When the subject of the housing crisis in America and Canada comes up, blame is often cast on investment firms such as Blackrock who are allegedly buying up all the single family homes. How accurate is this story?
There are a few aspects to consider regarding investment firms buying up single family homes:
- Investment firms like Blackrock have been purchasing more single family homes in recent years, but they still own a relatively small portion of the total housing market. Estimates range from less than 1% to around 2% of single family homes.
- While their share is growing, the impact on home prices and availability is likely limited and part of broader housing supply issues. The housing shortage was estimated at 3.8 million units in 2021. Investment purchases alone do not explain such a large gap.
- There are many factors that contribute to housing shortages and rising prices – lack of new construction, zoning restrictions, high construction costs, demographic trends, low interest rates, etc. Investment firms buying homes is one small part of much bigger picture.
- Their involvement does highlight issues of affordable housing access. But banning or limiting investment purchases may not have a big impact on overall home prices or supply without addressing those broader issues.
- Potential downsides of bans include reduced market liquidity and investment in distressed properties. Better policy may be incentivizing new affordable housing construction versus focusing only on restricting demand.
Investment firms do play a role in the housing market but are not necessarily the main driver of broader housing affordability and availability challenges. A balanced perspective is needed, rather than putting too much focus on one element of a complex issue. There are likely better policy solutions than outright bans.
The rise of large investment firms buying up single family homes would be seen as highly problematic for a few key reasons:
- It commodifies and financializes a basic human need – housing – for profit rather than viewing housing as a fundamental right.
- It drives up both rents and home prices, making housing less affordable for average workers and pricing many out of homeownership. This exacerbates inequality.
- It allows large corporations to concentrate ownership and control of housing stock for their benefit rather than serving communities.
- It reflects the power of capitalism to invade all aspects of life and seek profit, displacing other social values around housing as a necessity and right.
- Bans on such purchases align with socialist principles around decommodification, public ownership, and housing as a guaranteed social good versus a financial asset class.
- More radical socialist solutions would advocate not just bans but full public/social ownership of housing stock, either by the state or community land trusts, to take housing totally out of the private speculative market.
Overall, the financialization of housing by investment firms as deeply troubling from the standpoint of equity, affordability, and conceiving of housing as a basic right rather than an arena for capital accumulation. Strict limits if not outright socialization of housing are needed.
The rise of large investment firms, such as BlackRock, buying up single family homes to rent out or flip has become an increasingly contentious issue. On one side are those who argue this financialization of the housing market is extracting profits from a basic necessity, exacerbating unaffordability, and concentrating too much ownership power in corporate hands. They call for bans or limits on these investment purchases to curb their influence over housing availability and prices.
On the other side are those who claim investment firms play only a small role in the broader housing shortage crisis. They point out factors like lack of new construction and restrictive zoning as larger culprits. Banning corporate purchases may not make much difference and could reduce beneficial liquidity. They argue better solutions lie in reforming land use policies and building more affordable housing, not restricting demand.
The debate essentially boils down to differing views on the root causes of the housing crisis and the best methods to increase equitable access. Are corporate investors a malign force displacing individuals and communities? Or are they a minor variable being scapegoated for challenges mainly driven by insufficient supply? There are good-faith arguments on both sides.
Progress likely lies in taking a balanced perspective – recognizing the validity of concerns over financialization of housing while also seeing the need for more systemic reforms to increase availability. Thoughtful policy solutions could discourage speculative corporate buying through taxes while up-zoning restrictions to enable more affordable construction. With nuance and compromise, this controversy can lead to productive outcomes for American and Canadian communities.
