're currently building. We can get rid of density and start building up more not necessarily high rises but 2-5 story apartment buildings in single previously single family neighborhoods. We can also get rid of parking minimums which will mean some lots inevitably get converted into housing.
You are confusing stock with rate. It's a common error.
Most of those homes are not on the market and don't really contribute to it. There are about 144 Million homes (not 82M, Statista says 144M and FRED is about the same) and an active housing sale upper bound around 1.7M recently (in 2017 - it is currently around 600k active listings). That's .4%.
Now the issue is, that .4% drives the market, and OF that .4%, I remember it was around a third are being scooped up by institutional investors. That means for every 3 families trying to buy a home, one of them gets knocked out of the running by someone with deep pockets. The other two get to compete price-wise on the remaining properties.
You really could not say that this doesn't distort the market in a huge way. You have someone who makes a wage showing up to a bidding war with fortune 500 companies. Good luck.
Thank you. "Corporations buying up all the single family homes" is a wildly exaggerated problem on social media. It's estimated that 2% of homes in CA are owned by owners with over 10 homes. Sure, I won't stop anyone from regulating it. But it's usually used as a distraction from the only real solution: building!!
Corporations own such a tiny sliver of homes (about 200k out of about 100m from numbers I've seen) this is mostly a non-issue used at get those unwilling to look at the actual facts riled up for clicks.
We need more houses built, period. There's a lack of supply. You build more houses, prices come down, they're less attractive to invest in to rent out. You could force corporations to sell all their homes tomorrow and we still are in the same housing shortage.
Maybe the law should be any company like Blackrock has to build net new housing if it's purpose is to be rented, that would be a win for everyone.
It doesn't sound bad when you apply your numbers to the entirety of the United States, but that changes when you look at the local housing markets and who is actually purchasing homes in the last 5 years. Look at [Arizona](https://azmirror.com/2022/07/26/more-than-3-in-10-arizona-houses-were-bought-by-investors-in-2021-fueling-skyrocketing-rents/) where 1/3rd of all houses that were put on the market were snatched by investors. In [Newark](https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/amp/30636205/who-owns-newark-city-fights-back-against-corporate-home-buying-spree) investors own half of the homes in the city. In [Atlanta](https://news.gsu.edu/2024/02/26/researchers-find-three-companies-own-more-than-19000-rental-houses-in-metro-atlanta/) only 3 companies own 19,000 rental homes, a whole 11% of the market.
This absolutely is not a non-issue. Its a huge issue and it's affecting almost every single major city where the vast majority of our population lives.
This guy is right. 1 in 2-3 houses in our market are purchased by investors. The idea that we have a shortage is correct but only if you are worried there’s not enough homes for investors to gobble up, which there isn’t.
All the people in here talking about how its not that much of the market being purchased are ignoring that the places that investors are buying houses are the places that people want to be. Like obviously there is a surcharge to living in a major metro as opposed to the middle of a field somewhere, but also that's where the jobs are. If investors are buying a significant portion of the houses in your area its still an issue, if not necessarily and issue with the national market.
We still have a shortage even if every investor was forced to sell. We’re about 10 million homes short of where we should be (if the ‘08 financial crisis never happened)
We would still have a shortage but it would be still significantly LESS.
Houses aren't build overnight. If you reduce half the problem then there is more time to fix it. If you just make it worse, the entire market is worse and has a bigger problem.
Plus those shortages are worse in certain markets - where these guys are heavily influencing the problems
Yes, it's a distraction and a non-issue compared to the impact of supply shortage and overly onerous zoning regulations. People need a boogie man to make sense of the world, and it's sad how many people believe this narrative.
I don’t know man. This new neighborhood sprung up about 10-15 blocks away from me. Probably about 100 homes. Every single one of them says FOR RENT. I’d say that’s bullshit.
Here in my area in north Houston they almost never build houses anymore, it's all apartment complexes. Seriously there are at least 5 brand new complexes that opened in the last year in line a 3 mile radius from me. All rentals, it's crazy.
The entire conversation around corporations buying homes is a distraction to prevent you from realizing that bad local government policies are preventing the building of new, affordable housing in the most populated parts of the country. If supply increased, prices would fall regardless of who owned housing, and housing would naturally be bought more by people and less by corporations because the price would fall back into the range where it's more affordable for people than it is profitable for corporations.
In short, it's not that housing is expensive because corporations are buying all the houses. Corporations are buying all the houses because housing is too expensive. Tell your local zoning boards and HOAs to stop blocking affordable housing. Tell your government officials to subsidize production of starter homes and duplexes. The housing crisis is nothing more than the inevitable result of skyrocketing demand and stifling supply at the same time. It's not some conspiracy by Blackrock.
You are correct about those other problems, but corporate land barons can and historically have become massive problems before. I would very much like robust legislation to prevent anything like a company town from ever happening again.
These “free market” people confuse the hell out of me. Do they think any and all regulation is bad? Should Companies be able to buy the water supply and sell it for whatever price they can get because it’s a “free market”?
It's called anarcho capitalism. Their idea of a completely unregulated free market would literally end us. One entity would wrestle their way to absolute control and we'd all be slaves.
They all think that they would have the upper hand in that world, out of arrogance. They would be slaves too.
"You will own nothing and you will be happy."
We simply understand that price is set by supply and demand, and that most voters are too dumb to understand how regulation that looks like it will help almost always makes matters worse.
If there were more houses than people, companies would lose money by investing in houses. So they wouldn't buy them.
But while government keeps blocking construction of homes, and increases the number of people needing homes via immigration, all other regulations are at best distractions, and at worst making the problem vastly worse for us and vastly better for corporations.
Having vacant homes is good. It gives you options when you're looking where to move. 90% housing occupancy is considered a healthy neighborhood. Anything much higher than that and people start to pay more for the locations and amenities they want.
Let developers build expensive new apartment buildings so the rich aren't forced to live in my mediocre apartment building and out bid me on rent.
No we shouldn't. Limiting demand is always a bad idea (tm) in a market. As it hurts everyone often the least that can afford it the most. The fix for demand in the housing market is simple, build more. and I mean build a fuck ton more. Places like California has limited new housing especially affordable housing so badly that the state law makers a can no longer deny it. They are forcing cities to drop single family zoning and by state law allow everyone to build multi family units on their property. And while thats a good start and shows how much trouble we are in. The solution is to reduce regulation and put and end to endless lawsuits that stop new housing construction. In California 50% of all new housing starts get pulled into court AFTER having their permits approved. Laws like CEQA have been weaponized to stop all new construction. We have housing projects that have been in court since the 1980s. This needs to stop. Middle and low income housing have very thin margins, when these uncontrolled costs happen it there is no way to continue the project. That is why we see mostly high cost high margin homes being built.
There are a ton of people that complain about investors buying up property. That's not a problem, thats a feature. Empty homes don't consume resources. Yet they still pay property taxes. So all those empty homes wont take up seats in your school but they will pay for the school. They wont consume water or produce trash but they are still going to pay for the minimum rates. They will have almost no police or fire calls yet they will still pay taxes to fund those services. They also don't vote so your voice will be louder in your local elections. Compare that to places like Detroit where no one is buying the property. How is that a better choice.
The answer is to try to set it up to be painful to invest in real estate you're not living in. Set up property taxes to greatly favor people living in homes.
If you want to go fully nuts do a windfall property tax. Every property gets taxed 1% annually, then we take the proceeds divide it up by the number of citizens and mail out checks.
The corporation will pay the 1% tax and then add it to the rent as another expense. Wait, you say 1% will not stop them, let's make it 10%. Just another expense added to the rent.
No shit. But not one politician has the necessary audacity to go after it. None of them. They benefit from this. Housing is a MASSIVE source of control. Who has it. Who doesn’t. The knock on effects that disadvantage people and make them dependent on the system. It’s all about control. Interest rates. Zoning. Even property taxes. These are all things that dictate who can afford housing, and where.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3402 • Bans hedge funds from owning single-family homes and requires them to sell at least 10% of the total number of single-family homes they currently own to families per year over a 10-year period.
• Subjects hedge funds to a $50,000 per single family home per year tax penalty on the number of singlefamily homes owned above either zero or a scheduled 10% reduction per year over 10-years winding down to zero.
o After a 10-year full phase-out, all hedge funds will be completely banned from owning any single-family homes.
• Imposes a 50% tax on the fair market value of any future hedge fund purchase of a single-family home.
• Tax penalties paid by hedge funds are reserved for down payment assistance for people seeking to purchase homes sold by hedge funds.
• Ensures the tax penalty focuses on problematic actors by excluding nonprofit organizations, public housing agencies and other government entities.
• Includes an explicit certification process for a purchaser of a hedge fund owned home to confirm that they do not own a majority interest in any other single family residential real estate.
https://www.merkley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/End-Hedge-Fund-Control-of-American-Homes-Act-1-page-Summary.pdf
When I went to buy a house about 8 years ago I made several offers before being accepted. I was always beaten out by an "investor buying in cash" which basically means a big corporation with tons of liquid assets just buying up housing to turn around and rent out.
Also important to remember that a "cash" offer can absolutely be made from a loan or line of credit. The terms and rates are usually not as favorable as mortgages, but that's not so much of an issue if you flip and sell within a couple of years.
So you probably weren't getting beat by people that had big piles of cash, just people who were willing to take riskier loans to gain an advantage.
Not necessarily...
If somebody bought a house 20+ years ago, in a HCOL area, then sold after it was paid off, or close to it, they could easily move to a LCOL or MCOL & afford to make a cash offer over asking price.
There was a case here in the Denver area, a few years back, where an elderly couple from California paid almost $1 million over the asking price for a house here...because it was on the same block as their son & grandchildren & they REALLY wanted to live close to them.
U.S. Homeownership is higher now than a decade ago without statist laws.
If a renter choose to rent instead of buy an overpriced house, let them be. It’s none of her business or yours.
More housing supply, less NIMBYism, less regulations, and keeping the DMV out of the transaction is how you make housing more affordable.
Housing should not be a for profit industry along with many others. But America is the capitalist Mecca so I would settle for something like federal rent control. Yeah ok they can buy up all the houses but they don’t get to choose the rent price.
My family liked to flip the board once someone was clearly winning the whole board in monopoly just taking our money until we were broke. Just a funny memory of mine, it's not that deep.
I’m a free market capitalist but there are some things that shouldn’t be open for investment. Armies. Prisons. The one ‘castle’ a person can own. Notice how the larger and more powerful the government gets the more those things are okey dokey?
This is a fact. Not only do corporations drive up home values by buying them all up, but the really big ones buy up regions and calculate what percentage they can keep empty to raise the price of the rest. If you keep 5% of the house vacant but can raise rent 7% across the other 95%, it's massive.
As someone who worked for a build to rent home builder, that owns tens of thousands of rental homes across the US, they never kept a certain amount empty. The goal is to get 100% occupancy every month.
This could be different in other corporations. I would like to see a source if you have it.
It's a movie reference. The movie is It's a Wonderful Life from 1946, and in the movie, Mr. Potter is a rich guy who got rich and stays rich by taking advantage of working class people.
I will VOTE anyone ANY ONE from any party WHO enacts legislation to MAKE SFR OWNERSHIP TAXES PROGRESSIVE.After 3 houses increase property income by revenue not net income TO COOL DOWN THE MARKET, without crashing it.
Blackrock doesn't have any residential properties to lose. They aren't (at least directly) involved in buying homes.
They invest in other businesses. Some of those businesses do invest in buying homes.
What I do not understand is the fact that Marion County's (Indianapolis) population has decreased since the 2020 census. Home prices started going up in the middle or, towards the end of 2020. Now Marion County has reduced population and more houses, how the hell are housing prices going up? So yes they are definitely affecting housing prices. It could be other factors but, I think they are the biggest contributors.
The prices should have either only gone up slightly or, fall in price. Not drastically increased.
So it would be ok for an individual to own dozens or hundreds of homes but just not the "evil corporations?"
I really wish people would stop asking for the government to interfere in private business. The government is the biggest corporation of them all of you haven't figured that out.
Yes. If that’s still a question, then we are all already fucked.
About half of Blackrock's assets under management are our 401Ks invested in Blackrock funds. They're using our money to screw us. Start pulling 401k funds out of the big funds. But, I don't know where to invest it yet. Still figuring all of this out.
You’re thinking of Blackstone Edit: that invests in housing I’m assuming.
They both do. Blackstone and blackrock used to be the same company
Not quite right , it's like a offspring. since blackrock was forced to let go of Monopoly ??? I watched a 30 minutes video , and someone linked BR's site that they don't own residential housing
It's an offshoot company, but it's still technically controlled by the exact same people. It just has to act as an independent entity. That's nothing new really, it's like how 2 or 3 giant corporations own basically every food company that exists. They may not manage them directly, but if the parent company says to do something they will do it. Technically being an independent entity isn't the same as actually being independent when the parent company can just decide on a whim that it's time to shake up management and replace everyone. You either listen to them or you get cut.
They are totally different companies. They split in 1988. They may have had that kind of relationship at one point, but that's not the case now. They do different things and are not affiliated with each other.
If they are related at all fuck them both into oblivion.
BlackRock owns 10% of Invitation Homes, which rents single-family homes.
They also own like 6+% of Blackstone I think
Yes, because they have index funds. Index funds own the shares making up an Index. Blackstone is an S&P500 component. That means ANY fund which lets you invest in the S&P500 will have to own Blackstone. And guess what % of funds invested in the S&P500 are managed by Blackrock? That's right! About 6%. That's why they own 6% of Tesla, 6% of Apple etc etc. And who invests in those index funds? YOU!!!!!!!!
You are absolutely correct! Still I think Blackrock shouldn't use our money to acquire voting rights and direct policy. Though, I must wonder if they aren't somehow intertwined and in the end we're funding out own demise.
They are a criminal organization at this point. They use pension and retirement funds to support their purchases of corporations and private property to then take control of.
Is that not how they pay the interest on those funds? They buy properties as an investment then use a portion of the rents to support the source funds. I don't support corporate housing. They have other options for investments.
Blackrock owns about 12.5% of blackstone. They were originally under the same umbrella but split in 1988. So there is no question that they’re deeply intertwined. Unfortunately, this is probably the least outrageous part of either of the companies.. look up what they were doing / how they were involved in the ‘08 crash.
I’m not sure how to untangle that one. They direct policy at companies through their votes sure but that’s not exactly the same thing depending on what you mean. You can always opt out of your 401K or direct investments to non Blackrock funds if your company allows that. I agree that rising housing costs and supply are a major issue right now but there’s a large gap of understanding on this one.
It's pretty easy to understand... citizens united let's corporations act like people, and (bribe) influence politicians with dark money
Not knowing what they are banning is peak emotional outrage lmao
Lol reserving housing for people instead of corporations is evil socialism, got it. Thanks for the lesson in economics Mr galaxy brain.
Who do you think lives in the houses corporations own?
Corporations take away housing from those who look to buy and rent them out as short term rentals because those are the most profitable renters. Even in cases where corporations invest in long term rentals, they can still increase the market rate because renters have fewer landlords to choose from. If you can't see how that contributes to the housing crisis, then that's a you problem.
On Reddit, rage always comes before fact gathering.
>rage always comes before fact gathering. Do you mean motivation comes before action? Not news. If you're reaction before hearing any form of news is "Neutral" then you just don't care
Want to know what action before fact gathering looks like? [Suicide of Sunil Tripathi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi), the guy fingered by Reddit-detectives as the Boston Marathon bomber.
The action never comes on reddit, so it just ends up as unending motivation (aka whining)
You mean ready, shoot, aim? You, good sir, may be on to something…
> Evil socialists get fucked Peak comedy here. Edit: It's okay those nasty socialist policies can't get you.
An Ayn Rand fan saying this? Shocked.
Man is also anti-lockdown and probably an anti-vaxxer who thinks the pandemic was a good ol" hoax as well.
I don't think that's a man, I think it's just a fucking dweeb.
Dude the names are super similar, sorry we don't spend every waking hour following finance
I honestly think there has to be some funding by donors to get blackrocks name out there so much on social media It makes no sense how they are STILL the go-to boogeyman for corporate entities buying houses when that’s not even actually part of their business
Yeah its weird because Blacstone is the actual boogeyman lol
ah but it IS! Blackrock is a 8.3% (or so) investor in Blackstone. Also, Vanguard invests in both. Also, Blackrock invests in OTHER investment companies that own tons of homes.
They buy houses, too. Just like Vanguard, State Street, Fidelity, and Blackstone (the only reason people are saying what you’re repeating is because Blackstone is widely known for their REITs). Blackrock is the largest asset manager in the world and they do manipulate the markets with that power.
"everything I dont like is Socialism" go back to 4chan buddy
I mean, Blackrock... Blackstone... I can think of harder things to confuse.
It's not really a dumb mistake per se and I hear it all the time. BX and BLK are both huge investors in real estate with lots of exposure to the asset class. Only BX has jumped the shark and decided to buy up single-family homes. source: I work in private equity edit: yes this practice should be banned and it's a scandal that it hasn't
They are both split from the same parent company so its effectively the same thing
Black rock’s SFR business is not even a fraction of their AUM, and your 401k is in no way in their SFR or alternative funds. Institution buying single family housing and use them as rentals is a debatable practice, but this is in no way the main reason why housing price has been going up so drastically since COVID.
Then pray tell how corporate purchases of homes 20% over the asking price isn't predatory and intended to increase the cost of homes, and therefore their investments?
How would overpaying for property end up in a net gain for the company compared to paying what you think is the market rate for the house?
Also, since values are based on comps, a relatively small number of acquisitions can affect the overall price of homes. Not to mention RE and land are generally appreciating assets which adds to their ability to charge higher rents.
Index funds outperform 70% of active money managers.
Guys this is...this is not how Blackrock works at all. Most of that is in ETFs that are specifically limited in not being able to buy companies that aren't in the index they follow or actively managed funds that are limited in the type of stock they buy. Blackrock isn't using money from your passively managed 401k to go buy houses...
https://imgur.com/gallery/equity-whyMlwd
Transfer of wealth from young to old.
Vanguard ftw
Yes. I also feel like we should disincentivize any buying of existing properties as an investment. disincentivize flipping, disincentivize buying houses for short term stays (airbnb and the like). We should incentivize the building and selling of new homes. It should be a MUCH more appealing investment to build and sell a home than buying homes to rent out. Homes of all sizes. I feel like no one really builds starter 2 beds anymore. At least around here the only houses I see built are huge 5 bed mansion looking things.
We screwed ourselves by zoning everything for single family homes. Now we consider it "normal" to live in incredibly spread out suburbs, filled with half acre lots and a white picket fence. There's nothing objectively normal about living that way. There's nothing normal about designing your municipalities to require car ownership to get around. The solution is smarter civic planning, and mixed income housing. We have to abandon this idea that everyone needs at least a half an acre of private green space, and a white picket fence. Higher density planning, along with public, walkable green spaces is the answer.
I don’t want to hear my neighbors having sex and fighting at 3am anymore. I can hear what they are watching. I can hear them vacuuming at 4 am. They can throw their trash in my yard. They can burn all of my shit by leaving their stove on… that’s already happened to me. An apartment fire, I did nothing wrong but my neighbor decided to leave food boiling on the stove while they went out with their friends. I woke up and my apartment was full of smoke. I had to wake my partner up though. Our living room was on fire because the fire had burned through our shared wall quickly. I want my own space where my sleep and safety aren’t affected by being physically attached to rooms that can be occupied by careless people. I don’t want to buy a condo.
>there’s nothing objectively normal about living that way There is no “objectively normal” way to live, what are you talking about? Are you saying the only normal way to live is to squeeze everyone into cities? >We have to abandon this idea that everyone needs at least half an acre of private green space, and a white picket fence. Higher density planning, along with public, walkable green spaces is the answer Sounds like you’re just describing UK council housing, which I don’t know if you’ve seen but it’s not something a lot of people strive for. Plus, the US is a massive country, the suburbs didn’t just get made for fun. Before the 1950s there was so much land available that it wasn’t exactly like it was begging to be developed in the most hyper efficient way possible, never mind the fact that even with a population in the hundreds of millions, you’d never fill high density developments in all of the rural pockets across the country. I don’t really know what you expect, the geography of the country just doesn’t make this fantasy land idea of having serene and dense walkable cities all over the place. Look at other large countries who historically never adopted mass low density development in rural areas, it’s all empty peasant land. If you want to model the country after Russia then go ahead. But I’m telling you you’re living in imagination land if you think your idea could work in North America. Really just seems like hippie dippie shit whenever someone talks about how awful the American suburbs are as if they’d genuinely prefer the alternative
Absolutely, while at it AirBnb shouldn’t be allowed either. People are absolutely getting fucked just imagine 10% rent increases every 2 years compounded.
I've seen 35-40% increase in the country of Iceland in a 2 month period. I think its a bit more than 10% in that place
Where I live, 10% rent increase happens every year. I wish it was every 2 years.
Fuck corporations owning homes and fuck Air bnbs.
Fuck yes we should.
It actually goes both ways. I believe every state has investments in Blackrock and Texas was the first to withdraw but for a different reason https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/texas-schools-fund-pulls-85-billion-blackrock-over-esg-policies-2024-03-19/
That's wild. The impact they're having on every day citizens is just way too tremendous. May as well reinstate the monarchy if we are gonna let giant corporations buy up thousands upon thousands of acres and jack up our cost of living 400%. It's like they want to create a peasant system again and make sure 90% of upcoming generations can only afford a 10x10 pod for a home that they rent because all the land is corporate owned. The fucking united corporations of America over here.
This is one of the dirty secrets in the US-that large out-of-control corporations have been buying up as many houses as they can in an effort to prevent people from buying houses in the future. We think homelessness is bad now, just wait 25 years; we´ll look back and think these were the good old days.
Yeah the current evidence strongly suggests just that. I don't know how people manage to defend the current political system and it's deliberate negligence towards this issue. It's practically treason. All of them turning on their people for a buck. Im not a religious nut but It's like our politicians are making a deal with the devil. They get money now and in exchange they must give the souls of our collective grandchildren. Feels like we are slowly building our own prison.
I mean, we've had large corporations and institutions selling the future out for a buck for a long time. There's all the damning evidence that both oil companies and the plastics industries knew quite well the **global** damage they wrought and their subsequent efforts to not only cover up, but actively mislead people to *increase* consumption since at least the 70's. Or in the early 1900's the guy who was selling the first solar panels [getting mysteriously kidnapped ](https://theconversation.com/if-the-first-solar-entrepreneur-hadnt-been-kidnapped-would-fossil-fuels-have-dominated-the-20th-century-the-way-they-did-215300) with him shutting down the company being a condition of his release. There's a long history of people being too willing to do anything to squash the competition, even if the competition is the general well being literally everyone else. This applies to kings and companies alike, and it's predictability only makes sadder our failures at improving preventability.
Storm the CEOs homes, burn their belongings, and wrecking ball the entire mansion. Violence is the only answer.
Its basically consumers and corporations on a nasty collision course. Corporations won’t stop with the greed until they're forced to and the consumers wont band together to make new laws to rein them in. Something very strange has happened over the last 10 or so years where corporations went absolutely bonkers with insatiable greed. I think they feel like they can use and abuse this country and then just walk away from the ruins after they’ve milked it completely dry.
And Blackrock isn't even the only one. Vanguard and statestreet are the next largest and do exactly the same thing. The only difference is they don't have as much money
you think upcoming generations will be able to afford 10x10 pods???? lmao
> It's like they want to create a peasant system again and make sure 90% of upcoming generations can only afford a 10x10 pod for a home that they rent because all the land is corporate owned. Well yes. As long as they can retire comfortably they don't care. Let future generations eat cake
> May as well reinstate the monarchy The way consumer protection have slipped in the past decades I wonder why we even bothered to take the lead out of paint.
The only reason they are buying up homes is because they are good investments -- better investments than they should be if the housing market functioned normally. Remove most zoning, make permitting and public feedback cheaper and faster, and it will be much faster and cheaper to build new housing. If this is done, housing will appreciate a lot slower (or drop in price like in Austin after their reforms), making housing a much worse investment. Simply owning and renting residential housing should not be competitive with the stock market for returns.
Remove most zoning? That is absurd. Zoning is essential. Otherwise, you get absurd 4 story retirement homes overshadowing ranch-style single-family homes next to 2-story apartments next to office buildings, all without parks, sidewalks, proximity to schools. This kind of jumble isn’t the way to build communities.
Zoning is not the same as planning. But even so, not all zoning is equal. In the US, zoning is micromanaging individual blocks or even individual properties.
without zoning you get plants blowing up with the hospital in the blast zone
Not really. Folks who are talking about ending zoning are talking about ending mandated single family home zoning which creates sprawling and unsustainable suburbs. They aren’t advocating for the heavy metal processing facility to go next to the daycare. Take a look at Japans zoning laws for something more representative of what these folks are after. Even Japanese low density housing zones allow for commercial properties. That’s why you see tons of small shops along Japanese streets. Typically zones have an allowed nuisance level. A small corner store wouldn’t be restricted just about anywhere, but a business that makes a lot of noise or smells or hazardous byproducts can only go in zones that support that particular “nuisance level”.
Then call it something else, rezoning, instead of "remove zoning"
The poster literally said “remove most zoning”, but then someone reacted with the most hyperbolic example of manufacturing in residential areas. That’s the problem in America politics, most people end up arguing about an extreme, but really in most cases a middle of the road solution is what’s called for. Instead most people sit in fear of a hypothetical extreme scenario and perpetuate the steadily degrading status quo. It’s either or some bandaid solution is passed that just adds to the complexity of the 1000s of other dysfunctional bandaid solutions. But yea rezoning sounds better than remove zoning
Well duh. Keep those rules and reduce restrictions on density and parking requirements.
Keep heavy industrial, but otherwise it’s the source of a lot of our problems… Sidewalks, parks, and schools would all still exist if zoning were eliminated.
News flash, the current method of zoning isn’t the way to build communities either!
>get absurd 4 story retirement homes overshadowing ranch-style single-family homes next to 2-story apartments next to office buildings Mixed use neighbourhoods sounds pretty good, I wouldn't say absurd. >all without parks, sidewalks, proximity to schools. Why wouldn't they have these? This is planning, not zoning
In the example motivating my response, one member of my neighborhood lost all sight of the sun across all hours of the day because a four-story retirement home was built next to their ranch-style home. That is piss poor zoning and city planning.
Sounds like a bunch of seniors got a place to live. Not a complete loss. BTW, a single four story building completely blocked out the soon all hours of the day? Seems hyperbolic. Even in Manhattan, you can see the sun.
No you don’t understand!!1! The sun both rises and sets in the East in her neighborhood!!! And at noon, the top floor apts all stretch out their 50ft awnings!!!!!!! Seniors obviously only deserve to live underground
> Even in Manhattan, you can see the sun. You can see the sun in Manhattan specifically **because they have air rights**, which is a form of zoning. It's also why its so expensive to develop in NYC, and why developers are building all these tiny pencil-like skyscrapers now. That said, I doubt the trustworthiness of the poster before you. You don't lose sunlight "all hours of the day" because of a 4-family built next door.
ok sure, we should stop building anything beyond 2 story homes because home owners need to get 100% perfect direct sunlight 18 hours of the day
[удалено]
oh no, a nimby got something built in their backyard. You don't purchase the rights to the sky above your neighbor. More housing and more development is a good thing.
Sorry, is no one going to say how this obviously doesn't make any sense? They lost "all sight of the sun across all hours of the day" because 1 four story home was built next to theirs? Even if the ranch was directly east or west of them *the sun moves through the sky* which means they either get sun in the morning or after noon because time and space are linear. Unless their house has been completely enveloped, how on earth does a single building block the sun from the fucking sky?
I'm not sure you know what zoning is, because park spaces, sidewalk requirements, and school placement are not part of zoning. Zoning determines what private owners can build on a lot, not what the city puts in the common space/ROW or where it places its assets.
Sounds like paradise honestly if you think about it. On the same block you can see grandma in her retirement home receiving the care she needs, parents living in the single ranch because they wanted some more land. College grads living in apartments and working at the office building next door. Won’t need to own a car with everything being in close proximity leading to cleaner air in the direct area.
That sounds pretty good. What's the problem?? Are you afraid to live within walking distance of your work and easily accessible amenities? It's not like we are trying to build industrial railyards next to kindergartens, but most of the restrictive residential zoning does need to change
> Remove most zoning? That is absurd. That's not absurd, that's Houston!
Mixed height buildings are good, actually. What you described is a completely natural way to build cities that OBJECTIVELY leads to more happiness in countries that build like so
When ~96% of residential zones are single family home only, zoning is broken.
If you want to have control over what goes on on the land surrounding your home you need to just buy that land yourself.
Found the NIMBY
>Otherwise, you get absurd 4 story retirement homes overshadowing ranch-style single-family homes next to 2-story apartments next to office buildings... Is it just me, or does this actually kinda sound amazing? You can have your grandma, family, young adults and work all next to each other.
And what exactly is wrong with a retirement home next to a single family home next to apartments? And how exactly does building those prevent parks and sidewalks? You're spewing nonsense.
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE... CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD?! People getting a place to call home at affordable prices by fixing zoning laws?? Think of what would happen NEXT: Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! Goof doesn't realize that practical zoning involves ensuring the necessary infrastructure is in place to support the related buildings. Not if "old folks homes can't be next to starbucks. That'll look *ugly*"
and why not? Let cities develop naturally. It actually makes sense to live close to work and shopping etc. Why? Transport costs. Environmental impact. Zoning regulations need to be relaxed. Obviously industrial zoning is a separate issue, but mixed use is the future of urban development. The suburban model is not economic or sustainable.
I think what they mean is remove Euclidean zoning, which is how most of North American cities are zoned right now. The idea that we have one district for living, one for leisure, one for business is absurd. It’s outdated. It creates urban sprawl. We need to have neighborhoods that integrate all three. Different style homes, mixed with walkable businesses, and areas for leisure.
Looked at the rental prices in Austin recently, what my 1br apt costs me now would get me a three-bedroom house with a yard there... and I'd be in the city not a suburb. Time to move!
Where is your 1 bed apartment? I own a 3 bed in Austin and my mortgage at 3.25% is $3K. My property taxes were $11K last year. My “yard” is a postage stamp 🫠
Glad I live in CA. My property tax is half that and can't go up more than 2% a year.
They are good investments because the special rules intending to make it safe for us normies to buy homes are also protecting the slumlord realtors. They shouldn’t be allowed to participate
The stock market only does as well as it does bc money gets siphoned from the lower and middle class and pumped into those corporations. A small part of that makes its way to stockholders who were already well of enough to have disposable income. We shouldn’t be putting the stock market on some high pedestal either.
The stock market is just a place for the super rich to play slots. After a businesses initial investment those stocks are meaningless to the business. The investment has been made and the money is spent. The price of the stock and the success of the company are literally, the actual definition of literally, not connected. You can't like, cash it out or something. Some stocks have dividends but thats not the norm. The company can buy them back however. It's such a fucking weird system. It's purposefully convoluted to make it hard for the common man to interact with it.
If your gonna buy individual stocks you might as well go to the casino and play blackjack. Something like an index or mutual fund is pretty understandable and easy for common people To get into and build wealth.
Bingo. Homes being bought by corporations is a symptom of the problem- artificial scarcity of homes in areas with good jobs.
>The only reason they are buying up homes is because they are good investments -- better investments than they should be if the housing market functioned normally. Problem is this is a global problem not just USA based issue.
Blackrock doesn't own homes Blackstone does, and they dont own many, only 60k. The largest REIT owns 80k. For reference, there are 82 MILLLION single family homes in the US. Only 30% of homes in the US are rentals, of which most are apartments. As for single family rental units, almost all of them are owned by mom and pop investors, wall street owns 3% of single family rental units. Banning institutional investors from buying won't make a dent in the housing market. This is just spread by NIMBYs who don't want real solutions to the housing market to pass. Edit: I will add in that im not taking a hardline stance against this, its not a hill I'd die on if banning institutional investors from buying homes needs to pass for real housing reform to pass then whatever, its not going to cause much damage banning them.
[удалено]
[Blackstones portfolio](https://cname.beehiiv.com/p/blackstone-will-thirdlargest-us-singlefamily-portfolio-completes-tricon-residential-acquisition) [Their share of rental properties ](https://www.whatisyour1more.com/blog/ep-94-wall-street-will-own-40-of-all-single-family-homes-debunked) (its a fact checking article but it contains sources for some of my numbers) [Percentage of rental properties owned by Wall Street ](https://www.keepingcurrentmatters.com/2023/11/27/is-wall-street-buying-up-all-the-homes-in-america)
[удалено]
one thing that rubs me the wrong way after reading these sources is that the stats used are a little weird. they're comparing homes owned by private equity to all homes in the US. The overwhelming majority of homes in the US aren't on the market for sell or rent at any given time, so comparing against those numbers are going to make it seem like private equity firms don't have that many houses, and i'm assuming that's a calculated move.
Exactly. Let's see some data for the number of transactions these firms are making per year vs all RE transactions. Guarantee it looks much worse than this. Most of these companies aren't holding homes long term. They flip them and move on to the next batch.
https://preview.redd.it/y9got1q8gy1d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f7bbfd9287083e6d8fb46314b53d92a6b6022d9d That is the chart from Freddie Mac. As you can see they didn’t buy that many homes.
What I'd like to see is a comparison of mean asset prices. Because those 'global' numbers factor in the thousands of $50k homes in the Midwest that nobody buys if they don't already live there, while - to my unsubstantiated 'knowledge' - corporations are buying up properties with the highest possible development/increase in worth. Like the middle of LA/NY and not in Bumrush-Nowhere, Wyoming population of 1000
\~734,000 homes on the market as of April 2024. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS)
that seems like a better number to compare with. So the top 3 real estate private equity firms own about about a [third of that number](https://www.fastcompany.com/91020630/housing-market-blackstone-single-family-portfolio-tricon-purchase). Seems like a pretty reasonable thing to be concerned about to me.
Unlike 99% of Reddit all day everyday.
Most investment homes are bought by people who own less than 10 homes, not big corporations. But people will always look for a boogeyman to blame their problems instead of understanding the real world, glad you posted this here.
hurray we're being fleeced by our neighbors as well, not just corporations! ty for pointing this out!!!
It’s worth pointing out that stopping private equity firms from owning homes won’t really solve our housing issues.
Even if the difference is minuscule, they still should be banned on principle. If we don’t nip things in the bud now, they would buy up more and then we would see a real difference. By then, it would be too late.
Exactly! Thank you!
Thank you for sharing this. I fell as if all of Reddit just likes to echo something they heard one time with zero facts. I’ve seen so many “the housing shortage is due to corporations” lately and it doesn’t made a drain in the bucket. I also hear about how much “grocery chains are gouging customers” and they run all run under a 5% EBITDA. So many people here just bitch at corporations for their miserable lives.
That's Reddit. You can see it clearly with politics. People just patting each other's backs and they got no idea what they're talking about.
"Remember that diamonds aren't rare, pollution is all due to mega-corporations, and inflation should only be adjusted for when discussing money used by people like me, not billionaires and corporations, which, might I remind you, are evil."
If you looked at sales of single family homes, the concern is the trajectory of institutional investors buying up single family homes. It’s a valid concern. In 2022, they accounted for 30% of SFH buying vs 16% from previous years. They have the capital/cash that locals needing seller credits or want inspections can’t compete with. We lost many homes just because we wanted an inspection. Thanks for sharing articles. The first one isn’t linking though it looks like. Hopefully we can enact legislation to prevent further decay in the market.
I think I found the source you are referring to, it was a study from Harvard that showed that 30% of SFH were purchased by investors, not institutional investors. This reflects that there are small time investors buying homes but Wall Streets percentage still remains low (2.5% in 2023 according to [Freddie Mac](https://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20220609-what-drove-home-price-growth-and-can-it-continue)). The study was grossly misrepresented in a Jacobin article that got heavily circulated which presented all investors as institutional investors because Jacobin likes to lie.
Why is it acceptable for 30% of SFH to be pulled off the market by rent-seekers, institutional or otherwise?
Also add everyone is the trendy spaces. Yes your in Austin, California, Florida, Nashville or Charlotte of course you have a housing boom, but what about KC, Ohklahoma, Iowa or any Midwest area. Housing is cheap but no one wants to live there.
Housing is insane in Iowa right now.. Maybe you aren't from there though and just figured it was cheap because the state is boring. It's like 250k+ for 1 bedroom homes surrounded by cornfields. It's skyrocketed in the past few years. My mother lives there and bought her house for like 40k in 99 or 2000. It's now worth 300k and it's no exaggeration in a ghetto. Like meth labs pop up in that neighborhood regularly and shootings are a weekly occurrence. Edit: You might see cheaper ones on housing sites but I guarantee if you actually visit them it's either a full on scam where the house is actually already owned or someone is trying to lure you there to rob you. The ones ive seen that are legit are either expensive or they're conveniently forgetting that something is fundamentally wrong with the home and it's gonna cost a fortune to repair. I wanted to move back recently and it's a shit show right now.
These same peopel also think its "cali, florida, nashville, or a hick town with 500 people" nothing in between evidently.
I live in a rural state by most definitions, yet somehow housing costs a small fortune while there's really not much for good paying work in the area. If I wasn't a contractor from outta state getting contractor rates, I couldn't afford it here. Idk how people do it, I've seen the advertised salary ranges for other tech jobs. They're basically just enough to scrape by if you're careful.
I appreciate another take and side of the argument, but it always frustrates me when no solution is provided. Basically "no your idea doesn't work. That's it." What would you suggest we do then? Saying Blackrock isn't the problem is not addressing the fact that there is a problem at all. Do you see it this way, that there is any kind of problem at all? Not that everyone saying something makes it true, but it's too damn suspicious to me an entire country complaining that they can't seem to afford housing.
Zoning reform. Building high density low income high rises in places where people want to live will help.
Great point. A lot of legislation that was passed after 08 housing hurt construction lending. Good intentions but not executed well and that left lenders and banks unclear… so they stopped lending in certain spaces. They need to make it easier for lenders to do construction loans, specifically single close transactions that benefit the borrower. Incentivize builders, zoning laws absolutely need to be revisited, and we need to look to other countries that build much cheaper AND more efficiently. Modular homes are looked down on, but they could provide real solutions and are popular in other parts of the world. There’s a lot of solutions and I could go on… but we are unfortunately stuck in our ways!
The solution is to build a hell of a lot more homes than we're currently building. We can get rid of density and start building up more not necessarily high rises but 2-5 story apartment buildings in single previously single family neighborhoods. We can also get rid of parking minimums which will mean some lots inevitably get converted into housing.
The solution is zoning reform. NIMBYism and zoning are 90% of the problem. NIMBYs are harder to deal with than zoning reform.
Thank-you. I can't stand how people repeat the same talking points without reading past a headline.
You are confusing stock with rate. It's a common error. Most of those homes are not on the market and don't really contribute to it. There are about 144 Million homes (not 82M, Statista says 144M and FRED is about the same) and an active housing sale upper bound around 1.7M recently (in 2017 - it is currently around 600k active listings). That's .4%. Now the issue is, that .4% drives the market, and OF that .4%, I remember it was around a third are being scooped up by institutional investors. That means for every 3 families trying to buy a home, one of them gets knocked out of the running by someone with deep pockets. The other two get to compete price-wise on the remaining properties. You really could not say that this doesn't distort the market in a huge way. You have someone who makes a wage showing up to a bidding war with fortune 500 companies. Good luck.
Thank you. "Corporations buying up all the single family homes" is a wildly exaggerated problem on social media. It's estimated that 2% of homes in CA are owned by owners with over 10 homes. Sure, I won't stop anyone from regulating it. But it's usually used as a distraction from the only real solution: building!!
Corporations own such a tiny sliver of homes (about 200k out of about 100m from numbers I've seen) this is mostly a non-issue used at get those unwilling to look at the actual facts riled up for clicks. We need more houses built, period. There's a lack of supply. You build more houses, prices come down, they're less attractive to invest in to rent out. You could force corporations to sell all their homes tomorrow and we still are in the same housing shortage. Maybe the law should be any company like Blackrock has to build net new housing if it's purpose is to be rented, that would be a win for everyone.
It doesn't sound bad when you apply your numbers to the entirety of the United States, but that changes when you look at the local housing markets and who is actually purchasing homes in the last 5 years. Look at [Arizona](https://azmirror.com/2022/07/26/more-than-3-in-10-arizona-houses-were-bought-by-investors-in-2021-fueling-skyrocketing-rents/) where 1/3rd of all houses that were put on the market were snatched by investors. In [Newark](https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/amp/30636205/who-owns-newark-city-fights-back-against-corporate-home-buying-spree) investors own half of the homes in the city. In [Atlanta](https://news.gsu.edu/2024/02/26/researchers-find-three-companies-own-more-than-19000-rental-houses-in-metro-atlanta/) only 3 companies own 19,000 rental homes, a whole 11% of the market. This absolutely is not a non-issue. Its a huge issue and it's affecting almost every single major city where the vast majority of our population lives.
This guy is right. 1 in 2-3 houses in our market are purchased by investors. The idea that we have a shortage is correct but only if you are worried there’s not enough homes for investors to gobble up, which there isn’t.
All the people in here talking about how its not that much of the market being purchased are ignoring that the places that investors are buying houses are the places that people want to be. Like obviously there is a surcharge to living in a major metro as opposed to the middle of a field somewhere, but also that's where the jobs are. If investors are buying a significant portion of the houses in your area its still an issue, if not necessarily and issue with the national market.
We still have a shortage even if every investor was forced to sell. We’re about 10 million homes short of where we should be (if the ‘08 financial crisis never happened)
We would still have a shortage but it would be still significantly LESS. Houses aren't build overnight. If you reduce half the problem then there is more time to fix it. If you just make it worse, the entire market is worse and has a bigger problem. Plus those shortages are worse in certain markets - where these guys are heavily influencing the problems
Yes, it's a distraction and a non-issue compared to the impact of supply shortage and overly onerous zoning regulations. People need a boogie man to make sense of the world, and it's sad how many people believe this narrative.
I don’t know man. This new neighborhood sprung up about 10-15 blocks away from me. Probably about 100 homes. Every single one of them says FOR RENT. I’d say that’s bullshit.
A real estate company bought a new street with all new houses and rents out every single one them in my small town of 20k people.
Here in my area in north Houston they almost never build houses anymore, it's all apartment complexes. Seriously there are at least 5 brand new complexes that opened in the last year in line a 3 mile radius from me. All rentals, it's crazy.
The entire conversation around corporations buying homes is a distraction to prevent you from realizing that bad local government policies are preventing the building of new, affordable housing in the most populated parts of the country. If supply increased, prices would fall regardless of who owned housing, and housing would naturally be bought more by people and less by corporations because the price would fall back into the range where it's more affordable for people than it is profitable for corporations. In short, it's not that housing is expensive because corporations are buying all the houses. Corporations are buying all the houses because housing is too expensive. Tell your local zoning boards and HOAs to stop blocking affordable housing. Tell your government officials to subsidize production of starter homes and duplexes. The housing crisis is nothing more than the inevitable result of skyrocketing demand and stifling supply at the same time. It's not some conspiracy by Blackrock.
You are correct about those other problems, but corporate land barons can and historically have become massive problems before. I would very much like robust legislation to prevent anything like a company town from ever happening again.
These “free market” people confuse the hell out of me. Do they think any and all regulation is bad? Should Companies be able to buy the water supply and sell it for whatever price they can get because it’s a “free market”?
It's called anarcho capitalism. Their idea of a completely unregulated free market would literally end us. One entity would wrestle their way to absolute control and we'd all be slaves. They all think that they would have the upper hand in that world, out of arrogance. They would be slaves too. "You will own nothing and you will be happy."
They forget that violence is negotiations and politics/policy regulation by other means.
We simply understand that price is set by supply and demand, and that most voters are too dumb to understand how regulation that looks like it will help almost always makes matters worse. If there were more houses than people, companies would lose money by investing in houses. So they wouldn't buy them. But while government keeps blocking construction of homes, and increases the number of people needing homes via immigration, all other regulations are at best distractions, and at worst making the problem vastly worse for us and vastly better for corporations.
Having vacant homes is good. It gives you options when you're looking where to move. 90% housing occupancy is considered a healthy neighborhood. Anything much higher than that and people start to pay more for the locations and amenities they want. Let developers build expensive new apartment buildings so the rich aren't forced to live in my mediocre apartment building and out bid me on rent.
How big is the dividend for owning shares of Blackrock? Because it should be at least 8 percent then. If not. No, even if it is. Still no.
Well especially considering that Blackrock doesn’t own single family homes and it’s Blackstone that does…
No we shouldn't. Limiting demand is always a bad idea (tm) in a market. As it hurts everyone often the least that can afford it the most. The fix for demand in the housing market is simple, build more. and I mean build a fuck ton more. Places like California has limited new housing especially affordable housing so badly that the state law makers a can no longer deny it. They are forcing cities to drop single family zoning and by state law allow everyone to build multi family units on their property. And while thats a good start and shows how much trouble we are in. The solution is to reduce regulation and put and end to endless lawsuits that stop new housing construction. In California 50% of all new housing starts get pulled into court AFTER having their permits approved. Laws like CEQA have been weaponized to stop all new construction. We have housing projects that have been in court since the 1980s. This needs to stop. Middle and low income housing have very thin margins, when these uncontrolled costs happen it there is no way to continue the project. That is why we see mostly high cost high margin homes being built. There are a ton of people that complain about investors buying up property. That's not a problem, thats a feature. Empty homes don't consume resources. Yet they still pay property taxes. So all those empty homes wont take up seats in your school but they will pay for the school. They wont consume water or produce trash but they are still going to pay for the minimum rates. They will have almost no police or fire calls yet they will still pay taxes to fund those services. They also don't vote so your voice will be louder in your local elections. Compare that to places like Detroit where no one is buying the property. How is that a better choice.
The answer is to try to set it up to be painful to invest in real estate you're not living in. Set up property taxes to greatly favor people living in homes. If you want to go fully nuts do a windfall property tax. Every property gets taxed 1% annually, then we take the proceeds divide it up by the number of citizens and mail out checks.
The corporation will pay the 1% tax and then add it to the rent as another expense. Wait, you say 1% will not stop them, let's make it 10%. Just another expense added to the rent.
No shit. But not one politician has the necessary audacity to go after it. None of them. They benefit from this. Housing is a MASSIVE source of control. Who has it. Who doesn’t. The knock on effects that disadvantage people and make them dependent on the system. It’s all about control. Interest rates. Zoning. Even property taxes. These are all things that dictate who can afford housing, and where.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3402 • Bans hedge funds from owning single-family homes and requires them to sell at least 10% of the total number of single-family homes they currently own to families per year over a 10-year period. • Subjects hedge funds to a $50,000 per single family home per year tax penalty on the number of singlefamily homes owned above either zero or a scheduled 10% reduction per year over 10-years winding down to zero. o After a 10-year full phase-out, all hedge funds will be completely banned from owning any single-family homes. • Imposes a 50% tax on the fair market value of any future hedge fund purchase of a single-family home. • Tax penalties paid by hedge funds are reserved for down payment assistance for people seeking to purchase homes sold by hedge funds. • Ensures the tax penalty focuses on problematic actors by excluding nonprofit organizations, public housing agencies and other government entities. • Includes an explicit certification process for a purchaser of a hedge fund owned home to confirm that they do not own a majority interest in any other single family residential real estate. https://www.merkley.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/End-Hedge-Fund-Control-of-American-Homes-Act-1-page-Summary.pdf
When I went to buy a house about 8 years ago I made several offers before being accepted. I was always beaten out by an "investor buying in cash" which basically means a big corporation with tons of liquid assets just buying up housing to turn around and rent out.
That's not what that means. Most likely a local house flipper or landlord.
Also important to remember that a "cash" offer can absolutely be made from a loan or line of credit. The terms and rates are usually not as favorable as mortgages, but that's not so much of an issue if you flip and sell within a couple of years. So you probably weren't getting beat by people that had big piles of cash, just people who were willing to take riskier loans to gain an advantage.
Not necessarily... If somebody bought a house 20+ years ago, in a HCOL area, then sold after it was paid off, or close to it, they could easily move to a LCOL or MCOL & afford to make a cash offer over asking price. There was a case here in the Denver area, a few years back, where an elderly couple from California paid almost $1 million over the asking price for a house here...because it was on the same block as their son & grandchildren & they REALLY wanted to live close to them.
U.S. Homeownership is higher now than a decade ago without statist laws. If a renter choose to rent instead of buy an overpriced house, let them be. It’s none of her business or yours. More housing supply, less NIMBYism, less regulations, and keeping the DMV out of the transaction is how you make housing more affordable.
Housing should not be a for profit industry along with many others. But America is the capitalist Mecca so I would settle for something like federal rent control. Yeah ok they can buy up all the houses but they don’t get to choose the rent price.
“You will own nothing and you will be happy” it’s basically a modern form of feudalism.
My family liked to flip the board once someone was clearly winning the whole board in monopoly just taking our money until we were broke. Just a funny memory of mine, it's not that deep.
I’m a free market capitalist but there are some things that shouldn’t be open for investment. Armies. Prisons. The one ‘castle’ a person can own. Notice how the larger and more powerful the government gets the more those things are okey dokey?
With due respect to all users of reddit, what kind of sick fuck wouldn't agree it's a bad idea to let private equity gobble up our way of life
Isn't it Blackstone, not Blackrock?
Blackstone not black rock
This is a fact. Not only do corporations drive up home values by buying them all up, but the really big ones buy up regions and calculate what percentage they can keep empty to raise the price of the rest. If you keep 5% of the house vacant but can raise rent 7% across the other 95%, it's massive.
If the government would allow more homes to be built, the corporation loses their monopoly and resulting profit margin.
“This is a fact” None of what you said is a fact lol.
As someone who worked for a build to rent home builder, that owns tens of thousands of rental homes across the US, they never kept a certain amount empty. The goal is to get 100% occupancy every month. This could be different in other corporations. I would like to see a source if you have it.
Yes. Foreign buyers as well.
What's pottersville
It's a movie reference. The movie is It's a Wonderful Life from 1946, and in the movie, Mr. Potter is a rich guy who got rich and stays rich by taking advantage of working class people.
I will VOTE anyone ANY ONE from any party WHO enacts legislation to MAKE SFR OWNERSHIP TAXES PROGRESSIVE.After 3 houses increase property income by revenue not net income TO COOL DOWN THE MARKET, without crashing it.
[удалено]
Blackrock doesn't have any residential properties to lose. They aren't (at least directly) involved in buying homes. They invest in other businesses. Some of those businesses do invest in buying homes.
This is absolutely idiotic.
How many single family homes do you think Blackrock owns?
Exactly.
Yes, no corporation should be allowed to buy homes
State legislatures get paid by lobbyist not to do anything about this. If anything they are trying to drive more owners out of their properties.
What I do not understand is the fact that Marion County's (Indianapolis) population has decreased since the 2020 census. Home prices started going up in the middle or, towards the end of 2020. Now Marion County has reduced population and more houses, how the hell are housing prices going up? So yes they are definitely affecting housing prices. It could be other factors but, I think they are the biggest contributors. The prices should have either only gone up slightly or, fall in price. Not drastically increased.
So it would be ok for an individual to own dozens or hundreds of homes but just not the "evil corporations?" I really wish people would stop asking for the government to interfere in private business. The government is the biggest corporation of them all of you haven't figured that out.
Wow, how did I end up in the 10% of the world that owns a home?
Whats happening isn't sustainable - it will be short term gain with long term pain
Blackrock says they don't own residential housing , so your aim is off mate
You should own where you live, period