Comment by AnthonyMouse
1 day ago
> Supply destruction to put a floor on prices is not an unknown phenomenon.
The business model of construction companies is to buy a piece of property, develop it and then sell it for something more than the cost of buying it plus the cost of developing it. Constraining supply increases the cost of property which they then have to pay in order to acquire properties to develop. It isn't really in their interest to increase their own costs.
The most significant way it could be is if they were buying lower density units and replacing them with higher density units, so they'd be selling more units than they're buying and therefore benefit from the price per unit increasing. But in order to benefit from that they'd need to be increasing rather than decreasing the supply, which is contrary to the premise of them doing the opposite.
> The effort to make it seem silly to think that there aren't enough houses because the industry whose job it is to build houses did not build enough houses is itself a little silly. Circumstantial as the evidence may be, it's logical to assume that they didn't because it was more profitable not to.
Suppose that it would be profitable to buy a single family home and replace it 10 condo units, except that there is a law prohibiting you from doing that. Then it would be more profitable not to build those units, since doing so is illegal. But who is to blame for this?
> The business model of construction companies is to buy a piece of property, develop it and then sell it for something more than the cost of buying it plus the cost of developing it. Constraining supply increases the cost of property which they then have to pay in order to acquire properties to develop. It isn't really in their interest to increase their own costs.
Let's say for a moment that this is close but not quite actually the business model.
Let's say that the construction companies have spent a long time buying up vacant lots, faster than they are developing them, such that they now have a large inventory of land and would not have costs go up to continue operating if they did what you say.
What would you expect would happen in that case?
At that point you've ceased to describe construction companies and are now describing real estate speculators while calling them construction companies.
Moreover, notice how little sense that business model makes. To do that you would be sinking capital into vacant lots that you're neither developing nor receiving rents from while paying both property taxes and opportunity costs. You're paying interest on the loan or could have been getting ~10%/year by putting your money into the stock market. A real construction company would be trying to minimize the period they're holding an unproductive property.
And even if you wanted to be a real estate speculator, how does that make you more money than investing in rental properties and then actually renting them out so you receive rental income on top of any price appreciation?
Meanwhile, what, if not for zoning rules and other regulations, is preventing anyone else from undoing your attempt to constrain supply by opening up a new construction company which is actually a construction company?
You must be drawing from experience in a specific locality in the US, probably a rural one, because what I described is how land sales in the largest cities in the US has worked for half a century.
Doing what I described in New York City is exactly how Donald Trump made an initial fortune back in the 80s. It's happening right now in Seattle.
The business model not making sense, is due to the incorrect assumptions you make. For one, that land or buildings in cities appreciate less quickly than the stock market.
> At that point you've ceased to describe construction companies and are now describing real estate speculators while calling them construction companies.
I'm not sure what you think the difference is in practice. There may exist some construction companies that don't engage in real estate speculation, they just aren't the big or most profitable ones. Which addresses:
> Meanwhile, what, if not for zoning rules and other regulations, is preventing anyone else from undoing your attempt to constrain supply by opening up a new construction company which is actually a construction company?
The fact that the most valuable land is owned by other construction companies who have more money because of the real estate speculation.
1 reply →