| Unless I’m misreading, the first two references support the idea that vacancy rates are too low but don’t comment on why. The last reference indeed argues in favor of too much financialization of housing units but that blog is also tripping a lot of my crackpot alarms. Can you succinctly explain why you believe the low vacancy rates in major metros (which I think we agree is the cause of high rents / purchase costs) are caused primarily by units which are intentionally held empty despite demand? In partial defense of your assertion, the FRED data does show that 1/4 to 1/3 of vacant units are for sale or rent at any given time. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1oeIe Total vacancy rate seems to hover around 10%? Rentable and buyable unit rates are an order of magnitude lower. I’m not convinced that the Fed owning a bunch of mortgages is evidence that private companies bought homes and aren’t renting them. Wasn’t that a bail out to prevent people from losing their homes (because the companies owning the homes weren’t solvent and I guess if the company fails maybe you get foreclosed? I’m not sure why we did things the way we did in 08) Could not the explanation also be that a lot of homes are in places that lack demand and therefore the owners don’t bother putting them up for sale or rent? https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1oeII |