Quote:
Originally Posted by GGnoRE
Lol, is this some standard go-to phrase to deflect all the attention away to the evil corporations?
In my previous posts, I provided clear data that shows mom & pop investors "scaled" to population level is a problem in our residential RE market (25% of transactions and 30~40% of housing stock attributed to multiple property owners). Those aren't some minuscule amount of demand that we can afford to ignore.
Speaking of corporations, its not like they are owned by an entirely different species of aliens or robots. They are owned by people with the same speculative motivations as the mom & pop investors. In that sense, of course I support heavier scrutiny and regulations against them as well. Let's also keep in mind that, a lot of these "corporations" are available to everyone that wants to buy into their real estate funds (instead of buying a property, you would buy shares in RE funds or REITs). With institutional capital, there is more nuance because there is a clear role for them to play due to their scale and size. Large development projects aren't going to be built by mom & pop investors (ie. condo buildings, townhomes, student housing, undeveloped land etc.). I'm obviously shooting from the hips but maybe they should be restricted certain segments of the markets like develop-to-sell projects.
Bottom-line is that we have a multi-prong issue; foreign investors, retail investors, and institutional investors all play a role in creating excess demand.
|
Sorry dude, that was a screwed-up quote that I didn't bother to fix. The point of my post was to say that the wealthy (whether they are individuals, corporations, etc) have the money to provide/create affordability housing for all. But instead of "taxing the rich," we put the onus on the poor and "tax the poor" instead.
You can apply this "principle" to all facets, not just housing.