Seems reasonable to me, a very anti Trump individual. Now deliver.
And which of his buddies does this benefit?
I'm trying to think if there will be ramifications to this...
- Obviously forced divestment of all Wall St owned single family homes could impact housing prices which is both the point, but of course... also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth
- I guess that crash could potentially have people paying lots of money for homes that aren't worth that much anymore, which sounds pretty negative
- Of course... wow, would it be nice to be able to afford something in the city I love (which I doubt will be impacted by this)
Of course, no clear plan here. Just Trump saying something, why wasn't the "Trump says" part kept in the headline here?
It was not immediately clear what legal authority Trump would draw upon to impose such a ban on the private market purchases of houses. Trump did not detail the policy, the form it would take or the legal changes he was seeking from Congress.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. president was due to sign unspecified executive orders later on Wednesday.
Anyways, I thought that issues with Americans being able to afford things like housing was all a hoax made up by Democrats?
One additional important detail: if this gets implemented at all, hopefully it does not affect the common practice of having a self-owned LLC owning your home. This is common for the purposes of keeping your personal name out of public records; it is far too easy to link someone's name and address, and people at risk of doxing can do this to protect themselves.
It might help in the long term, as it can force cities to stop densifying. And as we all know by now, densification is the leading cause of unaffordability. The US has more houses than households, but people are forced by economic forces to move into denser and denser areas.
But short-term it'll hurt availability. One of the most common ways to enshittify cities is buying an SFH, demolishing it, and plopping a 3-4 apartment complex in its place.
Investor owned housing is a bit of a sensationalist scapegoat. Publicly traded companies account for a tiny, tiny fraction of available single family homes in the US. And so long as the tax code doesn't change, it strongly favors private/individual homeowners, and corporations only account for the margins where housing appreciates so fast or rental incomes are disproportionate to asset values.
This is an easy thing for Trump to promise (after all, little family-owned real-estate developer operations like his would never be affected). But who owns the homes is not going to change the problem that Americans have underdeveloped housing supply by over a million homes.
Even if this goes through without a mountain of loopholes and exceptions, I doubt it will have a significant impact. "Wall Street Investors" implies they're targeting large institutional ownership, which is only around 0.5% of housing ownership as cited in the article. That number is also flat-ish or maybe decreasing depending on the chart you look at, from what I recall.
Outside of a few metro areas where institutional ownership is very high, I don't think this would change anything. As long as houses remain an attractive investment, non-institutional smaller investors will happily buy the properties for a few thousand dollars less than the institutions would.
Anyone familiar with basic economics is pulling their hair out reading this, because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor.
The key word here is "Wall Street". And this statement is playing off a popular misconception around corporate investors buying up American houses.
There has been a bit of a panic around "Investors buying up all the property!!!" With people often citing Black Rock and Blackstone as the main culprits. But most of the "investors" buying up property are individuals purchasing investment properties.
Here's an article on the topic from 2023[0], a bit old but my understanding is large institutional investment in residential real estate was already starting to cool down.
Black rock isn't buying up all the housing, your neighbors are.
I suspect this statement, and even if it becomes an actual ban, is largely to gain wider popular support around a largely imaginary concern people have.
> "Resident experience is hurting as a result," said Jeff Holzmann, COO of RREAF Holdings, a Dallas-based real estate investment firm with over $5 billion in assets. "Instead of you calling your landlord to discuss a problem, you're calling a call center that gives you the runaround."
I'm not sure I understand the difference between "Wall Street" buying up all the property and real estate investment firms like RREAF doing the same, or come to that the guy down the street buying a few properties to rent out.
A small company or single investor can buy up a large percentage of local available property and be just as bad a landlord.
I thought one of the big problem with Wall Street buying housing inventory is that they were turning them into AirBnbs because that is more profitable (generally) than renting. This pressure takes a lot of units off of the market for normal people to rent or buy and makes holding on to your last house a lot more profitable as a rental. I think if we get rid of these (basically) unregulated hotel exception and forced people who who AirBnb to live in that property as a primary residence 180 days a year, then the inventory could correct.
Obviously, the other factor in home prices is zoning and people who own wanting to keep supply down so their house is guaranteed to appreciate. Affordable housing (just like homelessness) in the US is only a problem because we lack the political will to solve it.
Black rock shouldn't buy any family homes. Not a single one.
I'm sick of the arguments that rely on the meaning of "most/many/some/not all". The arguments are irrefutable because you can always weasel your way through the meaning of the quantifier, or the false implication that only the "biggest" of something needs redress before the next in line.
A person owning a second home is fine, that's one of the paths towards financial independence: small business ownership. Someone starting out in a tiny money making operation is a good thing, and they do not need to compete with a trillion dollar empire!
It has definitely cooled dramatically; even reasonable interest rates make the numbers pretty meh.
This feels very similar to the Canadian narrative that foreign (read: Chinese) investors are buying all the houses in Vancouver & Toronto. Does it happen? absolutely, but it's also a nice way to blame a segment that has no voice or recourse. It also allows us to turn a blind eye to the impact of a generation of essentially zero % interest rates and a country that holds twice as much of their wealth in houses as the US. Other popular targets: out-of-province home owners, vacation property owners, multi-generational properties.
Daily reminder that the largest purchasers of residential real estate through these intermediary firms (since that's all they are... they own them in trust for others) are public employee pension plans.
The real contention is two fold: investors are collectively pricing out non-investors that would presumably actually live in the home they purchased, and among investors, institutional investors are both positioned to ignore market pressures and constitute too large a portion of the market, restricting even rental availability and affordability of the homes.
The reason institutional investors are blamed is that they usually have significant holdings elsewhere, and demonstrably will just wait out a market, taking loses they write off against their other businesses in the meantime, rather than actually participating in it. That ability to wait out the market on a finite resource rather than participating is usually otherwise only seen during antitrust market activities. The fact that many cities are considering adding significant vacancy taxes on properties, citing specifically this behavior as a driving factor, is pretty damning.
Additionally, it's not necessary for these institutional investors that are ignoring the market pressures to own a majority, or even that large of a share. Any portion they own and ignore the market for is effectively just removed from the market entirely and reduces the remaining pool of what's available. And the second-order effect is an overall damping of market responsiveness since they are simply refusing to respond to the demand half of supply and demand.
I don't have the models to run the math myself, but it should theoretically be possible to calculate how much their involvement without participation impacts the prices as a relation to market share, and I'll bet it's a nonlinear result with a steep curve at even low volumes.
This will help out home prices in a lot of lower priced markets, but do little in higher priced markets. In the Bay Area, many houses are bought up by non-occupying internationals. I've been in a couple of such houses. It's bizarre walking into a $5M+ hilltop mansion that's completely bare inside except for a token "student" living out of one room.
There is a conservative case for this in that the 30 year fixed mortgage, combined with all of the foreclosure protections both old and new, amount to a government benefits program. Historically, this type of mortgage was developed to promote family homeownership. The mortgage systems have continually blown up in "crises" in part because it's a product of policy more than it is a market product. This is partly why investors both corporate and small flipper types actually do cause serious distortions: the US housing market is a welfare program first and a market for bundled land and houses second.
No one wants to abolish this welfare program (you would have an easier time abolishing Social Security), but also the government wants to keep the trappings of a market price system. It is easier to have serial crises and to blame some guys for the predictable explosions every time, adjust the laws to create enormous numbers of lawyer billable hours nationwide, and then set the stage for the next crisis and the next round of patsies to be blamed. Fortunately, this time we have AI to write all the think pieces about what it really means.
146 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 108 ms ] threadTrump, notoriously, says all sorts of things.
I'm sure this'll come right after he finishes his healthcare plans in "two weeks".
And which of his buddies does this benefit?
I'm trying to think if there will be ramifications to this...
- Obviously forced divestment of all Wall St owned single family homes could impact housing prices which is both the point, but of course... also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth
- I guess that crash could potentially have people paying lots of money for homes that aren't worth that much anymore, which sounds pretty negative
- Of course... wow, would it be nice to be able to afford something in the city I love (which I doubt will be impacted by this)
Of course, no clear plan here. Just Trump saying something, why wasn't the "Trump says" part kept in the headline here?
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The U.S. president was due to sign unspecified executive orders later on Wednesday.
Anyways, I thought that issues with Americans being able to afford things like housing was all a hoax made up by Democrats?
Why craft policies to address a made up issue?
Very surprisingly progressive opinions from Trump.
I do completely agree though, the consumer surplus of housing should be captured by people. Not investors looking to profit.
It's extremely toxic to society when investors get to eat the utility of housing.
But short-term it'll hurt availability. One of the most common ways to enshittify cities is buying an SFH, demolishing it, and plopping a 3-4 apartment complex in its place.
This is an easy thing for Trump to promise (after all, little family-owned real-estate developer operations like his would never be affected). But who owns the homes is not going to change the problem that Americans have underdeveloped housing supply by over a million homes.
Outside of a few metro areas where institutional ownership is very high, I don't think this would change anything. As long as houses remain an attractive investment, non-institutional smaller investors will happily buy the properties for a few thousand dollars less than the institutions would.
Anyone familiar with basic economics is pulling their hair out reading this, because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing: Reducing or eliminating tariffs on construction equipment and materials and ensuring a robust supply of low-cost labor.
There has been a bit of a panic around "Investors buying up all the property!!!" With people often citing Black Rock and Blackstone as the main culprits. But most of the "investors" buying up property are individuals purchasing investment properties.
Here's an article on the topic from 2023[0], a bit old but my understanding is large institutional investment in residential real estate was already starting to cool down.
Black rock isn't buying up all the housing, your neighbors are.
I suspect this statement, and even if it becomes an actual ban, is largely to gain wider popular support around a largely imaginary concern people have.
0. https://www.housingwire.com/articles/no-wall-street-investor...
I'm not sure I understand the difference between "Wall Street" buying up all the property and real estate investment firms like RREAF doing the same, or come to that the guy down the street buying a few properties to rent out.
A small company or single investor can buy up a large percentage of local available property and be just as bad a landlord.
Obviously, the other factor in home prices is zoning and people who own wanting to keep supply down so their house is guaranteed to appreciate. Affordable housing (just like homelessness) in the US is only a problem because we lack the political will to solve it.
I'm sick of the arguments that rely on the meaning of "most/many/some/not all". The arguments are irrefutable because you can always weasel your way through the meaning of the quantifier, or the false implication that only the "biggest" of something needs redress before the next in line.
A person owning a second home is fine, that's one of the paths towards financial independence: small business ownership. Someone starting out in a tiny money making operation is a good thing, and they do not need to compete with a trillion dollar empire!
This feels very similar to the Canadian narrative that foreign (read: Chinese) investors are buying all the houses in Vancouver & Toronto. Does it happen? absolutely, but it's also a nice way to blame a segment that has no voice or recourse. It also allows us to turn a blind eye to the impact of a generation of essentially zero % interest rates and a country that holds twice as much of their wealth in houses as the US. Other popular targets: out-of-province home owners, vacation property owners, multi-generational properties.
The reason institutional investors are blamed is that they usually have significant holdings elsewhere, and demonstrably will just wait out a market, taking loses they write off against their other businesses in the meantime, rather than actually participating in it. That ability to wait out the market on a finite resource rather than participating is usually otherwise only seen during antitrust market activities. The fact that many cities are considering adding significant vacancy taxes on properties, citing specifically this behavior as a driving factor, is pretty damning.
Additionally, it's not necessary for these institutional investors that are ignoring the market pressures to own a majority, or even that large of a share. Any portion they own and ignore the market for is effectively just removed from the market entirely and reduces the remaining pool of what's available. And the second-order effect is an overall damping of market responsiveness since they are simply refusing to respond to the demand half of supply and demand. I don't have the models to run the math myself, but it should theoretically be possible to calculate how much their involvement without participation impacts the prices as a relation to market share, and I'll bet it's a nonlinear result with a steep curve at even low volumes.
If you believe that banning investors from buying SFHs will decrease the price of SFHs, why not also ban investors from buying apartments/condos?
No one wants to abolish this welfare program (you would have an easier time abolishing Social Security), but also the government wants to keep the trappings of a market price system. It is easier to have serial crises and to blame some guys for the predictable explosions every time, adjust the laws to create enormous numbers of lawyer billable hours nationwide, and then set the stage for the next crisis and the next round of patsies to be blamed. Fortunately, this time we have AI to write all the think pieces about what it really means.