What several people have already pointed out, is now evident in the US residential housing data. Big institutional investors like Black Rock, Vanguard, State street, etc own already >18% of US residential housing and are buying more and more of the new stock.
They are buying to keep, not to speculate. They are buying in order to get a big enough stake in most of the major metropolitan areas so that they can set the floor for rental prices and by not selling (in fact buying more if prices drop), they can actually set the floor on the sales prices as well.
This enables them to transfer ownership for homes from ordinary people to the rentier class (the leeches who don't do productive work, just own and charge interest).
This is the future vision of WEF and their cronies.
In the future, you won't even own the furniture, not even the clothes you wear.
You will "rent" everything based on your digi-ID-tracked-everywhere-social-credit and you will be able to "rent" what they allow you to rent and priced on the basis of how good a boy you've been according to their latest regulations.
This is not news.
Just a reminder of more of the puzzle pieces falling into place.
What can you do:
Get out of debt
Own land and a house and means of production (food, tools, etc) - even co-owning
Invest in tangible assets: skills, skill networks, trustworthy people, tools, seeds, storage, etc.
Spent the last 20 years converting the fiat into tangible assets. Real Estate, foremost. Land has been the number one investment source for ages. Turned the land we live on into a family farm. Yes, skill sets are a must. Am a master carpenter who possesses the necessary hand tools to work without electricity. Self sustainment is a must going forward for anyone. We have fryer hens, laying hens, goats, a 2 acre garden.
The banks were doing something similar prior to 2008. They were issuing loans at like 97% LTV which is essentially the same as speculating on the underlying asset. Then they built layer on layer of derivatives on top.
No, banks bought the mortgages in order to build derivatives out of them and to offload that risk to greedy and stupid pension funds looking for "risk feee" yield, while making a killing themselves ln the transaction.
This is completely different. Big institutional investing giants are outright buying the homes to own and rent them, in order to control sales and rental prices, while locking in the rental stream for themselves.
It's nominally different. Same net effect upon capitalization which was my main point. Whether they own 100% or own 97% of them this is negligible in terms of ability to create CDOs
No, you don't understand who profits, who owns and who gets to hold the risk bag. The distribution is different and thus are failure points and who falls if it fails.
I understand the difference. Are you understanding my point about the practical similarities? If they "own" 97% of a property as first in lien it's essentially the same thing as buying and renting. The mortgage holder can walk away and then it goes to short sale this the risk profile for lenders of bullish
They didn't have the cashflow to cover the cost of all the assignments and this has to force sell other assets which is how it spread into the overall market sell off
She also mention one important thing - the BigMoney buy out most demanded houses, not every house they could buy, effectively cutting out population from the realty market.
Very useful when you tired to explain what the fuck is going on for normies. She looks and behave mostly like typical videoblogger, normies used to, but talk about things normies don't want to find out by themselves.
Pass local laws. No institutional ownership of homes.
What several people have already pointed out, is now evident in the US residential housing data. Big institutional investors like Black Rock, Vanguard, State street, etc own already >18% of US residential housing and are buying more and more of the new stock.
They are buying to keep, not to speculate. They are buying in order to get a big enough stake in most of the major metropolitan areas so that they can set the floor for rental prices and by not selling (in fact buying more if prices drop), they can actually set the floor on the sales prices as well.
This enables them to transfer ownership for homes from ordinary people to the rentier class (the leeches who don't do productive work, just own and charge interest).
This is the future vision of WEF and their cronies.
In the future, you won't even own the furniture, not even the clothes you wear.
You will "rent" everything based on your digi-ID-tracked-everywhere-social-credit and you will be able to "rent" what they allow you to rent and priced on the basis of how good a boy you've been according to their latest regulations.
This is not news.
Just a reminder of more of the puzzle pieces falling into place.
What can you do:
Spent the last 20 years converting the fiat into tangible assets. Real Estate, foremost. Land has been the number one investment source for ages. Turned the land we live on into a family farm. Yes, skill sets are a must. Am a master carpenter who possesses the necessary hand tools to work without electricity. Self sustainment is a must going forward for anyone. We have fryer hens, laying hens, goats, a 2 acre garden.
The banks were doing something similar prior to 2008. They were issuing loans at like 97% LTV which is essentially the same as speculating on the underlying asset. Then they built layer on layer of derivatives on top.
No, banks bought the mortgages in order to build derivatives out of them and to offload that risk to greedy and stupid pension funds looking for "risk feee" yield, while making a killing themselves ln the transaction.
This is completely different. Big institutional investing giants are outright buying the homes to own and rent them, in order to control sales and rental prices, while locking in the rental stream for themselves.
Completely different so far.
It's nominally different. Same net effect upon capitalization which was my main point. Whether they own 100% or own 97% of them this is negligible in terms of ability to create CDOs
No, you don't understand who profits, who owns and who gets to hold the risk bag. The distribution is different and thus are failure points and who falls if it fails.
I understand the difference. Are you understanding my point about the practical similarities? If they "own" 97% of a property as first in lien it's essentially the same thing as buying and renting. The mortgage holder can walk away and then it goes to short sale this the risk profile for lenders of bullish
They didn't have the cashflow to cover the cost of all the assignments and this has to force sell other assets which is how it spread into the overall market sell off
One more video on same topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPd2iXUYe-o
She also mention one important thing - the BigMoney buy out most demanded houses, not every house they could buy, effectively cutting out population from the realty market.
Recommend that nice girl videos - https://www.youtube.com/c/SorelleAmoreFinance/videos with many interesting topics we all know about.
Very useful when you tired to explain what the fuck is going on for normies. She looks and behave mostly like typical videoblogger, normies used to, but talk about things normies don't want to find out by themselves.