Housing

Financialization of housing

New analysis from Popular Democracy and the Institute for Policy Studies reveals how billionaire investors have become a major driver of the nationwide housing crisis – and several common-sense measures to help expand permanently and deeply affordable housing stock.

This report is focused on the United States, but similar conditions exist in Canada. The authors state:

  • Huge pools of wealth, controlled by a small segment of wealthy individuals and their investment arms, are supercharging existing problems of gentrification, homelessness, unaffordable rental housing, and out-of-reach homeownership.
  • Investors have bought up an unprecedented share of housing to extract more rents from already economically squeezed residents. For instance, Blackstone is the largest corporate landlord in the world, with over 300,000 residential units across the United States. Blackstone also recently acquired 95,000 units of subsidized housing.
  • Wealthy buyers are bidding-up land and housing prices, inflaming existing gentrification dynamics, and resulting in huge increases in the cost of housing. Homebuyers are competing against private equity funds and wealthy buyers who make swift cash offers.
  • New construction is increasingly unaffordable to low-income households. Nationally, we have sufficient and even an excess of housing for the wealthy, alongside not enough housing priced at rates affordable to low-income households.
  • Billionaires have influenced government housing policy, striving to give themselves tax breaks, oppose tenant protections, and expand their housing acquisitions even further, at the expense of the public.

According to Statistics Canada, British Columbia has one of Canada’s highest shares of out-of-province investors and non-resident investors. The Shift is a Canadian organization that recognizes housing as a human right, not a commodity. It says:

Categories: Housing

4 replies »

  1. The way to stop financialization of housing, remove housing not owned by occupant is to withdraw all publicly funded services to stop free-riding on the money of others. Erik

    Like


  2. This reminds me of the “Rings” which thrived in the art auction market.The “Rings” worked the art auctions thus (greatly simplified):


    A group of investors would purchase lesser known artists works, either privately or in smaller auction houses until they amass a small collection of works (40 to 50).


    They would then insert the paintings, etc into larger auctions, where member of the “Ring” would bid up and in most cases buy the paintings.


    The cost to the “Ring” would only be the buyer’s premium and the percentage owed to the auction house.


    Over a period of time, the punters or public would out-bid the “Ring” as the art would have gained “provenance” of value.


    Over reasonable time the “Ring” would no longer bid on their own paintings, letting the punters try to out bid themselves on “valuable art”.


    After some time, the last paintings which have been earlier bought, will be auctioned, which tend to sell very expensively.


    Depending on the art work or ? the “ring” was involved with, members of the “ring” stood to make up to 100% or more on their original investment over a 2 or 3 year period.

    This did not just work for art, remember our Dinky Toys, well the “Ring” worked in the collectable die cast and toy market as well.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/toy-fanatic-jailed-for-pounds-12m-fraud-businessman-who-won-queen-s-award-for-industry-created-fantasy-world-in-which-he-was-an-international-wheelerdealer-james-cusick-reports-1512446.html

    If it can work for dinky toys it will work for houses as well.

    Like

Leave a Reply to twolabradors Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *