They've been saying "it's not a bubble" for years now though, in published articles. I don't think the prices are ever going down, they're simply reflecting devalued green paper right now. Increases should slow down and inventory should increase, but there's very real shortage of housing - too many people, too few houses, very real supply and demand situation and I don't see it resolving soon.Every bubble burst has been preceded with "This time it's not a bubble," without exception. I do think it's less of a bubble than 2008, but these price increases can't last unless Blackrock tends to buy up the entirety of American inventory.
I wouldn't believe anything The Atlantic says. Maybe Blackrock and other hedge funds "only" owns 300,000 homes, but that's a huge number, potentially impacting 1 million plus people. The article is clear misdirection away from the oligarchs. Imagine 300,000+ homes on the market right now with no hedge fund buying it. That would have a measurable impact for families looking to buy, across the entire country. And that number is growing rapidly as we speak.They've been saying "it's not a bubble" for years now though, in published articles. I don't think the prices are ever going down, they're simply reflecting devalued green paper right now. Increases should slow down and inventory should increase, but there's very real shortage of housing - too many people, too few houses, very real supply and demand situation and I don't see it resolving soon.
This article is right on:
![]()
BlackRock Is Not Ruining the U.S. Housing Market
The real villain isn’t a faceless Wall Street Goliath; it’s your neighbors and local governments stopping the construction of new units.www.theatlantic.com
BlackRock isn't much of a factor in price dynamics, they're focusing on and are really affecting few local markets only (certain growing cities...who wants to live in those anyway?). It's a myth that investors are buying things up to the point of primary occupant buyers are being squeezed out - on a country-wide scale (it would be a factor in few metro markets such as Houston) - there's real shortage and huge demand from people who need a place to live and tons of renters and mom's basement dwellers competing for houses right now. In California, tons of people living in RVs trying to buy, also. Outside of those big city markets, investors are focusing on truly distressed properties, mostly.
I wouldn't wait and bet on market easing significantly to the point of real price declines - by then one will lose a lot more money to inflation and rent. And if they're not a cash buyer, they might be buying at much higher interest rate, also/more loss.
But what I see for a long time matches what The Atlantic says. I've been looking at the rural markets country-wide for a very long time. BlackRock is focusing on certain big growing city Houston-type markets, where they have a big share and are affecting prices/availability. In most of the US, BlackRock isn't a factor and is unheard of. I never seen competition from any investors, even small ones, in most places and I talked to realtors about who is buying things up - it's the local families (and starting 2020 New Yorkers, etc buying online sight unseen)... outside of those big upcoming city markets, investors tend to go after distressed homes most primary occupant buyers wouldn't want to touch anyway as it might be more headache than worth it at the end (bad fixers, problem drug tenants, insect infestations, asbestos, etc). I wouldn't want to deal with such homes, think buildng is a much better option. Investors often will just patch things up cosmetically with cheapest materials (while a primary occupant would want more thorough and expensive job) and move tenants into it.I wouldn't believe anything The Atlantic says. Maybe Blackrock and other hedge funds "only" owns 300,000 homes, but that's a huge number, potentially impacting 1 million plus people. The article is clear misdirection away from the oligarchs. Imagine 300,000+ homes on the market right now with no hedge fund buying it. That would have a measurable impact for families looking to buy, across the entire country. And that number is growing rapidly as we speak.
Technocratic Neo-Feudalism is probably only a few years away. But don't worry, your new landowning elite buying up all the real estate insist that they are not buying up all the land and real estate.I wouldn't believe anything The Atlantic says. Maybe Blackrock and other hedge funds "only" owns 300,000 homes, but that's a huge number, potentially impacting 1 million plus people. The article is clear misdirection away from the oligarchs. Imagine 300,000+ homes on the market right now with no hedge fund buying it. That would have a measurable impact for families looking to buy, across the entire country. And that number is growing rapidly as we speak.
So why doesn't average Joe not buy a few acres parcel and build on it? Land isn't that expensive even now and if someone does a lot of work themselves and is content with small square footage, building wouldn't be that crazy expensive as if done through a contractor and if building typical American McMansion (average new home square footage is over 2,5K sq feet right now)Technocratic Neo-Feudalism is probably only a few years away. But don't worry, your new landowning elite buying up all the real estate insist that they are not buying up all the land and real estate.
These are the types of people who, being so drunk on power, would piss on you, while insisting they're not pissing on you. Then mock you for allowing them to piss on you all while forcing you to tell them that they're not pissing on you. Truly a disgusting people.
The 16.6 teachers at the Aspen Community School, which is part of the district, averaged $46,895 in pay for 2018-19.
The roaring fork valley is bizarre in many ways. If you ever drive into Aspen in the morning rush hour, it is at least 50% illegal migrant workers commuting for service jobs in Aspen. Many are 3-4 per truck and the women seem to prefer to take the bus. You can stop at a burrito truck along the way to get a taste of who is finding work in Aspen. Aspen is an elitest enclave and they are not interested in creating housing for their workers, who must disappear themselves outside of the elite periphery at the end of each work dayThe average price of a single-family home bought in Aspen in 2020 was $10.38 million, 47.5% higher than the $7.25 million average in 2019.
I am going to make a statement which seems absurd. I don't like it, but I do believe it is true.
Housing prices today are TOO LOW.
I have been trying to understand this weird phenomenon of houses selling in a matter of days or hours, not weeks or months as they should. Along with the phenomenon of people cold calling homeowners to see if they want to sell. And houses selling at above asking prices. None of this makes any sense, and when you see inefficient and illogical market activity like that, only explanation, according to economic theory is that prices are too low. That seems absurd, but I did test the theory and find it true.
I am happily debt free, and don't really follow things like credit scores and interest rates that closely. I knew interest rates were low. I didn't realize they were at ALL TIME lows (really, I just thought they have been abnormally low for a decade and didn't realize they were dropped significantly in 2020).
View attachment 32382
I calculated the effect of this interest rate drop and was astounded.
I was looking at a house that just sold for $375,000 in 2009, and now the sellers are wanting $675,000 for it.
The difference in price was $300,000. This seems like a huge increase, but as you can see below, the cost is essentially unchanged if you are financing the purchase with a mortgage.
The "subsidy" the government is providing you via below market interest rates is $305,000.
100% of the price increase can be explained by the interest rate cuts.
Mathematically, this is proven by comparing a conventional 80% mortgage loan at 2.5% versus a more typical 4.5% (which is still below market but was more typical in this century):
$540,000 loan at 2.5% = $679,213 total payments
$540,000 loan at 4.5% = $984,996 total payments
Difference = $305,783
So the interest rate change alone should mean that house should sell for $680,000, which is basically the asking price today.
But that ignores any price appreciation (most price appreciation in housing is merely inflation / a reduction of the purchasing power of the dollar)!
Even assuming the dollar lost only 2% of its value each year (the absurd CPI rate), the same $375,000 house should cost $480,000, or roughly $105,000 more.
So this $675,000 house is probably $100,000 UNDERpriced and should be selling for $775,000.
That explains why houses are selling in 3 days, and there is huge demand outpacing supply.
The only explanation for that is that prices are too low. The above proves that prices are indeed too low.
One huge problem with runaway inflation is that people are unable to mentally react to rapidly changing prices. A $375,000 house is something I could dream of one day. A $675,000 seems absolutely absurd. People cannot mentally recognize that the former has become the latter in just 12 years. And so you get these pricing problems which causes the mismatches we are now seeing.
This will be disasterous for our future, but it is helpful to rationalize the prices today, and I am strongly considering taking a mortgage, after swearing them off, to take advantage of this huge house subsidy the government is offering.
What countries are you referring to? I've been watching prices in Brazil and you can still find nice single family houses or small farms for less than 60k USD. Occasionally I check Colombia and Argentina as well and seem very reasonable as usualThe market is pretty bad in LatAm too.
Was shopping this year and surprised at the prices.
I'm at a crossroads and not sure what to do. Housing in the US is insane but looking at sites like Zillow and landwatch you can still find 2-10 acre plots of land for anywhere from like $6-12k an acre. I'm not going to let perfect be the enemy of good enough, everyone would love 50 acres of beautiful land, but a couple acres of "good enough" seems like the best investment to make right now for those of us middle class folk without property but with modest savings lying around. I'd worry about building a house later and park a camper on the land for the time being. I'm looking in the southeast, in the Appalachia region of NC, SC, TN, WV, KY, AL. Anyone else considering or took a similar path?