[accrual]

> but people with extreme wealth are not bidding up sandwiches, studio apartments

They are, though. Private equity continues to buy apartments and increase rates. States with increasing PE ownership also have increasing rates of cost-burdened renters spending more than 30% of income on rent and utilities, e.g. in Tampa, Phoenix, DFW, and Atlanta. Maybe not specific people, but the ultrawealthy nonetheless drive these changes.

[solidsnack9000]

When a PE fund buys an apartment building, isn't that really competing with landlords, not renters? The PE fund is not living in the apartment -- they have to try to rent it out, after all.

[defrost]

> they have to try to rent it out, after all.

Not really.

It's also a plan to hold onto real estate as market prices rise, flip for profit later, and not deal with all the issues that renters bring (management and maintenance costs, bringing up and keeping to code, potential damages and law suits, etc).

Keeping a floor or two active for Air BnB type short churn rentals while shuttering the bulk of a building can make $$$-sense to a PE.

[solidsnack9000]

Because a PE can have longer time horizons than a landlord or a real estate company?

[defrost]

"Landlords" (aka individual non corporate property owners of more than one residential dwelling) and real estate companies (those with portfolio's of land assets rather than those that just take a commission on sale) can do pretty much the same thing if the numbers pan that way and/or they have no stomach for dealing with Tennants for marginal extra profit.

Ownership of rentable property that is empty is a thing across the board, at least here in Australia where (stupidly(?)) investment rules and returns have made multiple property ownership a sound investment that grows regardless of occupancy.

Don't even need a long ( > 10 year ) time horizon, flipping on a two or five year scale still makes money regardless of renters being present or not.

[solidsnack9000]

It seems like you're saying, that PE, landlords, &c, are in a market where a landowner can hold on to property, not rent it out or put it to other productive use, and still make money. That is a problem, but not a problem with wealth or wealthy people per se.

[HDThoreaun]

Housing is only a good investment when supply is constrained. These PE firms buy housing because they see that NIMBYs are in control. As they predict rents soon begin to rise. Youve got the cause backwards

[ethbr1]

What's to stop PE from supporting NIMBYism in markets they're part of?

[solidsnack9000]

Nothing -- but the crazy thing is that people vote for it, not that landlords support it.