logoalt Hacker News

tptaceklast Thursday at 12:52 AM4 repliesview on HN

Whoah, hold up, your (3) is doing a lot more work than you think it is. Comps matter but they don't literally break the market:

* They impact listing prices but not necessarily clearing prices.

* They assume all the sellers, who are not corporate investors, can mechanically anchor off those inflated comps, without factoring in buyer budgets and carrying costs.

Real estate is slower than most financial products, but it's still an actual market. You can't just buy a tiny fraction of the inventory at an inflated price and assume the whole rest of the market will follow you.


Replies

ctothlast Thursday at 1:16 AM

Reread my #3 in the context of "rental yield vs owner-occupancy."

I'm not saying comps magically anchor prices. I'm saying institutional buyers ARE the clearing prices, because they are anchored to "how much can I rent this out for" whereas first-time homebuyers are anchored to "how much can my mortgage cover?" which are different questions.

29% of transactions, not 3% of stock.

Those become the comps. There's less of a gap for "but buyers won't pay that" because the institutions *are the buyers. The call is coming from inside the housing market.

show 2 replies
slynlast Thursday at 1:35 AM

Respectfully, I think 'individuals' is doing a lot more work in GP's 'But most of the "investors" buying up property are individuals purchasing investment properties.'

The average 21+ US resident may own 2+ properties but I'd be surprised if the median equivalent owns 1. It kinda hides the equivalent of the top x% of individuals owns y% of the stock market where y is unreasonably disproportionate to most.

bruce511last Thursday at 1:14 AM

I'll add one more data point to the thread;

The timing and pricing of investor selling is different to residents selling.

Residents sell (mostly) for reasons other than profit. They might be moving up, or moving away, or whatever. There's some pressure to "get it done" so they can move on. They can't really afford to "time" the market.

For investors there's much more "buy in the down, sell in the up". Except that it's been going up for a while, so there's no motivation to sell at all. It would be uncommon for them to accept a loss. Even unoccupied it's (mostly) better to hold rather than sell at a loss.

As mentioned elsewhere, overall market penetration by investors differs wildly by market, and segment. So 3% overall might sound low, but 20% of a dwelling type in a specific market is plenty to alter market forces.

I say this as someone who has owned property as an individual, and also worked in a business that invested in property.

show 1 reply
pixl97last Thursday at 1:33 AM

>but it's still an actual market

It depends on the swing of the market if it's a buyers or sellers market.

In the past there was far more spread in housing prices. These days real estate agents tend to follow a few market making sources for setting those prices, along with personal home sellers looking at 'internet prices'.

>inventory at an inflated price and assume the whole rest of the market will follow you.

When you target particular areas you absolutely can.