> investors are not getting mortgages

I don’t know of any real estate investor who doesn’t use mortgages. The norm is interest-only mortgages and not paying down principal at all.

Zillow and the likes flipping homes should raise the number too?

But anyway, the trend of corparations buying houses is really bad.

The article says that institutional investing (1000+ homes) is decreasing.

> Institutional investors that own 1,000 or more homes account for only about 2.2% of all investor-owned homes, the firm said.

> And that number could get smaller, amid signs that large institutional investors are scaling back home purchases.

Houses only have value if someone is living in them. Whether corporations buy them or not does not change the number of houses and the number of people living in houses.

Strangely, there's a ton of vacant commercial real estate in my neighborhood that the corporate landlords don't seem to be in any rush to rent out.

Can they count empty units as loss so they can deduct it?

Such distortions are often the result of rent control.

"Comercial real estate". Where are there rent control on that.

I think empty leases is due to not wanting to write down the value of the property by offering it at market value.

I.e. some sort of silly game with the banks where both pretend to know nothing.

Not true.

Do a google search for "rent-fixing algorithms".

If you own enough homes in a rental market, you can determine the market rate. An empty house has value simply by depleting local housing stock, since it is giving you greater leverage to drive market rate up.

Of course its less value than actually having it rented, but its still value. Tax code will also allow for softening the loss.

> If you own enough homes in a rental market, you can determine the market rate.

Only if the government has managed to prevent new construction.

Consider this: You aim to buy all 100 units, and then you can charge whatever rent you like, right? What happens is sellers discover you are doing this, and then raise their asking prices through the roof. The result is it costs you so much to get that monopoly that you cannot hope to be able to rent at a profit. Especially if it is possible to create new units for the purpose of selling at a high price to you. And it is possible, unless the government prevents new construction.

You cannot attain a monopoly unless there are major barriers to entry. In this case, it is government zoning that prevents new construction. In California, anyone can sue to block any new housing construction, bringing the construction market to a standstill and hence the highest home prices in the nation.

>Consider this: You aim to buy all 100 units, and then you can charge whatever rent you like, right? What happens is sellers discover you are doing this, and then raise their asking prices through the roof. The result is it costs you so much to get that monopoly that you cannot hope to be able to rent at a profit. Especially if it is possible to create new units for the purpose of selling at a high price to you. And it is possible, unless the government prevents new construction.

This doesn't matter to you as a buyer when the money you're spending is either borrowed, being printed out of thin air, or both.

Depends on your definition of value. There are many investments structured in a way that mere ownership, as long as comps go up in the local market, will cause increases in value.

Don’t look down.

It’s also why the current admin seems really intent on bullying Powell into decreasing the fed rate - Trump and many of his friends are very exposed to real estate.

"Value" is what you're willing to pay for something.

Of course it does. Many houses remain empty because PE firms buy them and hold out for rents locals cannot afford.

Rent control plays a role in that.

If rents are not allowed to rise, the landlord risks locking in a low rent for the indeterminate future. It's a better play to leave it vacant until the rents rise.

Rent control is simply a disaster.

Zillow lost a lot of money trying to flip houses a few years ago and stopped.

Ok ye well the idea was silly and probably quite easy to game.

The phrasing was clear to me on first read. I don’t think anyone would assume 27% of all homes are for sale in one 3 month period since that would imply every home is sold, on average, once per year.

Good for you.