Search results

Okay okay. Point being, they can say no, so they can raise the buying price But, the main point is the bunch of houses they bought were renting only, and the company that built and owned them sold the whole thing fir a set price, and said company made money on it.

Except the situation that started all of this was mis quoted for a gotcha. The company that sold all the houses, built to be renters, made 50 percent profit basically off of them. Nit that Blackrock paid 50 over market. And do you know how stubborn people are? They will hold out until it...

Confusion over companies as there are two, and how it is extremely ineffective to buy houses one at a time from home owners if one wants to make money, especially since buying house after house you will be paying more and more, and then the time it takes to turn a profit is a lot harder then...

I don't agree with that. I am just pointing out the whole thing that started this thread is misleading

Do you have proof? Because the article everyone seems to be freaking out about was taken heavily out of context

Yep. That literally changes the whole thing

He starts going on about Blackrock at 1410. I don't know what I was meaning with that

Sorry, was on toilet when I was going through. I find the time stamp for ya. 11 min in he starts talking about the buukd.up and the Blackrock thing. My bad actually 1347 But basically Blackrock bought a pure renting neighborhood that was at 98 percent compacoty

So uh. Watch this video, and it will explain the situation with Blackrock

An opinion piece?

Blackrock is also backed by the feds, and so all their money is Tax payer money

Where in Texas? That matters

Where is this happening? Because there are ways to nit have to worry