this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
708 points (99.3% liked)

People Twitter

7955 readers
1079 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
708
How could this happen? (media.piefed.world)
submitted 17 hours ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@piefed.world to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
120 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Auth@lemmy.world 0 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I might be wrong but the % of homes owned by corporations is really tiny. low single digits if I remember correctly.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't think so, lol. You're going to have to produce the source. This is from September of last year and doesn't include rental apartment buildings.

GAO reported that there were 450,000 single-family rental homes owned by institutional investors as of 2022. However, in a report by the Urban Institute, they estimated that large institutional investors owned **574,000 **single-family homes as of June 2022 and their report was also based on 32 institutional investors. But, the Urban Institute actually aggregated data on all legal entities of the parent company because these institutional owners often use other names as the owner. They based their report on large investors owning a minimum of 100 single-family homes and they pulled data from a national property records database. The 574,000 figure is likely more accurate than GAO’s and the difference is most likely due to aggregating all of the legal entities under the parent companies.

https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/who-really-owns-the-u-s-housing-market-the-complete-roadmap/

This says the housing inventory is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ACTLISCOUUS

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

institutional investors own 500,000 single family homes out of 80-100 million? That article you linked doesnt support your case. Even in (what I assume is) their strongest example institutional investors only own 10% of the rentals.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Where are you getting the 80-100 million homes? Are you including apartments?

Edit:

While institutional investors own roughly 2% of the single-family rental housing stock across the U.S., they own a much greater share of homes in certain markets, particularly in the southeast.

GAO estimates that institutional investors own 25% of Atlanta, GA’s single-family rental housing market, 21% of Jacksonville, FL’s, 18% of Charlotte, NC’s, and 15% of Tampa, FL’s single-family rental market. Areas that experienced the greatest influx of institutional investment after the 2007-2009 recession continue to have high rates of institutional investments in the single-family rental market.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

no this is specifically single family homes

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What is your source?

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I thought you were trolling, but now it's apparent. There's a paywall for any of that info, lol. Have a great week.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

Its from census.gov numbers I believe and Statista is a trusted source for market statistics. It seems like you are looking for something to suggest these numbers arent correct. If they are correct and it turns out that institutional investors are a tiny part of the housing market would you change your opinion?

I see you edited your previous comment to include examples. Those examples are extreme outliers. The report you reference shows that institutional investors are completely irrelevant in almost all states except Altanta and jackson vile where they still hold a small % of the housing mostly acquired after the housing collapse. That report also shows mentions that they stabilized house prices in a lot of areas and there is not enough evidence to suggest they've had any effect on home ownership rates or rent increases. Looking at the stats for your biggest outlier it seems that its consistently dropping. Last year only 9% of the homes were purchased by institutional investors.

Is it a good thing that institutional investors are buying up homes? No its not a good thing its a minor issue contributing to the actual problem. The actual problem is homes are not being built and developers are not able to convert land to higher density.

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

With all the profiteering by corporations since covid, the cost to build a house has gone up substantially. That narrows the consumer base and forces builders to reduce margins. Unless of course they build a "luxury" home or apt. Then you have large investors battling it out and snapping them up. So, it is more profitable to build luxury homes rather than homes for peasants. The investors can afford to set on the empty house and hold them if they can't get the rent they want. In fact, many large investors don't even bother to try to rent and just hold the property to have secure investments during market fluctuations. So they are building like crazy, but the homes they're building can't be afforded by the people that actually need them.
So, it doesn't take a ton of housing being owned by big investors to fuck the market, they just have to be buying up all the new stock in what is already a limited market.

[–] Auth@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Its not an issue of luxury home construction vs peasant home construction I doubt this even makes a dent. Investors are not buying up empty houses and sitting on them because they are to lazy to rent them out, thats absurd.

The issue is simply that housing development is to slow. The demand to build houses in higher density is there but local zoning laws and nimby residents block the developments. In cities where zoning laws were changed to allow development we see prices decrease.

[–] Test_Tickles@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Its not an issue of luxury home construction vs peasant home construction I doubt this even makes a dent. Investors are not buying up empty houses and sitting on them because they are to lazy to rent them out, thats absurd.

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/10/22/report-billionaire-investors-driving-homelessness-housing-costs/#%3A%7E%3Atext=%E2%80%9CWealthy+investors+are+buying+up%2Cestate+as+a+luxury+asset.

The issue is simply that housing development is to slow. The demand to build houses in higher density is there but local zoning laws and nimby residents block the developments. In cities where zoning laws were changed to allow development we see prices decrease.

https://archive.is/20250110182457/https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/commercial/the-u-s-has-more-fancy-apartments-than-it-is-able-to-fill-f7bca968