Why are residential investment properties owned by non-professional investors and not large corporations?
"Because the returns are not good. One of the big drivers in Australia is ""negative gearing"": if your investment loses money you can offset losses against your tax on other income. Institutional investors and corporations are in the business of making money: not losing it. Housing market investors are betting that these year to year revenue losses will ultimately be made up in a big capital gain: for which individuals get a huge tax break that is also not available to corporations. Capital gains are not guaranteed. Australia has benefited from 25+ years of economic, employment and wages growth: a result of good government planning, strong corporate governance and a fair slice of luck. If this were to end housing prices would plateau at best and crash at worst. A person who has negative cash flow investments has to sell them urgently if they lose their job. A glut of mortgagee sales and property prices could easily come off 20-30%. Rental yields on residential property in Sydney are about 4% with a capital gain of currently 10% but this has been flat or negative within the last 5 years and no doubt will be again within the next 5. Rental yields for residential property are constrained by mortgage rates: if it significantly cheaper to buy then to rent, why would anyone rent? In contrast, industrial and commercial property gets a yield of about 7% and gets exactly the same capital gain. This is because land is land and if the  price of industrial land doesn't grow at the same rate as the residential land next door eventually one will be converted into the other. Retail rentals are even higher. In addition commercial tenants are responsible for more outgoings and have fewer legal rights than residential tenants. Further, individual residential properties are horribly illiquid and have large transaction costs. While it is possible to bundle them up into property trusts so that units can be sold on the stock exchange it is far more common to do this with office and retail buildings. This is what companies like Westfield and AMP Capital do. Notwithstanding, heavily geared property trusts can get into deep water because of the illiquid nature of property as the failure of Centro  illustrates. That said, there are plenty of companies that develop residential houses and units for sale to owner occupiers or investors because that's where the money is." Your experience is anecdotal (outside Australia things are different). There are many companies and real estate investment trusts (REITs) that own residential properties (as well as commercial in many cases to have a balanced portfolio). They are probably more common in higher-density housing like condos, apartment buildings, flats, or whatever you like to call them, but they are certainly part of the market for single family units in the suburbs as well. What follows is all my own opinion. I have managed and rented a couple of properties that I had lived in but wasn't ready to sell yet when I moved out. In most cases, I wish I would have sold sooner, rather than renting them out. I think that there are easier/less risky ways to get a good return on your money. Sometimes the market isn't robust enough to quickly sell when it's time to move, and some people like the flexibility of having a property that a child could occupy instead of moving back in at home. I understand those points of view even if I disagree with them. "Economy of scale on one side versus ""person monetizing an illliquid asset"" on the other.  Most multifamily rental buildings are owned by professional real estate investors (as well as individuals growing an empire to become a professional real estate investor whom I will count in this group).  The rental difference between a 2000 Sq foot two bedroom apartment and 2000 Sq foot two bedroom standalone house is not large.  The construction cost per square foot for a standalone house is higher than for a multifamily building (of similar height and materials).  Maintenance calls, landscaping, and new roofs, dealing with permits and inspections, etc are much more efficient with multifamily properties.  On the supply side, most single family rentals tend to be the nonprofessional single property owner because they happen to already own the place, and for one reason or another a. Don't want to sell and b. Want to gain cash flow on the asset." As other answers have pointed out, professional real estate investors do own residential investment properties. However, small residential units typically are not owned by professional real estate investors as your experience confirms. This has a fairly natural cause. The size of the investment opportunity is insufficient to warrant the proper research/due diligence to which a large investment firm would have to commit if it wanted to properly assess the potential of a property. For a small real estate fund managing, say, $50 MM, it would take 100 properties at a $500K valuation in order to fully invest the funds. This number grows quickly as we decrease the average valuation to reflect even smaller individual units. Analogously, it is unlikely that you will find large institutional investors buying stocks with market caps of $20 MM. They simply cannot invest a large enough portion of total AUM to make the diligence make economic sense.  As such, institutional real estate money tends to find its way into large multi-family units that provide a more convenient purchase size for a fund. None of the previous answers calls out an important factor to residential property ownership bias towards individual investors. The amount of time spent managing (leasing, maintenance and rent collection) on single properties is much higher, per property, than larger investments. But what is mentioned in passing is the bias towards smaller investments. Fewer individuals have the capital to purchase and engage in the leasing of multi-tenant properties, but they are more likely to have the funds for smaller investments. So the smaller investor can both afford the entry costs, and the time investment, while the larger corporate entities benefit from the opposite proposition.
"Maybe a bit off topic, but I suggest reading ""Rich Dad Poor Dad"" by Robert Kiyosaki. An investment is something that puts money to your pocket. If your properties don't put money to your pocket (and this seems to be the case), then they're not an investment. Instead, they drain money from you pocket. Therefore you should instead turn these ""investments"" into real investments. Make everything to earn some money using them, not to earn money somewhere else to cover the loses they create. If that's not possible, get rid of them and find something that ""puts money into your pocket""." You seem to underestimate the risk of this deal for the inverstors. A person purchasing a residence is happy to pay $70K instead of $150K now, and the only risk they take is that the construction company fails to build the condo. Whatever happens on the estate market in two years, they still saved the price difference between the price of complete apartments and to-be-build apartments (which by the way may be less than $150K-$70K, since that $150K is the price on a hot market in two years). However, an investor aiming to earn money counts on that the property will actually cost $150K in two years, so he's additionally taking the risk that the estate market may drop. Should that happen, their return on investment will be considerably lower, and it's entirely possible they will make a loss instead of a profit. At this point, this becomes yet another high risk investment option, like financing a startup. "No. One of the key ideas behind a corporation is that an investor's liability is limited to the amount he invests, i.e. the amount of stock he buys. This is the primary reason why small businesses become corporations, even though one person owns 100% of the stock. Then if the business goes broke, he won't lose his house, retiretment fund, etc. He'll lose everything he had in the business, but at least there's a limit to it. (In some countries there are other ways to achieve the same results, like creating a ""limited liabililty company"", but that's another story.)" There are many different reasons to buy property and it's important to make a distinction between commercial and residential property. Historically owning property has been part of the American dream, for multiple reasons.  But to answer your questions, value is not based on the age of the building (however it can be in a historic district). In addition the price of something and it's value may or may not be directly related for each individual buyer/owner (because that becomes subjective). Some buildings can lose there value as time passes, but the depends on multiple factors (area, condition of the building, overall economy, etc.) so it's not that easy to give a specific answer to a general question.  Before you buy property amongst many things it's important to determine why you want to buy this property (what will be it's principal use for you). That will help you determine if you should buy an old or new property, but that pales in comparison to if the property will maintain and gain in value. Also if your looking for an investment look into REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). These can be great. Why? Because you don't actually have to carry the mortgage. Which makes that ideal for people who want to own property but not have to deal with the everyday ins-and-outs of the responsibility of ownership....like rising cost. It's important to note that the cost of purchase and cost of ownership are two different things but invariably linked when buying anything in the material strata of our world. You can find publicly traded REITs on the major stock exchanges. Hope that helps. See my post listing Trumps failures.  Clearly lenders/investors/people get sucked into things all the time.  P.S. Established Corps and LLC are granted credit all the time.  In my example I never mentioned how old or established, or well funded any of these Corps were. The Oligarchy does not like small business owners.  The successful ones challenge their monopolies.  They don't dislike the working class as long as they keep refusing to demand living wages. Living wages cut into not only *their* profits, but it depresses the yacht industry.  Who wants to pay taxes when you have so much income and wealth when you can leave that to the rest of us? Wow, crappy article.  To answer the question: extremely cheap areas in proximity to urban wealth are the best places to speculate in terms of large-scale real-estate developments.   A golf-course developer ideally wants a huge amount of cheap land in close proximity to some combination of wealthy retirees, business-executives, or vacationers. Traditionally that means farmland or undeveloped land on the fringes of urban areas. But there's not a lot of that left in America.   Blighted and depressed suburbs or neighborhoods with lots of abandoned housing are the new under-utilized farmland.   This is how gentrification happens. Some factory-town goes under, gets poor, goes to the dogs, and eventually the big old mill-building becomes cheap enough for a movie-studio, nightclub-impresario, shopping-mall developer, art-gallery, or whatever to take an interest. A lot of them fail, but the ones that succeed drive up the surrounding property-values a little bit. Shuttered storefronts get rented to restaurants and retailers catering to the moneyed visitors. Richer people move into the nearby homes and drive up property values.   Savvy real-estate developers work on a multi-year time horizon. They are not paying cash, they are borrowing, and they are counting on the totality of circumstances to repay the debt not just with greens-fees but with real-estate appreciation.   You or I could not simply buy one house in a poor neighborhood and hope to reinvigorate it, no matter how nicely we kept our lawn. But someone bringing in $500mm in financing is *counting* on transforming the area, not on getting poor people to pay the greens fees. They're not selling golf to poor people, they're selling cheap land to golfers.   It might fail spectacularly, but if it works, the plan will bring jobs, capital, development, and appeal to a blighted, jobless, decaying neighborhood. In such cases, it has a EIN, like any business would. Even absent the rent you suggest, the condo should have reserve funds, similar to an individual's emergency account, only more codified as to level and flows. These funds should be earning interest. In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability.  The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment.  If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt.  Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement. "All other factors being equal, owning your primary residence is almost always a good investment over the long haul. Why? Because you have to live somewhere, and rentals, especially long-term leases that are important when you have kids in school, etc.,  are generally in the same ballpark as a mortgage in most markets. Giving $1,500 to a landlord gets me 30 days of living somewhere. Giving $1,500 to the bank gets me a place to live and equity in an asset which requires maintenance, but always has intrinsic value.  Detroit is one extreme, Manhattan or Silicon Valley is another real estate extreme... everywhere else is somewhere in the middle. What isn't always a good investment is speculating in highly elastic ""investment property"" like vacation condos as an amateur. It's a cyclical market, but our attention spans are too short to realize that. As most of the other answers to this question indicate, people tend to be down in the dumps and see all of the problems with real estate when the market is not very good. Conversely people only see the upside and are oblivious to problems when the market is high." Banks consider investment mortgages (and any mortgage where you don't live in the property), as a riskier investment than an owner occupied, home collateral mortgage. The sources of increased risk range from concerns that you will screw up as a landlord, your tenants will destroy the place, you won't have tenants and can't afford to pay the bank, and/or you'll take out several other investment mortgages and over extend yourself. All of these risks are compounded by the fact that it is harder for the bank to convince you to pay when they can't put you out on the street if you default. Banks lend and invest in money, not real estate, so they would much rather have a paying loan than a foreclosed house, especially with the modern foreclosure glut. The increased risk means the bank will charge higher interest for the loan, may require a higher downpayment, and will require higher lending standards before issuing the loan. A new housing investor can get around these higher prices by living in the home for a few years before renting it out (though your lender could possibly require you to renegotiate the loan if you move out too soon). Private investors as mutual funds are a minority of the market.  Institutional investors make up a substantial portion of the long term holdings.  These include pension funds, insurance companies, and even corporations managing their money, as well as individuals rich enough to actively manage their own investments.   From Business Insider, with some aggregation:   Numbers don't add to 100% because of rounding.  Also, I pulled insurance out of household because it's not household managed.  Another source is the Tax Policy Center, which shows that about 50% of corporate stock is owned by individuals (25%) and individually managed retirement accounts (25%).   Another issue is that household can be a bit confusing.  While some of these may be people choosing stocks and investing their money, this also includes Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) and company founders.  For example, Jeff Bezos owns about 17% of Amazon.com according to Wikipedia.  That would show up under household even though that is not an investment account.  Jeff Bezos is not going to sell his company and buy equity in an index fund.   Anyway, the most generous description puts individuals as controlling about half of all stocks.  Even if they switched all of that to index funds, the other half of stocks are still owned by others.  In particular, about 26% is owned by institutional investors that actively manage their portfolios.   In addition, day traders buy and sell stocks on a daily basis, not appearing in these numbers.  Both active institutional investors and day traders would hop on misvalued stocks, either shorting the overvalued or buying the undervalued.   It doesn't take that much of the market to control prices, so long as it is the active trading market.  The passive market doesn't make frequent trades.  They usually only need to buy or sell as money is invested or withdrawn.  So while they dominate the ownership stake numbers, they are much lower on the trading volume numbers.   TL;DR:  there is more than enough active investment by organizations or individuals who would not switch to index funds to offset those that do.  Unless that changes, this is not a big issue. Buying a property and renting it out can be a good investment if it matches your long term goals.  Buying an investment property is a long term investment.  A large chunk of your money will be tied up with the property and difficult to access.  If you put your money into dividend producing stocks you can always sell the stock and have your money back in a matter of days this is not so with a property. (But you can always do a Home equity line of credit (HELOC)) I would also like to point out landlording is not a passive endeavor as JohnFx stated dealing with a tenant can be a lot of work.  This is not work you necessarily have to deal with, it is possible to contract with a property management company that would place tenants and take care of those late night calls.  Property management companies often charge 10% of your monthly rent and will eat a large portion of your profits.  It could be worth the time and headache of tenant relations.  You should build property management into you expenses anyway in case you decide to go that route in the future. There are good things about owning an investment property.  It can produce returns in a couple of ways. If you choose this route it can be lucrative but be sure to do your homework.  You must know the area you are investing very well.  Know the rent, and vacancy rates for Single family homes, look at multifamily homes as a way of mitigating risk(if one unit is vacant the others are still paying). "When you buy a put option, you're buying the right to sell stock at the ""strike"" price. To understand why you have to pay separately for that, consider the other side of the transaction. If I agree to trade stock for money at above market rates, I need to make up the difference somewhere or face bankruptcy.  That risk of loss is what the option price is about. You might assume that means the market expects the price of AMD to fall to 8.01 from it's current price of 8.06 by the option expiration date. But that would also mean call options below the market price is worthless. But that's not quite true; people who price options need to factor in volatility, since things change with time. The price MIGHT fall, and traders need to account for that risk. So 1.99 roughly represents the probability of AMD rising to 10. There's probably some technical analysis one can do to the chain, but I don't see any abnormality of AMD here." "Publicly traded companies files 10-Ks with the SEC, searchable on the EDGAR system.  If you want basic financial statement info then look for 10-Ks that are marked ""Interactive Data"", as for those the SEC has  broken everything out by statement into standard formats.  You could also use marketwatch which puts everything in financial statements into the same or as similar of categories as it can to make it easier to compare companies."