Law Trump says something everyone can agree with - ban investment firms from buying single-family homes.

[AnGrYcRoW]

Things must be pretty bad if Trump is considering this. The usual maga clowns talk about how the "left" would be against things simply because Trump is for them, here is a perfect example of that being wrong. I support this IF he manages to actually do it without there being a million loopholes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/07/trump-housing-affordability.html

Thoughts?

I'm all for it , great idea , hope he follows through

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

The investment firms aren't buying the houses directly, they're buying companies that build, renovate, rent and manage housing rentals, so the investment firms are more the parent company of the ones actu

I'm all for banning corporate ownership of homes, but I think people will be disappointed by the impact it has on prices. Large institutional investors only own like 0.1% of single family homes, and the other "institutional investors" are mom and pop local management companies that own 1-5 properties, and even that only brings it up to like 2-3% of single family homes. Developers and investors generally get more bang for their buck with apartment complexes.

It's more likely to bring down rent prices a bit than affect home prices imho

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Will see if it actually happens. He also talked about cutting the defense budget and it never happened.

Odds are all it will take for trump to drop the idea is for a couple of rich fucks down in Mara Lago to tell him what a bad idea it is

Hope I'm wrong, it's a step in the right direction

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

Things must be pretty bad if Trump is considering this.

i promise you, a real-estate developer world-renowned for not paying contractors is not considering this.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's more likely to bring down rent prices a bit than affect home prices imho

How exactly?

 

[LMP]

If he does this, it's one of the few things good he has done. But like so many other things he has said, I doubt he will go beyond him say8ng he will. How this usually works is this will be presented to the public and repeated over and over until the fools believe he actually already did it. However I'll leave a small windows of hope that he is able to get a law passed to do this.

 

[jrams]

The sentiment is fine, I just don't know how it would be codified. And honestly, I don't care if it is a large, small, or individual using property as investments. I think it should be more expensive if it is not your primary residence. I also think it should be more expensive for non-citizens to own a home.

 

[DoctorTaco]

I’ll believe it when I see it

 

[Fedor>Cain]

I'm sure this will be his top priority



Is scheduled to happen right around neverfuckingthirty o'clock

 

[Yoricks Wisdom]

There's a local billionaire named Tom Steyer or something running for governor on this premise/promise.

Wants to build a million new homes in Cali.

 

[Striderxdj]

Just to be clear, the point isnt whether Trump will/wont do this. Simply that:

- its a good idea.
- Most everyone here would agree with doing this.
- Despite despising him and disagreeing vehemently with him and his administration on a great many things, (if) he puts effort to champion this, I will give him credit.
- The rhetoric here from maga clowns is that the left will disagree with Trump on everything, even things they want; when in fact there are clearly things Trump could do to appeal to people on the left, and anyone reasonable will be supportive of said things (albeit skeptical of his willingness to do them)

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

Nice idea.

Like term limits and congressional stock trading reform.

Doing any of this results in JFK 2.0

People do not care if he drops dead. Trump getting shot at did not improve his numbers.

 

[Blazeblack]

I won't hold my breath.

 

[Stoic1]

People do not care if he drops dead. Trump getting shot at did not improve his numbers.

Literally the stupidest Orange Man Bad response you could have made. Thanks.

 

[Nizam al-Mulk]

Literally the stupidest Orange Man Bad response you could have made. Thanks.

Why is Orange stain good exactly?

Is what i wrote wrong?

He got shot and his polling numbers barely changed. Facts do not care about fake idols.

 

[Beechwood]

I'm not sure Trump's idea will improve the housing crunch. I recall seeing this article the other week. Seems a lack of allowing new homes to be built is the bigger problem to address ~

America's Housing Crunch Is Blamed On The Wrong Villain​

America's Housing Crunch Is Blamed On The Wrong Villain

Here’s an economic myth that should be left behind in 2025 as we move into the new year.

www.realclearmarkets.com

Here’s an economic myth that should be left behind in 2025 as we move into the new year. From Washington to state capitals across America—and across social media—large institutional investors are accused of hoarding homes, crowding out first-time buyers, and inflating prices. The political logic of this blame game is clear: No one ever cries for the bankers.

Yet the evidence for the populist charge is lacking.

Time for some needed myth-busting: Investors owning more than 100 properties account for a mere one percent of the US single-family housing stock, according to a recent and penetrating analysis by my AEI colleagues. Even at their peak, these firms never represented more than three percent of annual home purchases.

(Great point here: The stock number is lower than the flow number “because investors do not just buy homes, but they also sell homes at the same time.”)

Moreover, the oft-quoted claim that “investors buy a quarter of homes” conflates Wall Street with small landlords. In reality, mom-and-pop owners dominate investor activity. Same as it ever was.

Peeking beneath the top-line numbers illuminates further. Institutional ownership is highly concentrated by geography: Five percent of counties hold a whopping 80 percent of institutionally owned homes. And more than half of US counties have none at all. Also: No county exceeds a 10 percent ownership share. Even in frequently cited metros such as Atlanta and Houston, institutional ownership sits in the low single digits. Most ZIP codes are far below even those levels.

If institutional investors were the prime driver of prices, the hard causality pattern would be hard to miss. But not so much in reality. Since 2012, national home prices have risen roughly 150 percent, yet some of the fastest-growing markets—including San Jose, Bend, and Providence—have virtually no institutional presence. Meanwhile, several metros with higher investor shares have seen below-average price growth. Econ 101 scarcity, not financialization, does the heavy lifting here.

All this matters because lawmakers want to do “something,” but that “something” may be the wrong “something.” Examples from the report: States such as California and New York face housing shortages equal to 15 percent and 11 percent of their total housing stock, respectively. Institutional investors own 0.2 percent and 0.1 percent. Even a draconian forced sell-off “would only be a drop in the bucket given their small market share.”

Markets, as they often do, offer a better explanation. Politicians pay attention: Institutional investors aren’t the cause of housing distortions but a response to them. A review of the relevant timeline is helpful. They entered after the financial crisis, when foreclosures and depressed prices created opportunity, and expanded their role during the pandemic, when ultra-low interest rates made rental yields unusually attractive. But as rates have risen, their purchases have collapsed, and several large landlords have become net sellers.

There’s also an overlooked offset that the paper smartly highlights. Large investors increasingly finance build-to-rent developments, adding supply that might not otherwise exist. In a market where zoning and permitting block construction, that contribution matters. Again from the paper:

At the heart of the affordability crisis is a chronic and severe housing shortage. But this shortage is no accident—it is a self-inflicted wound, the product of decades of government regulatory failure. Across all levels of government, policies such as exclusionary zoning, burdensome discretionary review processes, and costly regulations—like certain environmental mandates—have systematically throttled new housing production. The result is a market that cannot respond to demand, driving up prices and locking millions out of affordable options. Faced with constrained supply and rising demand, it is no surprise that institutional investors entered the market. They exploit market distortions that policymakers helped create. For politicians to scapegoat these investors for responding to market signals is political theater; it targets the symptom while leaving the disease untreated.

Scapegoating investors may be politically satisfying, as is often the case. It also distracts from the actual binding constraint: America doesn’t build enough homes, people! Fix that, and Wall Street’s role will shrink on its own.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Just to be clear, the point isnt whether Trump will/wont do this. Simply that:

- its a good idea.
- Most everyone here would agree with doing this.
- Despite despising him and disagreeing vehemently with him and his administration on a great many things, (if) he puts effort to champion this, I will give him credit.
- The rhetoric here from maga clowns is that the left will disagree with Trump on everything, even things they want; when in fact there are clearly things Trump could do to appeal to people on the left, and anyone reasonable will be supportive of said things (albeit skeptical of his willingness to do them)

It's not a good idea, it's just more populist brain rot that happens to appease left wing populists because it vilified investors.

Institutional investors are not the cause of high housing costs, it's due to low supply caused by NIMBYism. I'd normally link an article but thankfully someone else already did.

I'm not sure Trump's idea will improve the housing crunch. I recall seeing this article the other week. Seems a lack of allowing new homes to be built is the bigger problem to address ~

America's Housing Crunch Is Blamed On The Wrong Villain​

America's Housing Crunch Is Blamed On The Wrong Villain

Here’s an economic myth that should be left behind in 2025 as we move into the new year.

www.realclearmarkets.com

Here’s an economic myth that should be left behind in 2025 as we move into the new year. From Washington to state capitals across America—and across social media—large institutional investors are accused of hoarding homes, crowding out first-time buyers, and inflating prices. The political logic of this blame game is clear: No one ever cries for the bankers.

Yet the evidence for the populist charge is lacking.

Time for some needed myth-busting: Investors owning more than 100 properties account for a mere one percent of the US single-family housing stock, according to a recent and penetrating analysis by my AEI colleagues. Even at their peak, these firms never represented more than three percent of annual home purchases.

(Great point here: The stock number is lower than the flow number “because investors do not just buy homes, but they also sell homes at the same time.”)

Moreover, the oft-quoted claim that “investors buy a quarter of homes” conflates Wall Street with small landlords. In reality, mom-and-pop owners dominate investor activity. Same as it ever was.

Peeking beneath the top-line numbers illuminates further. Institutional ownership is highly concentrated by geography: Five percent of counties hold a whopping 80 percent of institutionally owned homes. And more than half of US counties have none at all. Also: No county exceeds a 10 percent ownership share. Even in frequently cited metros such as Atlanta and Houston, institutional ownership sits in the low single digits. Most ZIP codes are far below even those levels.

If institutional investors were the prime driver of prices, the hard causality pattern would be hard to miss. But not so much in reality. Since 2012, national home prices have risen roughly 150 percent, yet some of the fastest-growing markets—including San Jose, Bend, and Providence—have virtually no institutional presence. Meanwhile, several metros with higher investor shares have seen below-average price growth. Econ 101 scarcity, not financialization, does the heavy lifting here.

All this matters because lawmakers want to do “something,” but that “something” may be the wrong “something.” Examples from the report: States such as California and New York face housing shortages equal to 15 percent and 11 percent of their total housing stock, respectively. Institutional investors own 0.2 percent and 0.1 percent. Even a draconian forced sell-off “would only be a drop in the bucket given their small market share.”

Markets, as they often do, offer a better explanation. Politicians pay attention: Institutional investors aren’t the cause of housing distortions but a response to them. A review of the relevant timeline is helpful. They entered after the financial crisis, when foreclosures and depressed prices created opportunity, and expanded their role during the pandemic, when ultra-low interest rates made rental yields unusually attractive. But as rates have risen, their purchases have collapsed, and several large landlords have become net sellers.

There’s also an overlooked offset that the paper smartly highlights. Large investors increasingly finance build-to-rent developments, adding supply that might not otherwise exist. In a market where zoning and permitting block construction, that contribution matters. Again from the paper:


Scapegoating investors may be politically satisfying, as is often the case. It also distracts from the actual binding constraint: America doesn’t build enough homes, people! Fix that, and Wall Street’s role will shrink on its own.

 

[Fedorgasm]

The sentiment is fine, I just don't know how it would be codified. And honestly, I don't care if it is a large, small, or individual using property as investments. I think it should be more expensive if it is not your primary residence. I also think it should be more expensive for non-citizens to own a home.

Exactly. I think maybe you have really low property taxes for your primary residence, and slightly higher for your second home.

But it should jump significantly for homes 3-10, and after that it should keep increasing until it's just not profitable to own a lot more houses.

Big corporations will probably find a way to game the system though. Like they'll just start a new company for every 2 houses they own, since there's no limit on how many companies you can start.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Fantastic idea.

 

[TankAbbott4Eva]

He talked the talk, but will he walk the walk?
Just because he said it, doesn't mean he'll do something about it.

What are you talking about, he stopped the Ukraine - Russia war on his first day in office as promised!