> but the ability of corporate owners to use depreciation on a new purchase to offset profits from previous purchases is more significant.
If you're referring to cost segregation, this is probably less true now than in the past. It used to cost a lot of money to do a cost segregation analysis, and made sense only for apartment complexes (i.e. the cost to do the analysis vastly exceeded whatever savings you'd get on a single house). So only rich investors who owned 20+ unit complexes would do it.
I've heard that in the last few years, many accounting firms are providing it for relatively cheap, so ordinary investors can do it now.
RE people make a big deal about depreciation as a tax benefit, but it's minor in my experience. You're effectively reducing the cost basis, so when you ultimately sell, you have to pay a larger tax on the capital gains. Overall you gain, but not by a lot.
Perhaps if you combine with a 1031 exchange, you may get a greater benefit.
If I am blackrock? If I am smaller PE deploying 10 million a year?
Not sure what you're asking.
As the report points out, institutional investors purchase only 3% of homes nationwide (but much higher in some cities). Regular smaller investors likely buy more homes than the institutional ones.
This is crucial. People are in cities - in the day and age of corporate consolidation, less and less jobs are available, and they are increasingly in-office, and increasingly in only a select few metro areas.
Nobody would give a damn if a glut of housing was built in the middle of South Dakota or Maine or Wyoming. That's because there's very little to no jobs growth in those regions.
If you're having trouble buying a house in Atlanta, yes - they are a big factor.
In Austin? No - not a big factor.