[jimmytucson]

To save you a click, 19% is actually not a lot (I thought it was):

> 19% of California houses were owned by investors, ranking No. 36 among the states and just below the 20% national norm.

States with the highest share of investor-owned houses:

> Hawaii at 40%, Alaska at 35%, Vermont at 31%, West Virginia at 30%, and Wyoming at 30%.

States with the lowest are all in the Mid-Atlantic and lower New England:

> Connecticut at 10%, Rhode Island and Massachusetts at 12%, and Delaware at 13%.

Why so low in California (again, I'm baffled that this is "low")?

> the sky-high price tag for single-family homes, the third-highest nationally at $866,100

[hk1337]

And from the link on the page: https://www.ocregister.com/2025/07/16/where-in-california-do...

> Most of California’s single-family house investors are “mom and pop” types, according to BatchData.

> Small-fry owners, with up to five properties nationwide, control 91% of California investment houses.

> The rest is divvied up this way: Owners of six to 10 houses control 4% of California investment houses. Investors with 11 to 50 houses own 3% of this Golden State housing group. And 51 or more? Only 2% of investment houses.

[yojo]

I’m one of those mom and pop owners. The decent ROI on renting out my starter home financed me adding an ADU to the lot, which I also rent out.

I’ve owned the house long enough that I’ve had several tenants churn out when they buy their own houses.

This doesn’t feel like a policy failure, IMO. Renters have the option to live in a free standing home while they save for a down payment, and “investors” have an incentive to increase density/add to the housing stock.

Not everyone is at a point in their life where it makes sense to own a home. It feels weird making a judgement that these people should be required to live in apartments.

[hk1337]

I don’t have a problem with it. I pointed it out because it seems to show Blackstone hasn’t bought up all the houses like people think.

People should rent what they can afford and need. Some people need the house with all its space, some only need an apartment.

The big thing is people shouldn’t be spending 50% of their monthly income on rent. It doesn’t help them, their family, or you. Likely, eventually, they’ll have trouble paying, you’ll have to evict them, their lives will be disrupted, their families lives will be disrupted, and you’ll have to spend time evicting them and finding a new tenant else you’re not making money.

[yojo]

Agreed. I look for tenants that aren’t spending more than a third on rent. At $1300/month, that puts it right on median household income of $48k for the area (this is in rural northern CA).

I have no interest in ever evicting anyone, it sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. I like my tenants, and my rents go up rarely and below market rate/inflation.

[mystraline]

You're completely off the mark on this, and speaking like a landlord.

> This doesn’t feel like a policy failure, IMO. Renters have the option to live in a free standing home while they save for a down payment, and “investors” have an incentive to increase density/add to the housing stock.

First, when you have a renter, your payment is the "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%"

Nobody, except for IT can save in predatory environment like that, no matter how much you wish it so.

And you're double-dipping by having THEM pay your mortgage and handsome profit on top. And for what? A "let them eat cake" comment. Im sure someone paying 50% or more their income can 'save for a mortgage'.

Knowing this scam, by the time they save up 50k, the bank will demand 100k down. But landlords can just capitalize on existing equity. Its a scam, through and through, that punishes renters.

We do need residences. And they're simple to build. They're called "rent controlled apartments". But 'ewww socialism' rears its ugly head.

[insane_dreamer]

> "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%"

25-50% is absurdly false.

We own a second home which we've rented out for years (wasn't the original intention, but anyway ...). The rent covers mortgage, taxes, and upkeep. Profit is minimal, less than 10%. Once you factor in eventual renovations, like replacing the roof, floors, etc., there is no profit at all, or very little.

[mystraline]

Go read the briefs from the Realpage lawsuit, and maybe you won't consider me much the fool.

I keep getting anecdotes as some sort of glorious rebuttals. No matter. When the people are at their last end and the guillotines come, I will not shed a tear.

[bpt3]

Please point me to the brief documenting that those landlords are making 25 - 50% profit.

And I see you showed your true colors with your second comment. I'm sure if the revolution you're praying for actually comes, you'll definitely be in the vanguard!

[insane_dreamer]

enjoy the show!

irrelevant fun fact: people think that the vast majority of those who were visited by Mme La Guillotine during the French Revolution were nobles. In fact, the vast majority, ~85%, were from the "third estate" (commoners, which also excluded clergy).

[blitzar]

> your payment is the "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%"

You would have to be yielding 10%+ on your rental to get anything near that. In my part of the world - rent is cheaper than the interest the mortgage would bear.

[bpt3]

> First, when you have a renter, your payment is the "mortgage + tax liability + chunk of profit usually 25-50%"

You think landlords make 25 - 50% profit on a SFH rental unit? You're so comically wrong that there's no point in discussing the rest of this post (which is basically a list of every failed housing policy in existence).

Allow builders to build more units. It's that simple, which is part of the problem for some people.

[crooked-v]

Or in other words, small independent landlords (using that arbitrary 5-house cutoff) own 17.29% of Caliornia houses, and other landlords own 1.71% of California houses.

[hk1337]

It would seem but as someone else pointed out it's likely just houses and not multifamily homes. It's not really clear from the web site but it seems like it's just single family homes.

[the_gastropod]

It's a pretty weird statistic because it ignores the denser forms of housing that are also owned by investors. So while 45% of Californians live in homes they don't own, "only 19% of homes are owned by investors" (the article repeatedly mixes the terms "home" and "house")

[lotsofpulp]

High property tax rates means low ROI. You can be easily paying 2%+ market value in property tax in those northeastern states.

California incentivizes holding onto real estate with prop 13, which caps property tax increases to 2% per year for the entire time you or your beneficiaries own it. There are people paying less than $10k per year property tax on $3M+ properties, and they can rent for $7k+ per month.

[mandevil]

Seeing Hawaii, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming at the top makes me wonder if their definition of "investor-owned" is actually picking up vacation houses/second homes? Just those are all small states with significant vacation housing markets, wonder if that is driving things here.

[jimbokun]

Well obviously those would be included. Anything that’s not owner occupied.

[mandelbrotwurst]

The article does state they were included, but is it "obviously" true that they should be? Who is more of an "investor", someone who purchases a primary residence to build equity or someone who purchases a second home to vacation in, spending large amounts of money to maintain it and allowing it to sit empty for long periods of time?

[jimbokun]

The latter.

[mandelbrotwurst]

In what sense? An investor seeks a return on their investment. The former achieves this. The latter spends money for pleasure. I suppose you could argue that they are an investor seeking non-monetary return, but in that sense everyone is equally an investor, just with different goals.

[tossandthrow]

That doesn't really qualify it for "not a lot".

Look at it in a historic or idealized context.

Personally I would say that is is a lot, and also too much - people tend to be less indifferent about things they own.

[AnimalMuppet]

You say it is a lot, but you also say to look in a historic context. So, got any data to present, to say that 19% is a lot historically?

[tossandthrow]

I don't ground my judgement in historical trends but political conviction.

You are free to go and find some statistics if that is what you want to ground your beliefs in.