that's funny because urban multifamily per-unit sale value has flatlined since 2019, and was far outstripped by the S&P 500 for decades prior. You'd think if I was rent seeking I would pick assets that generated rents

omg HTF Nicole, what's up, sorry lol

Can you explain how that works? Let's say I buy a property with 20 units for $10M. What is the mechanism by which I turn that into postive return without renting them out? Using whatever assumptions you like about financing, rents, OpEx, and my other assets/income. Any way you can make it add up.

I like Gary but all of the cities he mentions—Mumbai, Shanghai, Rio, Sao Paolo etc., all had massive population growth, highly restrictive zoning, or both. And there's the problem that housing investments only make money if there are tenants. If there's a billionaire buy-up, they want tenants anyway

I want soviet-style comrade fitness propaganda but where the fitness plan is running for office

“We had over 150,000 people trying to get into the program, and we only have 1,000 vouchers,”

The system couldn't handle how popular the program was so they decided to shut the program down. Brilliant work all around

Got a gift link?

Even just at assessed value should be fine—expected returns are factored into the value.

What that policy would actually do would require some careful thought, but I think it would basically force foreclosure sale. It would effectively be a transfer from owners to prospective tenants. Owners take more risk, prospective tenants see upside. Probably not a bad thing for market stability.

I think 50%+ is very uncommon. But anyway it might not be a bad idea. Maybe you could say "city has the right to buy at assessed value" so that there is a nonzero chance it will become public property (no one will accept a 100% loss).

Wow. That's an insanely clean scatterplot. What's the inventory measure? Did you drop outliers or anything like that when selecting metros?