- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: WSJ: Wall Street Has Spent Billions Buying Homes. A Crackdown Is Looming.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:41 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:41 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
But in the case of "zombie" houses, wouldn't we WANT someone with actual money to come in and get them back into the mainstream inventory?
Yea but the issue is it's not that simple because there are a myriad of reasons as to why they become zombie houses in the first place. Location, legal issues, Chinese drywall, etc
quote:
is to address the shortage of dwelling units, presently estimated to be 3-4 million
Yes but to do that you also need to stop Blackstone (Glad you got it right because Blackrock doesn't buy SFHs) from doing what they did in Houston when they bought 100 DSLD homes before they were even built.
I think the rise in activity from institutional investors into SFHs is worth monitoring but I think it's more of a local market issue. It Atlanta is having an issue with it (which they are) then let GA pass laws.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:49 pm to stout
quote:
I think the rise in activity from institutional investors into SFHs is worth monitoring but I think it's more of a local market issue. It Atlanta is having an issue with it (which they are) then let GA pass laws.
I think it just needs to get woven into antitrust law.
I work in healthcare so I'll use that example.
If Company A owns a few hospitals in Dallas, the FTC won't let them buy another. Their market share will be too high and it becomes anti-competitive. But if Company A owns nothing in Houston, they will allow it despite owning a lot in Dallas. It is not a national or even really regional thing, it is a market thing. It is just about setting a ceiling to prevent anti-competitive practices in each market. I think that ceiling should be pretty low. You'd have to look at each market size and set a threshold for % of homes per each investor.
For example, in a defined market if there are 50,000 single family freestanding homes (not including apartments), cap the ownership at 0.1% or 50 homes. Previous ownership is grandfathered in, but subject to the cap going forward (can't buy more), and in a long-term set timeframe they have to divest (20-25 years) as to not rock the boat too much.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:23 pm to stout
quote:This seems WAY more reasonable than the casual call for federal bans or whatever.
I think the rise in activity from institutional investors into SFHs is worth monitoring but I think it's more of a local market issue. It Atlanta is having an issue with it (which they are) then let GA pass laws.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News