For anyone who didn't click into the article, the headline may be misleading without the sub headline, which currently is "Relatively speaking, California is not a hot spot for housing investors". The map graphic shows that 19% is lower than other large states (e.g. 22% in Texas, 21% in Florida, 20% in New York). And lower than other west coast states generally (22% in Washington and Oregon, 25% in Nevada, and 23% in Arizona).
I think another metric that's probably just as important is what percentage of those investors are large institutional investors vs. "Mom and Pop" landlords with one house for rent.
I mention that because I remember reading during the pandemic that institutional investors generally make shittier landlords: they're quicker to evict, quicker to raise rents, less likely to work with a tenant on a payment plan, and they have fewer ties to the community. There was a concern that with all the eviction moratoriums during the pandemic that large landlords could wait it out, while smaller landlords got screwed and got out altogether in some cases, leaving their housing stock to be gobbled up by the shittier institutional landlords.
George Orwell made a comment that the landlord in the impoverished coal mining town he visited was usually an old widow.
Always gets me is the ideological contortions people will get up to in order to not face that California is short a couple million units of housing. Really the US has been investing in looting schemes and not in build out for the last 40 years.
California houses are not popular with professional “landlord” investors because the cap rates (net operating income / house value) are poor. Rents are limited to what potential renters are actually able to pay, while the prices are very high.
On the other hand, during the upswing in prices, house flipping in California was really popular with investors because the (then) low interest and likely capital gain made things easy.
The headline isn't misleading unless your only concern is placing California in relative position.
The headline is true and relevant if you are wondering how investors influence housing prices - with a 20% share, clearly investors influence prices a lot. Moreover, California is where the housing bubble began but it's quite logical it's no longer where the bubble is concentrated so again 20% doesn't imply investor ownership is unimportant.
Good point. Similar to how the share price of a company is meaningless, total capitalization is the only useful metric. Similarly, investors have gone to great expenses to commit their money into 19% of California's housing, greater expenses than any other state, even when considered on per-capita basis.
To understand the meaning of this, consider that supply/demand curves are naturally non-linear and even 5% increase in demand can double the prices.
And yet 20% of the market being captured by those who already have a home, while so many go without one, indicates a shortcoming in our society’s ability to distribute resources from those who don’t need them to those who do.
Renting a home out isn't "capturing" the house. Rental housing is a desirable product. Lots of people don't want to own, be locked into a particular house for years to offset transaction costs, and to own all the downside and maintenance risk of the property.
From my cursory analysis, "# of new housing units authorized" is by far the strongest predictor of rent & home values decreasing: https://i.imgur.com/BMsPrKY.png (r^2 = 0.47, P-value 0.000)
Nothing else ("% of housing owned by investors"?) is even close.
edit: Yes, obviously I included a time lag (3 years).
Hypothesis: investors rent out their investment housing (to make a profit) so it doesn't really reduce housing supply, it just shifts supply from owned to rented.
Really. If obsessive zoning and building regulations didn't artificially restrict the supply then there would be no reason for anyone to "invest" in houses.
100%. I'm a far left anticapitalist, but facts are facts. Zoning, restrictive building codes, and the death of much of the housing construction industry post 2007. All contribute to housing costs and homelessness.
I'd like to see zoning opened back up for increasing density wherever it's needed, but I would also like to see a strong social housing policy.
That doesn't strike me as true at all. Nationwide, housing has generally been a "good investment", regardless of whether we're talking about an area that restricts supply or one that does not.
An unregulated supply will still offer promising investment opportunities to those with enough money to buy them up. Look at crypto or private equity. These markets are lightly regulated. But prices are bid up by big money. Unfortunately just dumping regulation is unlikely to fix housing.
This is naive. The problem is that there are enough people with enough power who want house prices to keep going up. The solution must involve making them upset that they cannot get their way. Anything that doesn't have this shape is a stalling tactic in their favor.
Investors tend to invest where the ROI is good. Which tends to be where demand is outstripping supply, but I don't think investor percentages would track that perfectly. I'd expect there to be confounding variables.
Regulations block new supply. If this cannot be overcome, why not add another regulation that private equity cannot own houses? There's no reason they should not be subject to CAs extensive regulations too.
Private equity owns virtually none of the homes in the municipality I live in, just outside the city of Chicago, adjacent to redlined neighborhoods with abysmal schools full of families who would love a chance at the resources we have. Despite insanely high property taxes that depress housing values, our home prices set new records every year.
Homeowners here would just love to spend a year workshopping regulations to prevent investors from buying homes. They know that those regulations would do nothing at all to address the scarcity that drives their home prices, and wouldn't result in them having to adapt to large numbers of new neighbors.
It's the exact same reason they obsess over inclusionary zoning ordinances (IZOs). Affordability is so important! That's why we need new, toothier regulations to ensure that no new housing projects here can ever pencil out for the developers.
PE is a complete sideshow. The root cause of the housing crisis is exclusionary zoning.
Huh. So, like, maybe if rents were not spiking and people were not bleeding money to predatory landlords, maybe, hear me out, maybe they would instead pay someone to build them a house.
2021 called, it would like its performative talking points back.
Build more housing, and "predatory" landlords will have more competition. The endless restrictions on residential construction are the root cause, not your envy of wealthy individuals.
Side point: There are many people who are in no position to own a home or have one built for them. Where do they live if there aren't any landlords?
Not entirely, the major factor is banks' credit creation. When any person can go and take a loan that was created from nothing (literal digits created by your bank), and sometimes based on another "speculated value" of a house you own, you will flood the market with an exponential rise of demand that will ALWAYS be higher than the supply. To solve the housing issue you have to follow the root cause, and always follow the money: first, halt credit creation, disincentivize it (ban interest), no speculation values. Second, make housing a depreciated asset, like cars, etc. Without these two, housing markets will never be solved. The thing is, the government knows that, but it's in its interest to keep the prices up, because that will mean more paid taxes! Which is why they fought WFH and created this hybrid model, to keep people around urban areas and keep prices up. I think Canada even admitted it later -I remember I read it somewhere. It's a multi-dimensional issue and the only losing party here is the average middle class person.
Seems like extremely important context that 91% of these investor-owned houses are owned by entities with 5 or fewer houses: in other words, these are mostly houses that normal mom-and-pop homeowners bought.
"Most of California’s single-family house investors are “mom and pop” types, according to BatchData.
Small-fry owners, with up to five properties nationwide, control 91% of California investment houses.
The rest is divvied up this way: Owners of six to 10 houses control 4% of California investment houses. Investors with 11 to 50 houses own 3% of this Golden State housing group. And 51 or more? Only 2% of investment houses."
Among other things, it suggests that concerns about institutional investors distorting the market (at least in California) are misplaced; they're a microscopic component of California house ownership.
That number needs to be broken down between institutional investors and "regular" landlords who own a second property which they rent out (and likely either just covers the mortgage/taxes/upkeep, or is an older already-paid-for property i.e., inherited). The former is a business, the latter is not.
What I find odd is that definition of "investor" is not that clear. When you click through the links you get blocked at the data provider with no context. There's also a link to another post by the same news provider. When clicking through reference to the data source, the link doesn't work.
Readit News
I mention that because I remember reading during the pandemic that institutional investors generally make shittier landlords: they're quicker to evict, quicker to raise rents, less likely to work with a tenant on a payment plan, and they have fewer ties to the community. There was a concern that with all the eviction moratoriums during the pandemic that large landlords could wait it out, while smaller landlords got screwed and got out altogether in some cases, leaving their housing stock to be gobbled up by the shittier institutional landlords.
Always gets me is the ideological contortions people will get up to in order to not face that California is short a couple million units of housing. Really the US has been investing in looting schemes and not in build out for the last 40 years.
Deleted Comment
On the other hand, during the upswing in prices, house flipping in California was really popular with investors because the (then) low interest and likely capital gain made things easy.
The headline is true and relevant if you are wondering how investors influence housing prices - with a 20% share, clearly investors influence prices a lot. Moreover, California is where the housing bubble began but it's quite logical it's no longer where the bubble is concentrated so again 20% doesn't imply investor ownership is unimportant.
To understand the meaning of this, consider that supply/demand curves are naturally non-linear and even 5% increase in demand can double the prices.
Nothing else ("% of housing owned by investors"?) is even close.
edit: Yes, obviously I included a time lag (3 years).
[1] https://constructioncoverage.com/research/cities-investing-m...
[2] eg, https://www.zillow.com/home-values/10221/austin-tx/#/
Deleted Comment
I'd like to see zoning opened back up for increasing density wherever it's needed, but I would also like to see a strong social housing policy.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding what "issue" you're referring to?
Regulations block new supply. If this cannot be overcome, why not add another regulation that private equity cannot own houses? There's no reason they should not be subject to CAs extensive regulations too.
Homeowners here would just love to spend a year workshopping regulations to prevent investors from buying homes. They know that those regulations would do nothing at all to address the scarcity that drives their home prices, and wouldn't result in them having to adapt to large numbers of new neighbors.
It's the exact same reason they obsess over inclusionary zoning ordinances (IZOs). Affordability is so important! That's why we need new, toothier regulations to ensure that no new housing projects here can ever pencil out for the developers.
PE is a complete sideshow. The root cause of the housing crisis is exclusionary zoning.
On what land? With what planning permits?
Build more housing, and "predatory" landlords will have more competition. The endless restrictions on residential construction are the root cause, not your envy of wealthy individuals.
Side point: There are many people who are in no position to own a home or have one built for them. Where do they live if there aren't any landlords?
"Most of California’s single-family house investors are “mom and pop” types, according to BatchData.
Small-fry owners, with up to five properties nationwide, control 91% of California investment houses.
The rest is divvied up this way: Owners of six to 10 houses control 4% of California investment houses. Investors with 11 to 50 houses own 3% of this Golden State housing group. And 51 or more? Only 2% of investment houses."
Dead Comment