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.
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.
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.
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.
Where are you getting the 80-100 million homes? Are you including apartments?
Edit:
no this is specifically single family homes
What is your source?
https://www.statista.com/topics/5144/single-family-homes-in-the-us/#topicOverview
I thought you were trolling, but now it’s apparent. There’s a paywall for any of that info, lol. Have a great week.
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.