Pooling money to buy single family homes only makes sense to me when the entire bond and equity market is over priced. Surely, there is a ton of capital that wishes it was liquid right now and not in portfolios of slightly over priced single family homes with liquidity drying up by the moment.
It was more dramatic for some counties - Austin’s for example saw 41% of homes sold to institutional buyers.
As rates rise and a recession looms, time horizon before profitability shrinks and ability to pay rent falls into question, which puts these regions at risk of a crash in price as these parties may have to liquidate.
Tread lightly!
[0] https://cdn.nar.realtor/sites/default/files/documents/2022-i...
EDIT: 20% to 15%
Keep in mind, these investment groups need to make cash on cash return above their hurdle rate, otherwise their investors pull the plug. Their goal is to make returns, not take all the housing from poor families while they cackle to themselves in their underwater bond villain lair while petting a white cat.
Also, historically, 1% interest rate increases leads to 10% decrease in home price because of the mathematics of mortgages and the fact that most people only look at the monthly. As far as "Cash" buyers, a sizeable number aren't actually cash, there are a number of services that make it appear that way for home purchasing. My brother used one to make a "cash" offer in the Bay Area recently.
TL;DR - Unless you have a wife who is 8 months pregnant, just wait. There's no need to buy in while prices and rates are both this high.
If the net population of a state has dropped enough for them to loose at least one seat in the house of representatives, but houses are still selling for high prices than logically it's not people buying up those houses.
While California is estimate to have lost some population after the 2020 census, the seat lost due to the 2020 census was with a population gain from 2010. The fixed number of seats means gaining population at less than the national average can result in seat loss (more easily the more seats you have to start with.)
With the right nationwide distribution of population gains, a state could even lose seats while gaining population at or above the national average rate (especially if some of the states that start out with population below the average size of a house seat are gaining population slower than the national average, since they can't lose seats in any case.)
> but houses are still selling for high prices than logically it's not people buying up those houses.
In California as everywhere else in the nation, the number of active listings has fallen dramatically in recent years; prices are high not because demand is high (particularly), but because supply has become very low. It doesn't take many people trying to buy to drive market clearing prices high when almost no one is selling.