Are ‘mom-and-pop’ investors pricing out first-time homebuyers?
Are ‘mom-and-pop’ investors pricing out first-time homebuyers?
Experts said that wealthy investors with second or third properties are pricing out first-time homebuyers and reducing the overall housing supply in the real estate market.
Pretty sure it's companies like Blackrock
Can we just IPO humanity already? I want to buy puts.
I'll repost a comment I made before again here:
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
context: https://lemmy.ca/comment/4927203
Capitalism is literally moving us back into feudalism. Everything is for sale. Even democracy, it seems. Perhaps fascism would be more profitable? Market is bullish on fascism!
Not everyone wants to own and not everyone that doesn't want to own wants to rent an apartment and it's not the government's place to own single family houses for rent (all provincial governments should have a non profit crown corporation owning all rental properties over a certain number of doors though).
Edit: Downvote all you want, I know tons of people that don't want to have to deal with the maintenance responsibilities that come with a house, they still have a family and don't want to live in an apartment, would you rather force them to own the place they live in?
There are two solutions.
- Housing Cooperatives: https://chfcanada.coop/about-co-op-housing/
- Community Land Trusts: https://www.communityland.ca/
Both provide people the ability to have homes without direct ownership nor dealing with the hassle of ownership nor the uncertainty of renting.
It has the benefits of owning. Control over rent prices, ability of modifying living space (including putting up pictures) and benefits of renting (allowing easy relocation, delegate maintenance responsibility).
Housing cooperatives and CLTs have the benefits of both without the drawbacks of either. It also treats housing as a human right as opposed to an "investment".
There are housing cooperatives for students, the most temporary population and the least wanting to maintain a property.
You can be a part of this movement too by donating or investing in such projects. I urge you to do so.
They work, and work well. There just needs be mass injection of funds into them.
It is most certainly the government's business providing housing for its citizens. Like we did, the state- and thereby the people (who own the fucking state), collectively owned like half of all homes in the country. Rent was dirt cheap, anything belonging to the apartment or house was the responsibility of the landlord (a communal entity) to maintain on their own buck, everyone could easily get a home, and it was considered one of the social wonders of the world.
Then the capitalists bought their way into government, sold it all, and now we have a "housing crisis".
Conservatives- they sure know how to create a good life for everyone.
This is only true if there's the same number of houses as people. There are way more houses than people.
Trash analogy
If there are more than enough houses then an investment house would be a bad investment since no one would need to rent it and/or no one would want to buy it with a good profit margin. Instead, they're buying houses that people want, which is driving up home prices and letting them set high rents.
It is not an analogy. That's just math.
I'd like you to show the math as to what the ratio and relation between landlords and renters are.
I'll wait.
Some more scenarios:
If there are more houses than people, then investors would loose money and housing won't be a good "investment".
If there are fewer houses than people, then the same situation would unfold now just there would be homeless people.
I'd like to see this demonstrated as false.
Also this fits perfectly fits within supply demand curves.
If you have people who want to own homes + an investment property, you'd've increased demand compared to everyone just wanting one home. D*2 > D. Hence the mere act of desiring investment properties and acting on that desire causes prices to increase. Prices only decreases when supply increases. As S ▲, then prices fall, P ▼. However the set amount of humans stay the same. So the following scenarios are possible: [N+0], Everyone wants one home [N+I], At least one person wants an investment property
- S[=N+0]=D[=N+0], P-
- S[=N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
- S[<N+0]<D[=N+0], P▲
- S[<N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
- S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
- S[<N+I]<D[=N+I], P▲
- S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
- S[>N+I]>D[=N+I], P▼
I don't know how I feel about the "mom-and-pop" characterization, but yes.
It always rubbed me the wrong way when the previous housing minister made a point of saying we needed to protect the Mom and Pop investors. Like - no, we absolutely should not.
Right? We need to protect mom and pop renters
I absolutely agree. I'll repeat a comment I made separately.
I’ll repost a comment I made before again here:
If you have half the population each have 1 investment property. You must have the other half renters. You literally want to create two classes. Those with investment properties and those with no property. One class above another. You’re just using billionaires as a shield. You want to put yourself in a class above other people.
We should all work so that each person has one home.
And the “I don’t want to work until I die” should be covered by social insurance/social security instead of making someone else a renter.
context: https://lemmy.ca/comment/4927203
Robert Kavcic, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, told Global News “as much as a quarter to maybe a third or slightly more of certain markets are being bought up by multiple property purchasers or investors. So (that is) adding another layer of competition to first time buyers that are actually looking to get into the housing market for a place to live.”
If true that's fucking nuts. That sort of thing needs to be taxed so hard to no longer make it profitable. We all understand that you don't go for seconds until everyone has eaten, but when it comes to a basic human need like shelter, people say FYGM.
There's a lot of people saying it's the corporations fault which isn't exactly untrue and they do have significant sway politically with lobbying.
But it's the people who keep bringing back politicians that clearly don't want to lower housing prices because a segment of a population is to heavily invested into it. If anything the current tax system clearly incentivize people to invest into housing, imagine if we treated water like housing and people would buy up then vote for anyone that'll make the prices go up.
No, corporate buyers and lack of regulation is pricing out first time buyers.
I feel like I'm missing something. Don't we have a housing shortage, not merely an "owner-occupied" home shortage or a "rental" home shortage? Somebody please tell me what I'm missing.
If too many homes were owned by investors and rented out, why aren't rented homes more affordable? If you say, "greedy landlords," are you suggesting that the roughly 1.4 million landlords in Canada (source) are all effectively colluding? I find that highly implausible.
If we had sufficient housing supply for the demand in general, wouldn't that result in lower prices to both rent and own, depending on what's right for each individual?
are you suggesting that the roughly 1.4 million landlords in Canada (source) are all effectively colluding?
I don't know about Canada, but in the U.S., yes, that's happening
AirBnB's a significant part of the issue. Short term rentals don't provide a place for people to actually live, while often providing a higher return over the short term than a long term rental unit.
Real estate speculators, too, add extra pressure to the housing market. Speculators often don't rent the property out at all, and attempt to treat housing as a raw commodity, buying up homes and just waiting for real estate prices to increase as the bubble continues to grow.
There may be real housing constraints in the country, but they're severely exacerbated by the view of housing as capital, rather than as homes.
Look, capitalism works. There are no problems and everybody is happy. As long as we keep pumping out children and just build build build, and then skim some off the top and invest in lawyers and lobbyists to change democracy for the better, we will all be rich and also ok.
When investors buy properties and set higher rent prices, non-investor landlords raise their rent prices to whatever the artificially-inflated market rate is for the area. Not all 1.4 million landlords have to be actively working on fucking the populace, but they all end up participating in it because no one is going to charge lower rent out of the goodness of their heart.
And when the "non-investor" landlords raise their prices high enough, they quickly find they have enough money to consider investing in a second rental property, out bidding people who have trouble saving after paying artificially inflated rent.
Did you know that the original version of Monopoly was called "The Landlord's Game", and was used as a teaching aid to teach the poor about the inherent immorality and inevitable loss of freedom and equality land ownership entails? Then a capitalist came along, stole the whole thing, rebranded it Monopoly, and made a shitload of money.
non-investor landlords
Isn't that an oxymoron? A landlord is by definition, an investor. Maybe you mean something else...
Theres no one single issue, but all of the above happening at once AND a population boom at the same time to top it off. We need an all-of-the-above approach to fix it too. Remove zoning restrictions, make lending for multiplexes easier, build public housing as fast and as much as possible, and found new towns... to name a few.
More builds won't solve anything until we get investors out of housing.
Having enough supply isn't as profitable
Rule 1: Make money.
Rule 2: There is no rule 2. Go nuts!
It's both.
If you just look at supply and demand graphs.
Where S is supply, D is demand, N is number of people, I is number of investors, and P is price you'd have:
- S[=N+0]=D[=N+0], P-
- S[=N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
- S[<N+0]<D[=N+0], P▲
- S[<N+0]<D[=N+I], P▲
- S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
- S[<N+I]<D[=N+I], P▲
- S[>N+0]>D[=N+0], P▼
- S[>N+I]>D[=N+I], P▼
The root cause is the supply not keeping up with demand. Any proposed solution that does not include building like mad is ultimately going to fall short.
The problem really is twofold: yes, it is supply, but there's also an extreme amount of reticence to do anything about both supply and speculation.
This is largely because the profits of the current system accrue to people who bear experience none of the pain of it (which is also why healthcare is broken, and why transit is broken, and why nothing gets done about climate change). Taxes are kept low, assets keep going up and it takes very little effort to stay rich. And money talks.
"Building like mad" isn't going to happen because "building just enough to stop people from rioting" is more profitable. No builder is going to build public housing when they can make more on McMansions and condos, and no homeowner or speculator wants to see policies that would increase their tax burden or decrease the value of their asset.
Building like mad would help, but you'd achieve similar effects by smacking down the investment side of the problem, without requiring the government to, eg, directly buy equipment, supplies and employ tradespeople to build homes, which they'd have to do as bribing developers to do it doesn't seem to work. Plus, if you tax speculation hard, maybe you can use that tax revenue to build?
The real, core issue, though, is housing in Canada at the moment is the perfect neoliberal failure, and our policymakers are so wedded to neoliberal orthodoxy that the solution (massive, direct public investment) isn't just heretical, it's inconcievable. Most of our MPs/MPPs/MLAs and civil servants don't even remember a pre-Reagan/Thatcher era of massive public investment. They don't seem to understand it's even an option.