Anyone seen Blackrock impact on housing and which areas?

115 Replies

@Nicholas Cooper - The incentive private equity fund managers have in getting into this space is because the returns are relatively good.  The economy had been flooded with cash from years of government stimulus, and that cash needs somewhere to go because investors are not willing to let cash be idle.  The large institutions target large projects first (large multifamily, industrial, mixed-use) because they are the most efficient means of deploying capital, and the market for large assets has seen enormous activity over the past decade.  At this point, cap rates on institutional quality assets are compressed about as far down as they can go, and the equity funds are experiencing compressed returns, so they are looking for higher yielding assets.  As I mentioned in a prior post, buying single family homes is one of the least efficient methods for deploying capital into real estate, and it is also costly to manage; however, if the return on investment makes sense because the relative return of larger assets has declined, then the fund managers will pursue a single-family rental and/or flip strategy.  


With respect to your question on the 1031, I haven't seen institutional owners discuss this strategy; although, they do employ some of the smartest people in the real estate, finance, accounting, etc. fields, so if it makes sense for their investment profile, then they are probably doing it.  That said, 1031 is typically pursued to defer taxes for as long as possible (ideally perpetuity), and many private equity funds have an investment horizon that ends at a specified time (usually 7-10 years), so taxes would need to be paid anyway, and the cost of 1031 probably wouldn't make sense.  Also, private equity funds tend to return capital to investors when they sell assets instead of reinvesting into additional asset purchases.

Originally posted by @Carlos Gonzalez :

@Mike Hillman

You said it yourself “just at a larger scale” “deploying large sums of capital” the money is not raised from passive individuals, accredited non accredited investors it is just moved from retirement accounts, 401ks, etc. This funds they don’t get paid on performance of the houses they get paid based on commissions, does it ring a bell? Lenders back in 2005-2007 got paid on commission too and what happened to the economy?

Anyway.

I can see something bad happening here when deploying capital is not a risk for the fund managers since they get paid on deploying capital not performance of the assets.

When it comes to the very traditional investment products that fund retirements and pension, yes, fees are not always aligned with performance. But when it comes to the private placements that are buying up houses (which, BTW, hundreds of asset managers are doing), there is most definitely a pref return and a split promote for returns exceeding that hurdle. Your comparison of sub-prime lending driven by greedy brokers trying to earn a commission vs. the way BlackRock and hundreds of other asset managers are investing in SFRs have very little to do with each other.  This has got to be one of the most ludicrous connections I've read in a very long time.

@Tony Kim

You said it yourself Kim “very little to do with each other” BUT there is a little bit to do with each other.

But you’re right, I admitted that you can’t compare it with the sub-primes mortgage lenders.

I’m not complaining. I’m up a million dollars because of appreciation because of what fund managers are doing here in Phoenix.

Just looking at it from a big picture it’s really controversial what Blackrock and other fund managers are doing. Do you agree with that sentiment?

Originally posted by @Carlos Gonzalez :

@Tony Kim

You said it yourself Kim “very little to do with each other” BUT there is a little bit to do with each other.

But you’re right, I admitted that you can’t compare it with the sub-primes mortgage lenders.

I’m not complaining. I’m up a million dollars because of appreciation because of what fund managers are doing here in Phoenix.

Just looking at it from a big picture it’s really controversial what Blackrock and other fund managers are doing. Do you agree with that sentiment?

There is absolutely nothing in common between earning sub-prime commissions vs. what asset managers who invest in real estate are doing.  The only controversy is among people who have zero clue as to what's going on or are gullible enough to believe everything they read. AM's can invest their clients' money wherever they see fit and they have been buying up SFRs for a long time. Hedge funds do it all the time also. Their contribution to the increase in housing is minimal at best. RE prices here in So Cal are out of control, and I'm pretty sure that there is little to no institutional activity here. Prices are being driven up by the same forces that have been in play for the past several decades... low lending costs and extremely low inventory.

Also, not sure if anyone has noticed this or if this is happening elsewhere, but recently there has been a substantial uptick in inventory. My Redfin screen lights up like a christmas tree compared to just a few months ago where each city seemed to have just a few listings. It'll be interesting to see if the price momentum continues....or if folks start to get back to their senses and stop submitting bids that are a quarter-million above listing price.

Originally posted by @Nicholas Cooper :

@Mike Hillman do you think this has anything to do with changes to the 1031, where a large company could continuously refi and maintain under the supposed 500k cap on capital gains?

 There is two things worth clarifying:

1. A 1031 has nothing to do with financing or refinancing. It is to defer capital gains taxes when you sell. Capital gains are the same whether you pay cash or finance a property. They would have to sell the houses and buy another real estate asset to defer gains. 

2. BlackRock provides funding, so they are the financing. In other words they are not refinancing, they are the financing.

Originally posted by @Jon Greer:

@Amie Peralta wow, thanks for that insight on SF area. Incredible and happening quickly. Sounds a little like a great reset, but I don't know what the heck comes of this. REI on steroids!

 It eerily does enable the concept of the great reset and the 'you will own nothing' end of the deal, for sure.  At the very least, we are witnessing a HUGE transfer of wealth - from the lower and middle classes, to the elite class.  Anyone who defends this as a 'free market' occurrence, either 1) is uninformed on the reality of our monetary system(s), and/or 2) is benefiting from the transfer of wealth.  This is not a good situation long term, we should all be collaborating on how to disrupt and redirect the opportunity for wealth accumulation back to our fellow humans.  I just heard another report about how an entire new construction development was purchased by one of these entities in TX.  

Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock :

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

@Jon Greer as far as Idaho goes, government has absolutely nothing to do with it. The problem here is pre-2008 there was speculation just like everywhere else. Add to this Idaho has always been (and very much is still) a very, very low wage state highly dependent on agriculture and the service industry.. When 2008 happened, all construction ground to a halt; virtually nothing was built for a couple of years. Meanwhile, there was still an increasing demand for houses here by the people who already lived here due to organic population increase. That’s when the housing supply started shrinking. Over the last 5 to 6 years, there has been a MASSIVE influx of out-of-state people, mostly from California, moving here further exacerbating the housing shortage. Every year, prices were going up higher and higher because there were less and less homes available to buy. Fast forward to now, developers literally can’t keep up with demand, but the amount of people moving here is not only not slowing down, it’s accelerating.. We have the massive appreciation here because people from states where they are flush with cash can come here and pay whatever is necessary for them to secure a home.. There are several couples in my neighborhood who sold homes in Orange County, CA making a $700,000 profit and while the local wage base struggles to afford a $250,000 home, they paid $60,000 over asking, all cash, all contingencies waived on a $500,000 home and STILL have $140,000 left over. On the nightly news here they have segments all the time about how local Idahoans are not able to afford to buy a home here anymore. This appreciation is being fueled by a lot of out-of-state money coming into Idaho. It’s basic supply and demand. Just the other night, they had a segment about how a plot of land here in the Treasure Valley sold for 6 times it’s appraised value because land is in such high demand for developers.

https://boisedev.com/news/2021/06/13/cbh-homes-caldwell/

@Jason Bohling thanks for the update on Idaho.. everyone loves Idaho. As you mentioned locals can’t afford a house. I’ve heard of people leaving for other states seeking what they once had as a place for homesteading and space. I would guess for every 2 people moving to Idaho, one is moving away, but that might be more like 10-1. I watched the prices and read discussions on people trying to find places there and it’s been ridiculous. No doubt some of this comes from state laws and the autonomous zone stuff in Seattle. Sounds like tons of people from Washington migrated. Being from CA, I have friends and family that live in Idaho and have long heard of people making the move. There’s a big connection between Idaho and CA if you look at the history, whether people want to see it or not, but the Californian’s that move there typically stand as strong or stronger for the values so endeared there (I think). What do you think of Idaho now culturally? Is it a shell of its former self, or still the frontier?

@Amie Peralta seems like Blackrock only plays with the big boys and takes corporate cash and the big money as though their little individuals. I’m not sure how much individual investment is actually feuling their momentum now.. it’s like Bitcoin if it reached 1 million per coin and people pile in trying to own 1/100000000000 of it after the corporations got in at $5k-20k like Tesla. Did I hear Blackrock was the largest investor in Tesla? And Blackrock has invested in Bitcoin and so has Tesla, but your average middle America aren’t putting anything into a crypto currency. People are fixing to be left high and dry one way or another as the arrows come from all sides. Sounds like people need their own reset without credence to these monsters.

Originally posted by @Amie Peralta :
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

 Merrill Lynch ended up with their 49% ownership shares originally as a result of BlackRock buying Merrill Lynch investment business in 2006. BlackRock purchased out all of BOA Merrill Lynch shares in 2011 and BOA Merrill Lynch no longer has ownership. I am not sure why there would be no retail owners, since it is a publicly traded company? Can you explain how that works?

Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock :
Originally posted by @Amie Peralta:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

 Merrill Lynch ended up with their 49% ownership shares originally as a result of BlackRock buying Merrill Lynch investment business in 2006. BlackRock purchased out all of BOA Merrill Lynch shares in 2011 and BOA Merrill Lynch no longer has ownership. I am not sure why there would be no retail owners, since it is a publicly traded company? Can you explain how that works?

A lot of tomfoolery in this thread. No retail investors? LoL BR is one of the largest mutual fund and ETF providers, so obviously, there are a lot of retail investors that invest in their mutual funds and ETFs. But that doesn't matter to the folks who want to push their conspiracy theories. Also, if anyone wants to get in on the action, they're free to purchase shares of BR as it is a publicly traded company.

Originally posted by @Tony Kim :
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:
Originally posted by @Amie Peralta:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

 Merrill Lynch ended up with their 49% ownership shares originally as a result of BlackRock buying Merrill Lynch investment business in 2006. BlackRock purchased out all of BOA Merrill Lynch shares in 2011 and BOA Merrill Lynch no longer has ownership. I am not sure why there would be no retail owners, since it is a publicly traded company? Can you explain how that works?

A lot of tomfoolery in this thread. No retail investors? LoL BR is one of the largest mutual fund and ETF providers, so obviously, there are a lot of retail investors that invest in their mutual funds and ETFs. But that doesn't matter to the folks who want to push their conspiracy theories. Also, if anyone wants to get in on the action, they're free to purchase shares of BR as it is a publicly traded company.

Agreed.  Yes, there might be some retail investors (not enough to talk about in my opinion). Look at the majority share owners and consider who actually participates in the stock market.  

https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

'conspiracy theories' .... LOL.

Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock :
Originally posted by @Amie Peralta:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

 Merrill Lynch ended up with their 49% ownership shares originally as a result of BlackRock buying Merrill Lynch investment business in 2006. BlackRock purchased out all of BOA Merrill Lynch shares in 2011 and BOA Merrill Lynch no longer has ownership. I am not sure why there would be no retail owners, since it is a publicly traded company? Can you explain how that works?

A statistically insignificant number of retail investors. Not enough to make a statement that consumers are funding or controlling this company directly.  

You can see here that over 80% of the ownership is by institutional investors and that the rest are in mutual funds: 

https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

It's just perspective.  You can draw your own conclusion. :)

Originally posted by @Amie Peralta :
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:
Originally posted by @Amie Peralta:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

 Merrill Lynch ended up with their 49% ownership shares originally as a result of BlackRock buying Merrill Lynch investment business in 2006. BlackRock purchased out all of BOA Merrill Lynch shares in 2011 and BOA Merrill Lynch no longer has ownership. I am not sure why there would be no retail owners, since it is a publicly traded company? Can you explain how that works?

A statistically insignificant number of retail investors. Not enough to make a statement that consumers are funding or controlling this company directly.  

You can see here that over 80% of the ownership is by institutional investors and that the rest are in mutual funds: 

https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

It's just perspective.  You can draw your own conclusion. :)

 This is true of many companies on the stock market. It is rare for retail investors to own the majority of any large company. Also keep in mind that many individuals put their money in index funds or mutual funds that own BlackRock. The average person doesn't buy individual stocks. Vanguard is the number one share holder of BlackRock and the Vanguard total market fund owns 2.5% of the company. Many people I know are invested in some type of Vanguard market fund. 

I am not sure what your perspective actually is. You could buy shares of BLK. It is not locked out from retail investors. You probably already own part of the company through retirement funds or there is a good chance BlackRock is even managing your retirement funds. 

I own VTI and VSTMX which both hold this stock. 

Originally posted by @Amie Peralta :
Originally posted by @Tony Kim:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:
Originally posted by @Amie Peralta:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

 Merrill Lynch ended up with their 49% ownership shares originally as a result of BlackRock buying Merrill Lynch investment business in 2006. BlackRock purchased out all of BOA Merrill Lynch shares in 2011 and BOA Merrill Lynch no longer has ownership. I am not sure why there would be no retail owners, since it is a publicly traded company? Can you explain how that works?

A lot of tomfoolery in this thread. No retail investors? LoL BR is one of the largest mutual fund and ETF providers, so obviously, there are a lot of retail investors that invest in their mutual funds and ETFs. But that doesn't matter to the folks who want to push their conspiracy theories. Also, if anyone wants to get in on the action, they're free to purchase shares of BR as it is a publicly traded company.

Agreed.  Yes, there might be some retail investors (not enough to talk about in my opinion). Look at the majority share owners and consider who actually participates in the stock market.  

https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

'conspiracy theories' .... LOL.

So what exactly is your point? Institutional investors make up the largest portion of pretty much any blue-chip stock. And why is that?  Probably because institutional investors are the overwhelming majority of the stock market. And just because an investor is classified as institutional, that does not mean retail investors are not getting exposure. For many of these institutional investors such as public pension, corporate pensions, and the hundreds or maybe thousands of mutual funds that have BR as one of their holdings, we're talking about the investment accounts for retail investors....and a good portion of them will be regular middle-class people. 

I agree....everyone should draw their conclusions, but at least get the facts straight and not base it off of comments like "there are no retail investor owners".

@Amie Peralta

I am picking up what you are laying down sister!  LOL

The game is rigged.  Betting against the Blackrock etc is like betting against a casino where the fix is in.  You will lose 99% of the time.  If you want to know the best way to invest take the most cynical possible position and double down on it.  We used to to have an elite that fought for our country in the military and believed in everyday working people.  I don't think you can argue that that is the case any longer.  Now our elite use their privilege to start some damn hedge fund that adds no value and I would argue hurts working folks.  The worst part is they aren't that smart and I don't think they are even legitimate but while I disagree with them 100% morally I do recognize their power.  So keep buying good real estate with low interest and fixed debt, "if you can't beat them join them."

One last nugget- I read an interesting article a while back about how Blackrock lobbies for green energy making manufacturing expensive in the US.  Then they go to China and Asia and pollute the hell out of everything so they can sell cheap crap at Wal-Mart to all the sorry sacks that are probably living in our apartments, its a shame.  Blackrock and the rest of the greed heads are disgusting people who put money above all else every time.  

Originally posted by @Tony Kim :
Originally posted by @Amie Peralta:
Originally posted by @Tony Kim:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:
Originally posted by @Amie Peralta:
Originally posted by @Joe Splitrock:

It is trendy to hate corporations, but the majority of the equity in these companies is owned by individuals, retirement funds, government pensions, mutual funds, insurance companies, etc. It is true that many poorer Americans don't have this type of ownership, but they vote for politicians who promise them handouts. They are basically paid off and in the process they are held in poverty. The politicians are in the pocket of the corporations, so they are paid off too. Either directly or through enrichment of their families.

Maybe BlackStone is buying houses in volume, but there are lots of people with money buying houses. That doesn't mean the average person can't do the same. There are two ways to look at this: 

1. You can follow BlackStone into the markets they invest in. They are likely to drive up values and you can enjoy the ride up with them. Being small can even give you a competitive advantage through service specialty experiences. 

2. You can take a contrarian approach and look for untapped markets where BlackStone or other large players don't exist. Arrive in a market before them or play in smaller markets that don't interest them.

I see a bigger threat from the technology companies, because they are controlling information. They have the power to limit free speech, focus advertising to control thought and they collect massive amounts of personal information. They also have the lobbying power to buy and control politicians, which means nothing changes. The senate holds some hearings to make it look like they are doing something, but nothing happens.

Another threat I see is when these hedge funds participate in manipulating the stock market. Driving prices up or down, short selling and high frequency trading, which is just skimming wealth off the market. None of these practices add any value to the economy. At least in the case of BlackRock buying houses, they are providing something of value - a place for people to live.

So many new topics here!  I am just going to stick with the original, though I do agree there are other important issues that you touch on.

The majority share owner of Blackrock is Merrill Lynch, at 44%. There are no retail investor owners. It could be worthwhile to know other connections of Blackrock in the global financial and government organizations, and draw some conclusions from there.  There is a lot of transparency about their intent communicated right on their website too. 

People do need a place to live.  And that is what they are banking on.

 Merrill Lynch ended up with their 49% ownership shares originally as a result of BlackRock buying Merrill Lynch investment business in 2006. BlackRock purchased out all of BOA Merrill Lynch shares in 2011 and BOA Merrill Lynch no longer has ownership. I am not sure why there would be no retail owners, since it is a publicly traded company? Can you explain how that works?

A lot of tomfoolery in this thread. No retail investors? LoL BR is one of the largest mutual fund and ETF providers, so obviously, there are a lot of retail investors that invest in their mutual funds and ETFs. But that doesn't matter to the folks who want to push their conspiracy theories. Also, if anyone wants to get in on the action, they're free to purchase shares of BR as it is a publicly traded company.

Agreed.  Yes, there might be some retail investors (not enough to talk about in my opinion). Look at the majority share owners and consider who actually participates in the stock market.  

https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

'conspiracy theories' .... LOL.

So what exactly is your point? Institutional investors make up the largest portion of pretty much any blue-chip stock. And why is that?  Probably because institutional investors are the overwhelming majority of the stock market. And just because an investor is classified as institutional, that does not mean retail investors are not getting exposure. For many of these institutional investors such as public pension, corporate pensions, and the hundreds or maybe thousands of mutual funds that have BR as one of their holdings, we're talking about the investment accounts for retail investors....and a good portion of them will be regular middle-class people. 

I agree....everyone should draw their conclusions, but at least get the facts straight and not base it off of comments like "there are no retail investor owners".

My opinion is based off of facts.  My opinion is that there are *virtually* no retail investors ... people who actually buy and trade this stock.  80%+ of shares are owned by other companies.  My OPINION is that saying corporate pensions and mutual funds also having a stake is not super relevant.  A person might own some sort of stake (a tiny fraction of the already marginal 20%) through one of those vehicles, but this does not give them a voice in the agenda or strategy of the company.  You might not like my opinion, and that's fine, but really the insults are not necessary.  Have a nice day.

Even more important now than ever for investors to know how to find off-market deals. I've been doing it for years in the mobile home investing space. 

There will always be sellers who are particular about who they sell their properties to and don't use the MLS or traditional advertising. Many of these sellers just want a clean deal where they can sell their property or properties without the hassle and to an actual person (not a corporation or someone who calls themself an investor).

Even now, I'm one of those people. When I have homes for sale, I never advertise through traditional methods. The only way people will know about my homes are through my network or by living in the neighborhood(s) where the home(s) sit as it's the residents of those neighborhoods where I advertise my homes for sale.

Always opportunity in every market. It's best to pursue opportunities people can't easily see. 

Hope that helps!