Jump to content

26% of Fort Worth’s single family homes are owned by companies


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Captainant said:

What the fuck are you talking about? Healthcare and prisons are massive fucking profit centers for private equity, and regulations have been slashed for literal decades leaving us with an "anything goes" flavor of capitalism where companies can spill tons of dangerous chemicals over a neighborhood and face zero repercussions for their decision makers that chose to not mitigate known risks. 

We absolutely do not have a well regulated and moderated version of capitalism in America. It's for the shareholders, by the shareholders, and of the shareholders. Customers and employees can go get bent.

Today's capitalism is solely about making line go up, and there is ZERO idea of social good involved as you do your Pollyanna impression

 

5 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

so owning rental property should be illegal?
from my experience almost all the homes around a campus, are student rentals
I know several individuals who own rental homes, almost all are through an LLC; some as a side business, a couple as their main job
 

 

Wow. I stepped away from this thread because I was expecting idiotic responses, but y'all disappointed me even more than I thought was possible. Look at you two! Attacking claims I never made! Completely failing to understand basics! You shame the fine educational institution we attended.

Yes, @Captainant, I was talking about how things should be, not how they are. That said, your grasp of how things are is ... incredibly ignorant.

No, @Wally Fairway, corporate ownership and private ownership for rentals are two completely different things. A private owner can choose to live in their rental property; a corporate owner cannot, because it is not a person (no matter what SCOTUS said).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:


Are they renting out these homes or bnb’s ?

 

Both. What they are NOT doing is offering them for sale for people to own.

 

3 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Maybe we should building more housing so it isn’t such an attractive asset class for investment. 

Oh, the China approach. Let's ... NOT do that.

Let me count the ways this can and will fail:

  1. First off, real estate is, and always has been, and always will be, an investment, whether it's your own home or otherwise.
    1. Corollary: This is why HOAs become such shit storms of petty politics. ask me how I know
  2. Trying to build more homes means building homes further and further away from where people want to be.
    1. Corollary: In places where people want to be, increasing capacity is a political nightmare. ask me how I know
  3. Even when you succeed in building new homes, corporations/investors will out-bid actual homebuyers. Your problem is no longer solved.

100% of the housing crisis in America is attributable to this. You get rid of the institutional investors -- force them all to sell at market rates -- and suddenly, Millennials and Z's can afford homes.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

It is almost certainly because labor has captured a smaller and smaller percentage of our increases in productivity. 

It is almost certainly because people know how to build wealth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rex Kramer said:

It is almost certainly because people know how to build wealth. 

How would that explain the change in percentage of corporate owned single family houses? Are you suggesting that the segment of the population that knows how to build wealth has decreased over the last 50 years? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

How would that explain the change in percentage of corporate owned single family houses? Are you suggesting that the segment of the population that knows how to build wealth has decreased over the last 50 years? 

Because people comprise corporations. And LLCs are “corporate” in your weird definition (and the articles). Tightly held husband/wife owned companies. I don’t understand what point you think it is you’re trying to make. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Because people comprise corporations. And LLCs are “corporate” in your weird definition (and the articles). Tightly held husband/wife owned companies. I don’t understand what point you think it is you’re trying to make. 

The legal form of the entity that owns the home is irrelevant. The point is to distinguish between investor owned vs resident owned. The trend line is about a diminishing portion of single family homes being owned by the residents. Unless we're assuming these homes are vacant, it has to mean that a smaller percentage of the population is able to purchase a single family home. That trend line matches up pretty well with lack of real wage growth over the last 50 years. 

Basically, a small segment of the population has captured an increasingly larger portion of the countries wealth and has redeployed a portion of that wealth to purchase the single family homes that are increasingly out of reach for the majority. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

Both. What they are NOT doing is offering them for sale for people to own.

 

Oh, the China approach. Let's ... NOT do that.

Let me count the ways this can and will fail:

  1. First off, real estate is, and always has been, and always will be, an investment, whether it's your own home or otherwise.
    1. Corollary: This is why HOAs become such shit storms of petty politics. ask me how I know
  2. Trying to build more homes means building homes further and further away from where people want to be.
    1. Corollary: In places where people want to be, increasing capacity is a political nightmare. ask me how I know
  3. Even when you succeed in building new homes, corporations/investors will out-bid actual homebuyers. Your problem is no longer solved.

100% of the housing crisis in America is attributable to this. You get rid of the institutional investors -- force them all to sell at market rates -- and suddenly, Millennials and Z's can afford homes.

No, the vast majority of America’s housing crisis is due to local zoning regulations that have prohibited supply from keeping up with demand over the past few decades. This isn’t even remotely controversial. I don’t dispute that institutional investment in housing is a problem in certain markets, but national it’s quite irrelevant (~3% of single family homes). “Blackrock” et al have become convenient bogeyman to direct focus from the real problem  

Oh, and why is institutional money flowing into housing?

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, crash_davis said:

American dream is disappearing for the younger generation.

 

https://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article288911228.html

Roughly one out of every four single family homes in Fort Worth are owned by an investor, company or corporation, according to a city analysis of data from the Tarrant Appraisal District.

The city’s report is just an estimate, because data from the appraisal district doesn’t specify if a home is owned by a company or individual. However, the city was able to make an approximation using information about tax exemptions, owner names and addresses.

The city classified owner-occupied homes as those with a homestead exemption, homes where the owner’s address matched the property address, and the owner’s name didn’t include terms like LLC, LTD, Inc., or trust.

Commercially owned properties were defined as those without a homestead exemption, owner names containing the previously mentioned terms, and those where the owner’s address didn’t match the property address.

Using those classifications, the city found that 64,372 of the 247,485 single family homes, or 26%, in Fort Worth were owned by a corporation or company.

 

 

That is incredibly misleading if not downright lying. They don’t distinguish between mom/pop owner of a second home/investment property and big bad corporations like Black Rock

Spoiler alert. Lots of people own second homes and investment proprieties. 

Want to stop it? Tax non owner occupied at higher tax rates 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, there's no shortage of homes if you include the places people don't want to live. Houses, fixer-uppers, granted, are sitting empty in swaths of the country. How to make people want to move back to Buffalo Dick or Malaria Bayou? Well the French Foreign Legion sends bordellos when their men have to go someplace shitty.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s get down to the basics. Who here is willing to take a big hit on the value of their own homes in order to further regulate and restrict institutional housing ownership? Because that will happen. 

 

IMG_1577.gif

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The legal form of the entity that owns the home is irrelevant. The point is to distinguish between investor owned vs resident owned. The trend line is about a diminishing portion of single family homes being owned by the residents. Unless we're assuming these homes are vacant, it has to mean that a smaller percentage of the population is able to purchase a single family home. That trend line matches up pretty well with lack of real wage growth over the last 50 years. 

Basically, a small segment of the population has captured an increasingly larger portion of the countries wealth and has redeployed a portion of that wealth to purchase the single family homes that are increasingly out of reach for the majority. 

Oh I understand what the problem is. I don’t know why you’re stating the obvious. You had some academic explanation for it, and I responded, because it’s bullshit. The reason for investors owning homes is for them to build wealth, period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TonyTexas said:

Let’s get down to the basics. Who here is willing to take a big hit on the value of their own homes in order to further regulate and restrict institutional housing ownership? Because that will happen. 

 

IMG_1577.gif

Of course it won’t. lol. And, this has inflated the value of my home in HP for sure. This will never be unwound and it shouldn’t be. It should be limited to US citizens, I believe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

Oh I understand what the problem is. I don’t know why you’re stating the obvious. You had some academic explanation for it, and I responded, because it’s bullshit. The reason for investors owning homes is for them to build wealth, period. 

I'm stating the obvious and it is bullshit? You're not making any sense. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Want to stop it? Tax non owner occupied at higher tax rates 

Newsflash:  we already do.  It's called the homestead exemption.

Yes, the startlegram article has a flawed methodology in terms of "companies" and implying something insidious.

But, it is indicative that a whole hell of a lot of SFD in Fort Fun are rental properties, and that's kind of ominous.

It may be somewhat FW peculiar, but the far-ish west side (Ridglea, Ridgmar, etc.) comprised a lot of mid-century ranch type houses that sort of epitomize middle-class living:  nice, nice hoods, not too fancy though.  But after GD and Carswell downsized in the late 80s, early 90s, the vacancy rate skyrocketed and the hoods deteriorated fast.  Wouldn't surprise me if that became a lot of rental stock and remains so even today.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't take much work to tell who is involved in residential development and/or sunk all their retirement eggs into their home.   

A bunch of asshats (myself very much included) who have obtained ill-gotten net worth through stupid home value increases at the expense of our children, and the future of this nation are likely to be in for a rude awakening when the youngsters finally have enough of it.   I, for one, will try not to complain when shipped off to the Soviet gulag-style retirement barracks that we're all forced into at some point.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit is about to get worse. Blackrock has been investing in companies in the rental council for a long time. They pulled at that recently and are starting their own rental company. I don’t like that I work for one of these companies but they pay damn well. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm stating the obvious and it is bullshit? You're not making any sense. 

You’re being obtuse. The academic reason you gave for the problem is bullshit. What you explained to me like I’m your wife is obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

You’re being obtuse. The academic reason you gave for the problem is bullshit. What you explained to me like I’m your wife is obvious. 

Why is it bullshit? 

You have to remember, this all started with me responding to the suggest that near zero interest rates are what caused the trend. I pointed out that made no sense since the trend existed prior to near zero interest rates. I then posited an alternative explanation that appeared to align better with the data. 

You appear to think I'm trying to identify the motivation of investors. Thus, near as I can tell, you're making the obvious and largely irrelevant point that investors purchase single family residences to make money. Of course they do. But that doesn't explain why the percentage of single family homes owned by investors has increased over time. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, crash_davis said:

American dream is disappearing for the younger generation.

 

https://amp.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article288911228.html

Roughly one out of every four single family homes in Fort Worth are owned by an investor, company or corporation, according to a city analysis of data from the Tarrant Appraisal District.

The city’s report is just an estimate, because data from the appraisal district doesn’t specify if a home is owned by a company or individual. However, the city was able to make an approximation using information about tax exemptions, owner names and addresses.

The city classified owner-occupied homes as those with a homestead exemption, homes where the owner’s address matched the property address, and the owner’s name didn’t include terms like LLC, LTD, Inc., or trust.

Commercially owned properties were defined as those without a homestead exemption, owner names containing the previously mentioned terms, and those where the owner’s address didn’t match the property address.

Using those classifications, the city found that 64,372 of the 247,485 single family homes, or 26%, in Fort Worth were owned by a corporation or company.

 

 

A lot of my colleagues own their home via a trust so I'm sure the data isn't as accurate as the FWST would like to think.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

A lot of my colleagues own their home via a trust so I'm sure the data isn't as accurate as the FWST would like to think.

That would be covered by homes with homestead exemption, which presumably your colleagues still take advantage of. I think there is some confusion or ambiguity in the article on the criteria as I don't see any reason why the city would exclude any homes with a homestead exemption from the owner-occupied label. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Why is it bullshit? 

You have to remember, this all started with me responding to the suggest that near zero interest rates are what caused the trend. I pointed out that made no sense since the trend existed prior to near zero interest rates. I then posited an alternative explanation that appeared to align better with the data. 

You appear to think I'm trying to identify the motivation of investors. Thus, near as I can tell, you're making the obvious and largely irrelevant point that investors purchase single family residences to make money. Of course they do. But that doesn't explain why the percentage of single family homes owned by investors has increased over time. 

It’s bullshit because you said this “It is almost certainly because labor has captured a smaller and smaller percentage of our increases in productivity.”  That’s not the reason for this proliferation. Is your reason a contributor to the issue?  Not really. The real reason is that wealthy entities, be they investor people or true companies, have the capital to buy 2-100 (or more) homes and rent them out. If your point is a wealth gap point, it’s misplaced, and would be more apt in a discussion on why “labor” has to live in lower income areas or suburbs. Oh, and interest rates at or below 3% have certainly exacerbated this issue. 

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That would be covered by homes with homestead exemption, which presumably your colleagues still take advantage of. I think there is some confusion or ambiguity in the article on the criteria as I don't see any reason why the city would exclude any homes with a homestead exemption from the owner-occupied label. 

The article, based on my skim, didn’t cover this distinction. It was written by someone looking for a headline that didn’t fully investigate all the facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supply hasn’t kept up with demand. One reason is the labor shortage. Another is companies that build fewer houses per acreage seem to outbid companies that build more houses, for available land. Plus, the other reasons being discussed. But, these reasons are important.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/18/1063205596/housing-cash-offer-home-buyer-seller

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

The real reason is that wealthy entities, be they investor people or true companies, have the capital to buy 2-100 (or more) homes and rent them out.

Yes, that is literally why investors are able to buy homes. But that doesn't explain why that percentage has changed over time. Why are investors now able to buy a larger percentage of homes than they were 30 years ago? Either 1) investors have a greater share of resources now and thus are able to capture a greater share of homes, 2) the motivation of residents to own a home has decreased relative to investors' motivation, 3) a larger percentage of homes are short term vacation rentals, or 4) some combination of the above. 

Quote

If your point is a wealth gap point, it’s misplaced, and would be more apt in a discussion on why “labor” has to live in lower income areas or suburbs.

Why is it misplaced? Again, this is about explaining the trend overtime, not literally "why or how do investors buy homes". If your answer to why the trend exists is that investors now have more money, then you're agreeing with my conclusion that it is due to the wealth gap. 

Quote

 

Oh, and interest rates at or below 3% have certainly exacerbated this issue. 

 

Maybe. But they didn't cause it. As far as I know, cause still has to precede effect. 

Quote

The article, based on my skim, didn’t cover this distinction. It was written by someone looking for a headline that didn’t fully investigate all the facts. 

I just don't think they fully understood the city's criteria. They used "and" suggesting all those elements must be true to be counted as owner occupied when in reality some of those elements were sufficient by themselves. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

Both. What they are NOT doing is offering them for sale for people to own.

 

Oh, the China approach. Let's ... NOT do that.

Let me count the ways this can and will fail:

  1. First off, real estate is, and always has been, and always will be, an investment, whether it's your own home or otherwise.
    1. Corollary: This is why HOAs become such shit storms of petty politics. ask me how I know
  2. Trying to build more homes means building homes further and further away from where people want to be.
    1. Corollary: In places where people want to be, increasing capacity is a political nightmare. ask me how I know
  3. Even when you succeed in building new homes, corporations/investors will out-bid actual homebuyers. Your problem is no longer solved.

100% of the housing crisis in America is attributable to this. You get rid of the institutional investors -- force them all to sell at market rates -- and suddenly, Millennials and Z's can afford homes.

How do you know 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, that is literally why investors are able to buy homes. But that doesn't explain why that percentage has changed over time. Why are investors now able to buy a larger percentage of homes than they were 30 years ago? Either 1) investors have a greater share of resources now and thus are able to capture a greater share of homes, 2) the motivation of residents to own a home has decreased relative to investors' motivation, 3) a larger percentage of homes are short term vacation rentals, or 4) some combination of the above. 

Why is it misplaced? Again, this is about explaining the trend overtime, not literally "why or how do investors buy homes". If your answer to why the trend exists is that investors now have more money, then you're agreeing with my conclusion that it is due to the wealth gap. 

Maybe. But they didn't cause it. As far as I know, cause still has to precede effect. 

I just don't think they fully understood the city's criteria. They used "and" suggesting all those elements must be true to be counted as owner occupied when in reality some of those elements were sufficient by themselves. 

Because lower rates (over the last 30 years that still includes today) have driven prices up to the point that working class people are priced out. That is a much bigger factor. There is no bogeyman conspiring to keep wages down. Smart people with capital are going to exploit their environment. 

If you want to stop this, you go back to 40 years ago with rates in the teens. But nobody wants that. This will continue, because rates aren’t going higher. Younger people will struggle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Because lower rates (over the last 30 years that still includes today) have driven prices up to the point that working class people are priced out. That is a much bigger factor. There is no bogeyman conspiring to keep wages down. Smart people with capital are going to exploit their environment. 

If you want to stop this, you go back to 40 years ago with rates in the teens. But nobody wants that. This will continue, because rates aren’t going higher. Younger people will struggle. 

I didn't say there was a boogeyman. But it is an indisputable fact that real wage growth has stagnated. It is a fact that a top percentile controls its largest share of the country's wealth since the robber baron era.

While reduction in interest rates does pressure prices higher, it also increases the amount the average household can borrow. Given that, it isn't clear why such a reduction would result in the trend. It also doesn't fit the data since the trend has been consistent whether interest rates were lowered or raised. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, that is literally why investors are able to buy homes. But that doesn't explain why that percentage has changed over time. Why are investors now able to buy a larger percentage of homes than they were 30 years ago? Either 1) investors have a greater share of resources now and thus are able to capture a greater share of homes, 2) the motivation of residents to own a home has decreased relative to investors' motivation, 3) a larger percentage of homes are short term vacation rentals, or 4) some combination of the above. 

Why is it misplaced? Again, this is about explaining the trend overtime, not literally "why or how do investors buy homes". If your answer to why the trend exists is that investors now have more money, then you're agreeing with my conclusion that it is due to the wealth gap. 

Maybe. But they didn't cause it. As far as I know, cause still has to precede effect. 

I just don't think they fully understood the city's criteria. They used "and" suggesting all those elements must be true to be counted as owner occupied when in reality some of those elements were sufficient by themselves. 

They have always been able to buy a disproportionate share, but houses have historically not appreciated fast enough to warrant the investment when better returns were realized elsewhere. From 2020 to 2023, the homes in my neighborhood went up about 50%.  The capital took notice and followed. Now that interest rates have climbed, and prices are falling, they are cash buyers and jumping into the market even more. 

I know of two Ft. Worth area D.R. Horton subdivisions that have been bought by hedge funds before they ever even broke ground. 1500-2000 homes all built as rentals. You get the appreciation, the depreciation, a 10% return on your money, you hold the note to the assets, you get to keep any payments before defaults. A pretty attractive return considering you hold all the cards.

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Pulte is the cause of this from my limited view. We partnered with them and have entire rent communities in Charlotte, Orlando and Phoenix 3000 home neighborhoods each and all rentals. Growing every month

Edited by Zepol87
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

While reduction in interest rates does pressure prices higher, it also increases the amount the average household can borrow. Given that, it isn't clear why such a reduction would result in the trend. It also doesn't fit the data since the trend has been consistent whether interest rates were lowered or raised. 

Reductions in rates as we have seen over the last 40 years, or generally speaking, help working class people more.  Why aren’t they buying these particular homes?  Because the homes that are investment properties were not ones lower earners could afford, by and large. Of course that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy the longer this cycle has played out. This isn’t the problem you think it is. They are two different issues you’re trying to morph into one to further your wealth gap point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eliminate the standard deduction (everyone itemizes), eliminate the SALT cap when itemizing, increase the use of homestead exemptions in states that don’t use it, reinstate first time home buyer credits, and build in a bigger spread on rates on government backed mortgages versus conventional financing. 

You aren’t putting the horse back in the barn on corporate ownership, but you can increase the incentives to individual ownership. Also, they might want to rethink that whole 21% corporate tax rate. 

These issues aren’t new, but they have been exacerbated by a certain piece of tax legislation in 2017 along with the high inflationary environment of this decade.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brew said:

Eliminate the standard deduction (everyone itemizes), eliminate the SALT cap when itemizing, increase the use of homestead exemptions in states that don’t use it, reinstate first time home buyer credits, and build in a bigger spread on rates on government backed mortgages versus conventional financing. 

You aren’t putting the horse back in the barn on corporate ownership, but you can increase the incentives to individual ownership. Also, they might want to rethink that whole 21% corporate tax rate. 

These issues aren’t new, but they have been exacerbated by a certain piece of tax legislation in 2017 along with the high inflationary environment of this decade.

I don't think corporate ownership or non-occupier ownership is inherently bad. For a lot of people, renting is the financially better path. But I do think the changing trend tells us something about the wider economy worth paying attention to and could signal a deeper problem. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, troph said:

In response to your comment below and the leftist comment above - first just because I made a quick retort earlier doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of robust discussion and policies that address all sides (not both sides), second, come on man, leftists won’t think it through, man you know I’m thoughtful and so are many of the guys here, so that was not really an accurate thing to say, and third, I’m all for profit I think you know that, it doesn’t mean profit should wreck the market with its own unintended consequences and it is and has, so in addition to what you write below considerations including massive corporate buy ups should be considered just like for example CFIUS can block or restrict m&a deals for national strategic interests or the EPA can regulate clean water (sorta) or congress can regulate agency mortgages to ensure stricter underwriting guidelines so the market doesn’t implode again.

That sentence is pregnant.  I kept waiting for the period that didn't come.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guadaloopy said:

That sentence is pregnant.  I kept waiting for the period that didn't come.

lawyers don't use periods until the 17th line has been passed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

and all rentals. Growing every month

I shudder to think of what these neighborhoods will look like in ten years. In general people don’t give a rat’s ass about a rental owned by a big entity.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, a big corporate entity (based in CA) had a crew cut down the trees in my front yard that kept my living room cool in the summer as well as destroy a picnic table in the backyard that my friends I used frequently, all in the name of "helping the place sell" ... To another corporation. So why the fuck should I give a shit about the condition of the place?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Supply hasn’t kept up with demand. One reason is the labor shortage. Another is companies that build fewer houses per acreage seem to outbid companies that build more houses, for available land. Plus, the other reasons being discussed. But, these reasons are important.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/18/1063205596/housing-cash-offer-home-buyer-seller

27 offers sounds like someone who had bad advice from their agent…

 

20 hours ago, NoRagrets said:

these things ebb and flow, but they do need to punish corporate ownership via taxation

Taxation is one remedy, but I would offer that the real cause is a failure of the modern economy to produce firms worth investing in (I.e., capital is looking for non-traditional investments).  Lots of guilty parties contributing to that, but lots of solutions as well.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think corporate ownership or non-occupier ownership is inherently bad. For a lot of people, renting is the financially better path. But I do think the changing trend tells us something about the wider economy worth paying attention to and could signal a deeper problem. 

The trend isn’t “changing” and it doesn’t signal a deeper problem. This is the unintended consequences of lower rates and doesn’t really harm anyone long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

The trend isn’t “changing” and it doesn’t signal a deeper problem. This is the unintended consequences of lower rates and doesn’t really harm anyone long term. 

Who am I to argue with the say so of the great Rex Kramer? I'll just take your word for it sans any explanation at all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Who am I to argue with the say so of the great Rex Kramer? I'll just take your word for it sans any explanation at all. 

Well why don’t you start by telling me exactly how this multi-decade trend is changing.

Further, I already explained it to you. At first you didn’t like the explanation and argued with me. Then you didn’t respond and bat signaled your CR buds to call me illiterate because I’ve the audacity to call a spade a spade: the reason is rates. The wealth gap shoehorn doesn’t fit here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...