Posted on 02/26/2023 12:04:17 PM PST by SaxxonWoods
Institutional investors, such as banks and large real estate firms, are on track to own 40% of single-family rentals in the U.S. by 2030, MetLife Investment Management predicted last fall, according to CNBC. National Association of Realtors Chief Economist Lawrence Yun told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the ongoing shortage of housing will make it easier for banks and other Wall Street investors to buy up and rent out single-family homes. “We need to build more homes,” Yun told the DCNF. “Otherwise, institutional investors with deep pockets can corner the single-family rentals market.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
This means there will be REIT stocks soon where you can invest in these operations. I'll be watching for those to show up, they will be good dividend payers.
Likely to be coming soon to your area, unless you are rural, the best place to be in today's America.
End this crap.
Much of this is globalist Blackrock.
agreed
Well I guess so...unless you have children or grandchildren who are priced out of buying single family residences to raise a family in...being subject to the whims of landlords....so much for the american dream.
Is this any worse than the Chinese and their citizens buying up most of the desirable property in California?
I hope they get burned, badly burned.
The criminalization of private homes and cars is a core craving of Democrats.
Lawmakers can start to restore this bedrock of the American dream by removing federal subsidies from the housing market, restricting the Federal Reserve’s power to purchase a limitless quantity of mortgages, and eliminating the artificial barriers to housing supply erected by local leaders. It’s time to stop home prices from going through the roof.”
Why, why are you mad at someone making money on a investment?
A friend of mine is a real estate agent in Memphis.
He has companies coming from all over the world saying the same thing, and this is how the conversation goes:
“W want to buy up this whole neighborhood”.
“No you don’t.”
“Yes we do, it will be a great investment.”
“You’ll lose your shirt. The place will become a ghetto, the houses trashed and people won’t want to rent there. Then you’ll be lucky to even be able to sell the land”
“Oh no, we’ve done this in Davenport, Perth, Yokohama and Prague.”
“Well this is Memphis, it’s not the same”
“We have property managers who will remove problem tenants.”
“And the tenants have guns and will shoot your property managers.”
“No we know what we are doing.”
“No you don’t, but I’ll help you buy the neighborhood if you really want.”
To rent to illegals? Easier to bus ‘em to NY.
Part (a big part) of the problem is that owning rental property has become a negative option for most family landlords. The laws favoring tenants and rising tax and insurance rates mean rental properties are often a drain on income rather than a money maker. I believe landlord tenant laws are drafted to favor tenants and deep pocket owners. Those with time and money to own and maintain property as well as go through the court system in the event of tenant complaints.
I think the eviction moratorium was a big wake up call to those families renting out a SFR to help with income.
Cheers!
That won’t happen, for a variety of reasons.
May your ESG luciferian fags lose their shirts and let a truly free market reign, not your perverted debt bucks/”free” credit economy worshiping money lovers. Long-term landscape is being destroyed thanks to the Iron Triangle.
Perhaps the large institutions, under the control of the Great Reset are buying up homes to force everyone into smaller apartments.Then they will solve the immigration problem by putting illegal aliens into these homes, subsidized by the government.
The investors borrow money from the Feds at discounted rates and if they go belly up the American taxpayer bails them out.
The banks can’t lose.
Apartments are one thing but individual properties like homes present a different set of problems. Rental houses take a huge amount of personal attention by the owners. Plumbing goes bad, fuses blow, the continual maintenance, and a million other little problems that require hands-on management lest expenses get out of hand.
Institution ownership would mean massive infrastructure to deal with the above problems.
Anyone who has had a house painted, repaired by carpentry, or reroofed lately knows how difficult it is to find good help and get the job done.
I have had a large amount of carpentry done on my house recently, plus a new roof and painting and it required me to be there every step of the way to make sure it was done right. The roofers were professional, but the carpenters and painters both tried to take short-cuts that I would have missed entirely if I had not been on site.
Large apartment buildings handle the above problems by either hiring on-sight maintenance staff or by using property management companies. Property management companies can be expensive and still require oversight. Putting in place a maintenance staff for a collection of properties would require even more oversight and cost/quality control would be a mess.
As someone with an extensive background as senior investment banker (I regularly considered all kinds of ideas for packaging investment pools for institutional investors), this plan on the surface is a no-go for the reasons stated above.
Lately, I have seen whole new neighborhoods pop up, brand spanking new single family homes in desireable locations. Every home is a rental. Nice ones too. Somehow, these seem off to me, but I guess people must be in the market.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.