Institutional investors only own about 0.5% of homes. If they're forced to stop buying, nothing will really change in a noticeable way. At best, small landlords and investors will scoop attractive properties up for slightly less.
Where they buy those homes matters though. In areas with lots of jobs/growth (often the areas experiencing the most housing price pain), that number is likely much higher.
Which of those do you think is likely as a result of the proposed action, and why?
Come to think of it, I bet making homes less liquid would knock the divorce rate down more than anyone wants to believe it would, lol
Unfortunately by treating his every utterance as requiring attention he gets what he wants, the media gets clicks, bloggers get clicks, and people get to use it as part of an eternal argument over "what comes next".
People here at least should be more adept at recognizing and responding to patterns.
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?
Like you said that also assumes it actually happens and isn't another incoherent ramble that is conveniently forgotten about or claimed he never said.
I mean if its legit I will cheer it on... but I remain skeptical.
I think the most likely explanation is pretty simple. Whenever people are unhappy with their economic situation, at the ballot box they take it out on whoever is currently in power, logic be damned. Politicians know this.
This is part of the crux, isn't it? It's a backbone of families' wealth and positioned as an investment. So there seems to be no winning: either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old
See also: Bitcoin and the like (wild value fluctuations are the hallmark of a good currency)
Related article of interest: https://archinect.com/news/article/150496266/is-this-swiss-h...
The simple fact is, housing can either be affordable xor an investment[0].
Affordable means the prices are flat relative to inflation, which makes it a terrible investment. If it's a good investment, that means the price is going up faster than inflation, which quickly makes it unaffordable.
[0] I want to be clear that I'm referring to housing as an investment to mean buying a house purely for profit purposes, ie, to flip or to rent out. Buying a house to live in, rather than renting the house you live in, can be considered an "investment", but I mean to explicitly exclude that usage of "investment" in this comment.
A house bought for the purpose of renting out is a house that could have gone to someone who wanted to buy it. It creates upward pressure on housing prices.
I mean, I get it. There are some people that truly do want to rent a house because they know the living situation is temporary.
But we have a generation that was able to buy houses during an economic boom where you could buy a house with an entry-level job, and once that house was paid off, they started buying up houses with their extra money to rent out, and it was so lucrative that prices have skyrocketed and now people in their 20s can't buy houses without a decently lucrative job.
Obviously, there are many factors at work here, but buying or building houses with the intent to rent them out is certainly a contributor.
I just think about the fact that I bought my house in 2015 for about $340K, and it's now worth about $600K, an 80% climb in just 10 years, and I think that's absurd, not to mention a bad thing for society overall.
Often, mom-and-pop landlords are happy to be making more than the mortgage rather than MBAs trying to extract every possible marginal cent. It's less of a faceless spreadsheet relationship.
I guess time will tell if it's anything more than blowing smoke.
It will likely have close to zero impact on high-demand areas.
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.
Trump does not possess many "locked-in" opinions. He can be persuaded to support anything if you are charismatic enough.
> Universities typically own housing as well.
I'd expect that argument to carry negative weight with the folks trying to do this, given the hate they have for universities in general, and the love of privatization.
I don't consider rich people trying to hide their identity to be "critical" at all. Maybe having their address public will be a way to force them to act with consideration of the community instead of just themselves for once while they hide in some anonymous mansion.
What part of "people at risk of doxing" made you jump to "rich people" rather than, for instance, "people in groups commonly attacked"?
> force them to act with consideration of the community
By doing what, precisely? "Have you tried not being (commonly attacked group here)?"
No thanks.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46532004
It costs relatively little to create an LLC. This is not an uncommon pattern for people in groups commonly targeted by hate-motivated doxing and similar attacks. This is not a "rich-person trick", and if you can afford a house, the cost of an LLC is a very tiny expense by comparison.
So your local cops, everyone on every local commission except the secretary, journalists, payday loan and tow company owners, etc.
EDIT: A quick web search shows that an estimated annual cost of $50-$400 for a registered agent in CA. So the cost is closer to $1k/yr.
> Not to mention you would need to pay an owner of record, probably a professional, to have their name on the LLC.
Whether that is public record depends on the legal requirements in your state. And in any case, costs for registered agent services are typically comparable to the costs of an LLC.
Most states allow for this - I don't know about California, though.
That's what I mean: California may be different.
In my state, I don't need to register anything for the Nevada LLC.
It creeped me out a bit and then I was angry when I realized it's the same way in the US, but maybe worse. In the US this is possible too, you just have to pay private data brokers and a bunch of middle men make a cheap buck. Employers sell your pay data, websites sell your address. Everyone makes a buck at your expense.
Otherwise everything you do, you have to first think about whether you are allowed to, like a slave.
I know multiple people who have gotten death threats because of technical comments they made online, or just for having the temerity to exist as a member of a minority group. Not the vague "I'm going to kill you" kind, the "here's a picture of your front door on Google Street View, and an unsolicited pizza, I could SWAT you at any arbitrary 3am, have fun being afraid" type.
How about you make an iron clad promise people will be safe? How about if someone dies because of your minor concerns, you go to jail for life?
Would you be so "oh well" then?
If not, you're probably not taking people's very lives seriously.
It’s not like that’s the only way to hide your identity, it’s just one currently available. Plus it’s a very trivial to look up who owns an LLC at least in my state. Not the best solution IMO
Either way I think you’re being a little uncharitable towards them. I don’t think they’re trivializing it, I think they’re asking a very legitimate question.
A better solution would be to stop putting people's addresses in public records, and eliminating data brokers that expose name/address correlations.
This is by definition not whataboutism. Whataboutism is when you distract from a thing with unrelated things (e.g. "but there are more important bad things going on in the world than this!"). It is not whataboutism to bring up legitimate related counterarguments for a policy.
The public, i.e. the people on this planet, have a right to know who is claiming to own which part of the grass and soil that we all share.
Trusts are in the same boat. If you're using the LLC as a pass-through, these restrictions won't apply to you unless an orange cat is charged with drafting.
I have a hard time believing lots of people care to do that - not many take steps for privacy - or have the resources or time to setup an LLC.
Costs about 200$ at most places and can be done online.
Privacy mechanisms aren't just what applies to your or my perspectives, there are millions of other situations. For example, most counties in Texas identify the full legal name(s), phone number(s), and mailing address(es) of every single property owner and their tax payment amount and status. That'd get really weird, real quick for celebrities if there weren't any concealment mechanism.
Privacy isn't a binary or continuous thing, but is possible to varying degrees and requires navigating government and business processes carefully.
There are generous protections in most states for your personal home that you lose if it's owned by an LLC. This includes things like a homestead exemption in bankruptcy protection.
In Florida, for example, there are better options to keep yourself anonymous. Florida has something called a land trust [1].
[1]: https://www.jimersonfirm.com/blog/2024/04/understanding-the-...
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.
I don’t think cities should force density, but there’s no reason to go the other way either as long as growth is managed properly in terms of traffic, transit, and infrastructure.
Nope. The ONLY way to get cheaper housing is by reducing the city population.
> Supply and demand.
Sigh. No. You assume that the demand is fixed. It's not. By building new housing, you _increase_ the demand. And always faster than you can satisfy it.
I just love this example:
Forbes 2016 - "Tokyo's Affordable Housing Strategy: Build, Build, Build", "The Great Urban Myth: 'Cities Can't Build Their Way To Affordable Housing'"
Reuters 2023 - "Surging Tokyo property prices squeeze out young professionals",
Japandaily 2025: "Housing Crisis: Families Struggle to Buy Homes in Tokyo" ( https://japandaily.jp/housing-crisis-families-struggle-to-bu... )
> Rentals in a dense complex are cheaper than standalone rentals or duplexes, townhomes are cheaper than SFH, etc.
Try to find a city where dense housing made it cheaper.
The problem with this is that you can’t forcibly reduce population. Halting growth in one area just displaces it. This can be a good trade if the area into which growth is displaced is underdeveloped with few other potential uses. But it can also create Atlanta or Houston style sprawl, or destroy natural areas that would be better to preserve.
Japan is an unusual example because most job opportunities are in a handful of areas. You can get impossibly cheap properties in the countryside but there are few jobs or young people. Properties in the city keep getting more expensive because of demand and because building codes are constantly evolving to keep up with new developments in earthquake protection. There are older urban properties available for cheap outside of trendy areas, but the cost of renovation is often too high to be worth it. There’s also a cultural stigma around older properties.
We don't need to. The population growth in the Western world is mostly over, the US will likely peak at barely +10% to the current population numbers. Europe is likely already at or near the peak number.
And Tokyo managed to get a bubble within a country with a _falling_ population. Not just stagnant like in Europe, but actually numerically decreasing.
> Halting growth in one area just displaces it.
That's EXACTLY what we need. The US already has 1.1 houses per household, except that they are not where the demand is.
So the fix is to shift the demand, not try to satisfy it. Ironically, this is exactly the same method that urbanists propose to fight congestion: instead of just adding more lanes to busy roads, you shift people to other modes of transportation.
How can this be done? Exactly like we did it with pollution: tax negative externalities, incentivize clean technology. For cities: tax dense office space (cap-and-trade can also work), incentivize work-from-home, incentivize offices in less dense cities, etc.
This doesn't even have to be a huge policy shift.
If the combination of AI, declining returns on service and knowledge-based work, and national security priorities create a resurgence in manufacturing then factory towns may make a comeback.
During the pandemic, some research had shown that something like 70-80% of jobs can be remote.
The kicker is that remote work is less efficient. So in the long run and on average, companies with in-office jobs outperform fully remote companies. This is just like the situation with pollution: a company that spends money on waste recovery is less competitive than a company that can just dump toxic sludge into a nearby river.
And just like with pollution, centralized regulatory changes are needed so that all companies are affected similarly.
> The policies you suggest also seem difficult politically since most environmentalists seem to want more density, not less.
Yet they are misguided because they keep looking at the very tip of an iceberg. It's just one example out of many (see: nuclear power plants).
To give an example, light rail is more efficient than individual EVs. So it's great that Seattle is building light rail, right? It'll result in fewer "headline" CO2 emissions.
But then you realize that Seattle is going to spend $180B ("B", as in "billion") to build about 50 miles of tracks. It's more than the yearly GDP of 130 countries! All these resources could have been spent on something else, perhaps on building more renewable generation.
In the real world, though, a Georgist style LVT probably has about as much chance to be enacted as any of these other policies. Unfortunately I think we’re going to run the current system into the ground.
I have not run the numbers, but intuitively it seems that this tax will kill the SFH long before it starts affecting the dense office space.
> In the real world, though, a Georgist style LVT probably has about as much chance to be enacted as any of these other policies. Unfortunately I think we’re going to run the current system into the ground.
I think there is a real chance, there is this current of massive dissatisfaction. People _feel_ that something is just not right with the current situation. With the populists proposing the usual easy solutions: "it's all immigrants, ICE them out" or "it's all fault of the end stage capitalism, we need socialized grocery stores".
Well yes, but that's not at all something intrinsic to the process, it's just a dysfunction that Seattle is suffering — along with most of the rest of North America.
In 2002, Toronto paid less than $1b to build the 5.5km of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_4_Sheppard , which is fully underground subway running on a custom gauge for historical reasons.
Last year, we finished https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_6_Finch_West , which is light rail running at-grade on standard gauge. It's not even twice as long but cost 3.6x as much. For light rail. And it's apparently running well below design speed and at least initially with terrible signal priority.
Currently we are building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_5_Eglinton, just over five times as long. It's light rail at a combination of underground, at grade and elevated; current projected total cost is $17.5b. So, three and a half times as much per unit distance, for what is supposed to be a considerably less expensive option.
Prices for other things have not gone so crazy in that time frame. But yeah, it isn't costing us anywhere near 3.6b USD/mile (about 3.1b CAD/km) for light rail. Yet.
Not just light rail, but even regular water and sewer. San Francisco spent half a decade repaving a few blocks (Van Ness bus rapid transit) because they had to slowly dig through unmapped ancient infrastructure.
Even in the case of Toronto, you're looking at amounts that can buy each incremental rider a new house. In case of Seattle, each household is going to pay around $150k for that rail.
It's simply ridiculous.
Are there cities where replacing denser housing with single-family homes made housing cheaper?
A really good example is Copenhagen, the world's most liveable city. Its current population is still _less_ than during the 1970's peak: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/cities/20894/cope... The driver for the decrease was suburban migration, as cars became more accessible.
The US _itself_ is a great example. The suburban development created cheap housing for the rapidly growing population in 60-s.
Obviously housing built outside the city will be cheaper than within it, and that might work for people who are fine living just anywhere (like away from the city), but the hypothesis is that the prices within the city increase when more housing (denser housing) is added within the city, right?
It's just hard to imagine how replacing a 300-unit occupied building downtown with 4-8 single-family-homes would result in the SFHs being cheaper than a unit in the skyscraper was.
0: https://www.courthousenews.com/copenhagen-housing-prices-dou...
I don't have all the information on Copenhagen yet. The stats from 1970-s are not available online, so I commissioned someone to get the data from the archives.
The available data basically shows that prices were stagnant during the 70-80-s and started rising in the 90-s.
> After all, building more housing in the city isn't mutually exclusive with building housing outside the city.
I think it is mutually exclusive, exactly because of the population growth (the lack thereof). Each dense apartment in a city core means one less house in a rural area somewhere.
Japan, that I gave as an example, has literally free houses that anyone can get for nothing but the government real estate transaction fees. Just 3-4 hours away from Tokyo.
Is there any evidence of this? The demand for living in the city (rather than outside of it) already exceeds the supply.
> Japan, that I gave as an example, has literally free houses that anyone can get for nothing but the government real estate transaction fees. Just 3-4 hours away from Tokyo
Yeah, but that isn't housing in the city, it's housing in a place that isn't the city. Even setting aside the cultural differences of Japan, where homes are rebuilt every couple decades, and even setting aside that it has a declining population: a place where people don't want to live will naturally have lower prices than a place where they do.
It kind of sounds like when you're talking about reducing the density of a city, you're actually referring to keeping the density of the city the same, and building SFHs in places that aren't the city (which actually increases the density of those non-city places). Is that what you mean? Or did Tokyo replace skyscrapers with SFHs? And were those SFHs within the city cheaper than a unit in the skyscrapers was?
But that's not true, is it? Most people in the US want to live in suburban SFHs, yet they are often forced to live in apartments. But that's not a viable option for them because the jobs are only available in dense cities.
> It kind of sounds like when you're talking about reducing the density of a city, you're actually referring to keeping the density of the city the same, and building SFHs in places that aren't the city
Correct.
> which actually increases the density of those non-city places
And technically increases the housing price there from zero to some value, just as predicted :)
> But that's not true, is it?
It certainly is: look at the price of housing in New York City, then look at the price of housing in Newark, New Jersey. Many people want to live in the former, but must settle for the latter, due to lack of affordable NYC housing. Then look at the price of housing in Ainsworth, Nebraska: Even cheaper, because people want to live there even less.
Or look at your own example: People want to live in Tokyo more than they want to live 3-4 hours outside of Tokyo, hence the pricing for the latter is lower.
> Most people in the US want to live in suburban SFHs, yet they are often forced to live in apartments.
In my experience, most people in the US want lots of square footage within the city, and either settle for suburbia to get the square footage they want, or settle for less square footage to get the city living they want. This goes for both renters and buyers, and for both Single- and Multi-Family Housing.
How, then, would increasing the price of in-city housing (by reducing the supply, by replacing denser housing with less-dense housing) allow people to realize their big-city-big-living desires?
Alternatively, how would building housing hours and hours and hours outside the city (where pricing illustrates people don't want to live) allow people to realize their big-city-big-living desires?
That's because they _have_ to work in NYC. Polls show that something like 80-85% of people in the US would prefer to live in suburbs.
> Then look at the price of housing in say, Cheyenne, Wyoming: Even cheaper, because people want to live there even less.
Well, yes. Land is not scarce in Cheyenne, so housing is cheap. But people don't flock there because they don't have any job prospects in WY. See my notes about remote work.
> Or look at your own example: People want to live in Tokyo more than they want to live 3-4 hours outside of Tokyo, hence the pricing for the latter is lower.
How about: "People HAVE to live in Tokyo, because there are no job prospects outside of Tokyo"?
> In my experience, most people in the US want lots of square footage within the city, and either settle for suburbia to get the square footage they want, or settle for less square footage to get the city living they want. This goes for both renters and buyers.
Well, sure. I would love to live in a mansion with a private lake, in the middle of Union Square.
> How, then, would increasing the price of in-city housing (by reducing the supply, by replacing denser housing with less-dense housing) allow them to realize their big-city-big-living desires?
You assume that people _want_ to live in big cities. People want to have access to big city amenities, but not necessarily live there all the time.
That's why suburbs are such a desirable place. Think about this: what if you live 1 hour away from the city core? This still allows you to easily enjoy all the amenities like theaters and shows. Or to periodically go to your favorite ethnic restaraunt. But it's _way_ too far for daily commutes so it's impractical.
> How about: "People HAVE to live in Tokyo, because there are no job prospects outside of Tokyo"?
How about: people don't want to be located 3+ hours outside the city, and neither do many employers? Being fully-employed in the middle of nowhere is still pretty undesirable. This is borne out in housing prices: the people buying houses in Cheyenne are likely just as employed as the people buying houses in Newark or NYC, and yet the market rate for the former is still much lower.
> That's because they _have_ to work in NYC.
Or, because they want to live in NYC: socialization and meetups and camaraderie around every conceivable interest, innumerable dining options within a matter of blocks, some of the best live entertainment options in the world, friends within walking distance, etc. Case in point:
> I would love to live in a mansion with a private lake, in the middle of Union Square.
The reason you can't have that is the cost, which we're talking about ways to decrease.
> That's why suburbs are such a desirable place
The suburbs are desirable in that they are cheaper: that mansion with a private lake would be cheaper in the suburbs than in the city, so some people choose to settle for the suburbs, while others choose to settle for a less-nice place in the city.
> what if you live 1 hour away from the city core? This still allows you to easily enjoy all the amenities like theaters and shows.
1 hour each-way of driving is a lot, and by then you're usually in a different city. 3-4 hours puts you in a different state, and in some places, it puts you in an entirely different country!
It seems much more realistic to freeze growth than reverse it. Even then, growth in surrounding areas or other factors can quickly make the area more desirable and expensive as in SF.
This is the first time I see this bold claim, what evidence do you have to prove it?
The only price decreases happened only during the 2008 crisis and during the pandemic lockdowns, due to local population decreasing.
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.
the issue isn't just yield-seeking corps, it's opaque shell companies (llc) using real estate as a store of value aka money laundering vehicle. vancouver showed how this decouples prices from local wages completely. the us has this exact vulnerability—anonymous delaware/wyoming llcs buying in cash, specifically in supply-constrained cities like ny or miami.
this only works because of zoning. if nimbys didn't artificially cap supply, housing would be a depreciating consumer good (like in Japan) rather than a deflation-proof asset class. zoning is what turns a house into a safe deposit box for offshore capital.
if the corporate transparency act that Trump vetoed is successful then I expect to see the real estate become US's top source of GDP like it is for Canada.
The dynamics in the countries that don't have zoning is exactly the same. Price bubble and misery for everyone in dense cities.
There will be no affordable housing in cities, whatever you do, short of nuking everything from the orbit.
I also have no idea what statutory authority he has to enforce this. Surely it requires Congress or at least the FTC chair. And if there's enough vested opposition it's going to be challenged in court pretty quickly.
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.
It’s more complex than just reducing tariffs and inviting cheap labor. It’s systemic red tape put in by the large builders to prevent anyone but them to be able to build. When they do build, it’s never to code. The code they themselves help write. Ryan Homes for example…
Having done some extensive remodeling and building work in recent years and going to great lengths to follow building codes, this just isn't it. The type of lumber you can use for most framing jobs isn't that special. Having walked through a number of new construction properties and seeing what passes code, I don't think relaxing lumber standards would be a good idea, nor buy us anything.
When lumber, cabinetry, and other building products have tariffs in the range of 10-50%, you can't tell me that tariffs are not the primary problem driving costs up right now. There just isn't a secret stash of lesser grade lumber lying around that would also be perfectly good for building homes.
This is why everyone on the internet screeches "well I put up a deck and it wasn't so hard". Try and do a new build of literally any structure and get back to me. Or worse, a construction type that is not the regional default for whatever it is you're doing.
Reality for new construction is way, way, way worse than homeowners think.
Unless you know a guy, in which case it's all open doors and green lights because that's how local politics always is.
LOL, in my city, which is the capital city of our state, the city planning committee and property developers are all friends. By which I don't mean "having a drink at a community event", I mean openly posting on social media about their families going on vacation together, "Loved our family spending the week at this airbnb with the X family! So many good times and memories!"
It's so much easier than the renovation work I'm doing.
> Try and do a new build of literally any structure and get back to me. Or worse, a construction type that is not the regional default for whatever it is you're doing.
Please don't be so condescending. I'm talking about my experience with home building in a thread about building homes. I'm sorry you had a bad experience with whatever you were building, but we're talking about homes.
For new homes it’s easier just to start “at code” and go from there. However, there are places that have strict building codes on the type of lumber you use for the roof, the frame, interior walls, exterior, etc. Lumber yards who sell this in bulk know this and charge a dozen percentages more for it.
For example, in Virginia, lumber has to be graded for use for certain applications. If you happen to mill your own boards, your SOL. You’ll never be to code. The only way is to grease an inspector.
But if the president says 'we're gonna take away mayors powers to restrict housebuilding', you won't be pissed yet.... And when a builder comes along to build later it'll be too late.
For example in New York City go take a walk in the streets next to hundred-year-old skyscrapers in downtown. It’s miserable to me. Now go walk alongside midcentury skyscrapers in midtown. It’s much better. The difference is entirely because of shadows cast by the skyscrapers. The visceral reaction from shadows is so strong to me that I am wholeheartedly supporting restrictions on casting shadows.
Now on two-acre lots. That’s not something I care about. Even 0.1 acres of land is too much maintenance for me. But it will be non-negotiable for someone else.
The government should not criminalize development that would make housing more affordable over your preference on shadows!
It's a negative externality, yes, but it's a trivial one next to the upside of cheaper housing for more people!
So there has to be a line. Different people just draw the line differently. For me the issue on shadows is that these fancy buildings make the streets next to them dark and ghetto-like.
https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/commercial...
Corporate ownership mapped:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/other/who-owns-amer...
https://storage.pardot.com/153411/17634993251KmjZ4d2/whoa_ma...
That doesn't make it correct.
It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes and you would need quite a strong argument to persuade otherwise.
> It seems obvious to most people that institutional investors should not be allowed near single family homes
What is obvious about this? They have always invested in single family homes. Can you provide a priniciple or rationale? If it's something other than renters or "corporations bad but I won't explain further" then I'd love to hear it!
There, you have the apparently obscure principle that no one has ever heard of. I’d love to hear whatever economist inspired argument against it lol.
Rental housing is an important part of housing, and giving access to the schools in suburbs through rental opportunities seems good to me. The people I know who have rented a SFH in my area have had better experiences with corporate landlords than home-owning landlords because the home-owning landlords frequently evict their tenants so that a relative can move in, which is super disruptive. California allows homeowners to evict people with very little warning that way, without cause. Corporations can't do that and also follow the law better.
As far as investing: Every home owner treats it as their primary asset. Which is the only reason that corporations are getting in on the game: people living in their own homes have changed regulatory structures so much that it's rigged in favor of owners.
Single family homes owed by corporations are rented out to people to live in them, giving access to neighborhoods that were not accessible before.
If you think that's "economist inspired" well it's no more inspired than your statements!
It's fine to ban big banks from buying homes and wont do damage to the nation, but don't expect it to solve the problem.
High housing prices are due to zoning-based supply restrictions. These are entrenched due to politically active NIMBY voters.
Actually fixing the housing crisis means addressing zoning, but that doesn't fit the elite vs common man narrative so gets ignored by the populists.
It makes things slightly worse for people who want a non-apartment house but think they might move soon.
And just in general reducing the restrictions on building in places with high rent to income ratios.
Even the Slate truck is $25,000 because safety features are required.
If construction was stagnant for 60 years, adding 10-50% tariffs on lumber and building materials would only make it worse. Not motivated reasoning, just basic economics.
The new tariffs went into effect January 1st, by the way. If you thought things were bad now, they're about to get worse.
This announcement is just another distraction. They want you mad at Wall St, not tariffs.
> In the same vein, it’s technically feasible for automobiles to be built for just a few thousand dollars,
No it's not.
If this was true you'd see it in some other countries. It's not happening anywhere in the world. Unless you redefine automobile to mean a tiny cart with a 5HP motor and some seats.
The finished products tariff was delayed: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... For unfinished lumber, I don't think there was any tariff going into effect January 1.
Sure, these tariffs may further increase the house of prices (e.g. be relevant to 15% of the cost of the house, with tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% and sources of materials adjusting to these tariffs), but the say 4% future effect of these tariffs is likely less than the effect of zoning laws, other development restrictions, and rent freezing.
The closest thing you have are Japanese Kei cars - you can get a brand-new Suzuki Alto for $6,600 before sales tax, but it would not pass crash US safety standards, it's built for slow city streets of Japan and not highway driving.
Banks typically won't hold onto to your loan for 30 years. Mortgages in the US have been thoroughly fiscalized: your typical bank/mortgage lender bundles up a bunch of loans and sells them to another servicing party as soon as the ink dries on the closing documents. The specialized servicer package them, and offer them as securities to investors who in turn will get a monthly return based on aggregate mortgage installments.
All this to say: lending banks would be happy to finance thousands upon thousands of 5-digit mortgages, and sell those to securitization specialists.
New houses aren't built in existing neighborhoods because dense housing is unpopular, as is a distaste of having "poorer" people as neighbors. Static zoning, terrible transport networks and no funding for new public infrastructure tag-team to discourage new developments on undeveloped farmland.
I know we all hate on the electoral college, but it exists and it isn't going away anytime soon.
I'm not saying the answer is to force folks to move to "flyover country", but that's what you'd do if you wanted to avoid another presidential victory by a trump-like character.
Oh I thought the one extremely obvious way was to fix local policy roadblocks. After all, it's not like a lacking supply of housing is a new issue they suddenly appeared out of nowhere within the last dozen months.
The main lumber and building materials tariffs went into effect January 1st 2026.
If you thought the current situation was bad, it's only going to get worse.
This announcement is a distraction to get people blaming Wall Street. It's a "look over there!" announcement literally days after they raised tariffs to make a bad situation worse.
"President Donald Trump has delayed new tariff increases on upholstered furniture, kitchen cabinets, and vanities for a year, pushing their implementation to 2027, according to a White House statement."
But those are increases on top of the already high tariffs.
Concrete, gypsum and steel are primarily domestically produced. Similar goes for wood (although a substantial amount is imported, e.g. from Canada - the tariffs range from 25% to 50%). Labour & Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed.
What is likely to actually reduce rent and house prices is making development permission and laws more lax, as well as preventing rent control.
You can't tell me that increasing the pricing of construction materials won't have negative pressure on home construction.
> Materials may make up say 60% of the cost of a house, but only 50% of this is likely materials, with likely a minority of the materials tariffed.
And where does the construction equipment come from? The parts to repair that construction equipment? The parts that go into the trucks that the workers drive to the job site?
Focusing on a single input is myopic when the tariffs are so widespread that they touch everything.
Lot costs, builder profits, indirect labour (commissioning, financial and legal affairs, advertising) all are far less affected by tariffs. Machine costs could make up 15% of your "labour and material" cost but depreciation and repair purchases are still only 30% of this, with of course not all of this affected by tariffs.
It seems wholly reasonable to believe that the long term effects of a tariff policy like these on housing costs could indeed be in the ballpark of 5%, as I claim, because in fact housing development is less affected by this.
I'm not sure if you trust this for consensus, but you could try asking an AI to give an estimate of the long-term impact for you. Here's what Gemini 3 Pro said to "Estimate the increase Trump's current tariffs, if long term, would have on price of new housing developments."
> Total Home Price Impact: This translates to a roughly 3% to 4% increase in the final purchase price for the consumer.
That's quite an extreme political take.
A more humble basic economic theory question would be:
If you ban large institutional investors from buying homes, and then you ban small institutional investors from buying homes. And only owners directly can buy homes, no renting. Would that be good? Sure homes would be cheap, but very shortly after that the supply of new housing would drop dramatically, as there's no one to finance building homes, maybe the ultra rich will just invest in their own mansions or yachts?
Just very basic economics is the discussion here, not tariffs and china politics, but just a variant of the highschool/red-scare question of, "will anti-wealth laws have a positive effect on the economy"? in the past it was determined that no, and that you were a communist for suggesting it, but maybe there's a nuanced take like making a difference between some type of "institutional" investors and other types of investors?
Common misconception, I used to have this as well.
Building is more expensive than buying for 2 reasons:
1- People can build custom houses to their taste, they pay a premium for that. 2- House prices fluctuate, most of the time house prices are below maximums, it's only during brief periods of time that building houses is suddenly bottlenecked by capital.
Yes, there is an industry behind building houses. Sure people can build homes themselves, that's cheaper than both buying a home, and building a commercial home, but for homes that are both a commoditized asset with general appeal and a house to live in, it's a different type of asset.
A house you build by yourself will never be worth much, but you'll live in it for sure. You can even spend a lot in improvements, but you end up with YOUR house, not with a resellable asset.
FWIW, building your house is quite independent of market conditions, so if that's your game you shouldn't care about the macroeconomics of industrial residential construction or tariffs on China's iron.
We're in a weird timeline when pointing out that dramatic tax increases on the inputs to home building will increase the price of homes.
> A more humble basic economic theory question would be:
> If you ban large institutional investors from buying homes, and then you ban small institutional investors from buying homes. And only owners directly can buy homes, no renting. Would that be good?
There's nothing humble or basic about this question because it's so unrealistic that it could never possibly happen. Ban renting? What?
>because there's one extremely obvious way to lower the price of building new housing:
Cheaper housing doesn't mean that institutions won't still try to buy it up.
It also seems like it might be important to determine what share of _new_ development is being created for investment. The share of existing homes being owned isn't as important.
There's also the 2nd order effect. The price of property might go down if there weren't investors with tons of money to spend on a property.
We must confront that fact, or negate it, for example by taxing away the investment opportunity.
Investors buy housing to rent it out to others, that's the investment. People who own their own home implicitly pay themselves rent, by choosing to live in what they own versus renting instead.
Getting non-resident owners out of housing only means that renters have been banned from an area.
It's not circular it just is, under our ownership scheme. Adding a 100% land value tax does remove the investment characteristic, though, as it removes the speculative aspect of land, and in fact drives the price of land to $0.
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...
And it may win votes for Republicans in swing districts, since the "BlackRock bought all the houses!" line is heard much more often from the Left, meaning this is something you can show an on-the-fence voter to signal how you are against those evil Wall Street guys.
I wonder if he'll be able to resist slipping in some kind of small-time grift for a family member or campaign donor, though.
I would hard cap how many houses anybody can own to something like 4 - whether through an LLC or otherwise. Many countries do not or did not allow foreign ownership of residential real estate. It's definitely not in the interest of any people to have their very land taken from them. In the current climate that would likely take an extremely nasty turn so it's not the best time for it, but I would be very supportive of such a measure with an exception for permanent residents and spouses of US citizens.
I think the relevant quantity we'd want to look at is what constitutes most of the property being bought-up by investors. Counting investors is going to bias the count towards multitudes of little-guys.
But make no mistake, during the housing boom post 2019, in a lot of 'hot' metro areas, "wall street" was buying way more homes than individuals. Especially in the south. In the area I lived in, Invitation Homes, some weird shell company of Blackstone, was buying up every piece of tract housing they could get their hands on. At one point, they were making agreements with builders building out new neighborhoods to not sell to individuals since they wanted them all.
So no, I care far less about what my neighbor is doing because he or she isn't attempting to price out an entire city.
https://go.lincolninst.edu/whoa-mapping-corp-ownership-repor...
Pension funds don't do that (it's a headache).
Instead, they allocate a certain amount of capital to funds specialized in Real Estate who will invest in real estate firms like Greystar who are forced to maximize revenue.
Much of the financialization people keep complaining about on HN is because institutional investors are now much more demanding in comparison to 40 years ago when institutional investing meant putting all your money in bonds and a bit of domestic stocks and hoping to get a 5-6% return.
Basically, the Yale, OTPPF, and ADIA model goes brrrrrrr as institutional investors now demand double digit returns.
Private equity has absolutely been buying up (and building) U.S. residential stock, and this is addressing a real problem. The fact that Trump's doing it doesn't change my opinion at all, but it's absolutely the right thing to do and hopefully will be bipartisan.
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/messing-with-texas-how-bi... https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-corpora...
It's not confusing at all. There's definitely issues with private equity ownership of single-family homes. Although it is fair to say that the BlackRock meme might not be accurate, they aren't necessarily the key player.
Building more housing is the opposite of a problem.
In this particular instance, what's happening is that it's crowding out and destroying diversity in the home builder market.
The model is built to rent out, and it's taking capacity out of the build-to-sell market. It's putting regional and smaller homebuilders that have traditionally provided most of the housing out of business because of their greater access to national capital.
We are seeing this everywhere in the economy. If you have access to Wall Street capital, you can put basically everybody outside of business and then set the price. That's exactly what's happening.
Corporate entity creation in America is such that I don’t think this will be enforceable (“we don’t buy homes, our Gibraltar office’s subsidiary invested in its CEO’s LLC that bought the home”) but if I’m wrong, it could help somewhat.
It’s binary thinking to assume that just because it isn’t a one step solution it won’t make a meaningful impact. But still, I think it won’t yet hope I’m wrong.
Now I know.
This action would have an impact.
Other problems will ALWAYS remain. That's no reason not to make a dent in what can be dented.
Banning institutional investment doesn't remove the "can only go up" laws and mindset, so I think (assuming this even happens, which it probably won't: TACO) the actual effect on prices will be minimal.
This would make the situation slightly better for people who want to buy houses.
Perhaps it's the case I'm 100% for this mainly because my extremely low expectations for politicians have been met and exceeded in this circumstance.
I don't know why we have to be negative about something that makes a small improvement in something that sucks.
This isn't even shooting the messenger or the guy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, I'm not sure there's an existing idiom for the thing you're doing.
If others don't want to make the trade, that's fine, I have no issue with that. But saying nothing will happen can't be true. If you remove demand from a market, that affects prices. There's no way I can take seriously a disagreement with tenets of Econ 101.
To the extent that it has the effect of transferring some properties from rentals to sales, it's only better for the renter who wants to buy and who just barely wasn't able to. It's worse for renters who either don't want to buy or who still can't afford it, because rents will increase due to reduced supply.
People should go find something else to invest their savings in.
it does make sense if you want to save a nice retirement home for yourself or a place where you want to raise your children while you work and live somewhere else.
it doesn't have to be a closed loop though. owners could be (and in my example most likely would be) renting an apartment/flat in the city which is not privately owned)
I'd wager about 25-50% of the population prefers renting. Lots of people don't want to be tied down.
The children could have one each too, perhaps only once they reach 18.
I think there would be plenty of rental stock still.
Still, I'm more than cognizant that there must be huge exceptions carved out for any of these ideas.
You're going to need some exceptions. What happens when someone dies and leaves their house to their kids? What if someone's home is temporarily unlivable (say due to a fire or flood which requires extensive renovation) -- do they have to live on the streets?
And that's not even addressing the obvious question of what happens to tenants if there are no landlords.
The problem is supply, not distribution.
Keep in mind, about half of all adults are married, so each couple can own two properties. One to live in, one to rent.
I imagine we could figure out some way to handle inheritance, perhaps we could give somebody 12 months to decide which house the want to keep, and which to sell.
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/henry-county/3-companies-ow...
|“I’d say at least 60 percent of the homes around here are owned by corporations,” Clark said.
Looking at Google, I see this press release for a 2024 study says that "3 companies own nearly 19,000 metro Atlanta homes" across 190 LLC shell companies: https://news.gsu.edu/2024/02/26/researchers-find-three-compa... (1). But even so, that 19,000 represented 11% of the single-family rental market in the Atlanta metro area, meaning that even if it's 38,000 then we're talking 1 in 5 of the rental homes available in Atlanta, which the article says has many more large investor owned homes than anywhere else in the US- an expert is quoted as saying that it has more than the next 2-3 cities combined for large investors. If that 38,000 is correct (and I only have your quote for that number) then more than 10% of all large investor-owned homes across the country are in the Atlanta metro area, since the Reuters article that this gives large investors (more than 1k homes) a total of 345k rental single-family homes across the US as of 2Q 2025. A 2022 GAO study found that institutional investors owned about 3% of all rental single-family homes across the US.
"Rich Dad" style investors simply own the vast majority of rental single-family homes across the US. According to the bar chart in the Reuters article, investors who own 1-5 single family houses available for rent (the classic dentist who went to a "Make Money in Real Estate" seminar) own 87% of the national market. Looking at the GSU press release, they claim Atlanta is an unusually attractive market for large investors- they particularly call out the lack of tenant protections- and that means that it has concentrated the activity, and it is still not particularly large a part of the market. Enough to dominate some neighborhoods of Atlanta, probably. But the solution is not some nationwide ban by executive order that can't possibly be constitutional, but for Georgia to get better tenant protections so that institutional investors aren't as attracted to the market.
1: I'm going to presume that the 38,000 is from later work finding more shell companies. I also can't read the underlying research article because I am unwilling to pay absurd journal fees.
In the parts of the country I lived in, I've never seen big corporations own single-family rentals en masse. They usually go for apartment complexes, which are far more profitable if you have the capital to buy / build one. Commercial real estate too.
If you click around your neighborhood, a lot of single-family homes are owned by living trusts and "Bob & Kate" LLCs, but that doesn't mean there's any hedge fund money involved.
I'm not saying that site isn't potentially useful as a starting point to find out some stuff, but it hardly seems worth influencing a major decision like what legal entity to purchase a home with.
(edited to add): It also says there's no public record of me being married, which definitely is not the case. My wife literally co-owns and also lives in the house it lists me as living in (and has the correct purchase date for it), so you'd think that whatever algorithm is used to build the dataset would be smart enough to see if there's any other ways we're legally tied together. It also says it doesn't have any records of business associations I have when last year I registered a single-member LLC for contract work last year. The LLC literally has the same name as me followed by " LLC", because apparently no one else had registered that before in my state, which at least gives some evidence that my name isn't overwhelmingly common.
Until you have a stalker who will harass you, your parents, siblings, grandparents... and that stuff isn't all that uncommon.
If someone is concerned about being stalked, they certainly should consider how to protect themselves if they're purchasing a home, but that would be equally true even if sites like this didn't exist. For someone who isn't otherwise already considering using an LLC to purchase a house for other reasons, I don't think a site like this is worth taking into account.
Rental manipulation is much much easier, and probably more prevalent. But unfortunately the price-gouging lawsuits from using software to share pricing information have been settled with the landlords paying peanuts.
Maybe easier to just form a realtor cartel?
I just sold a house to a big corporation that owns about 12,000 homes. There's a whole industry for enabling these buys, opendoor, offerpad, etc... It's usually a wash selling your home as is to a wholesale deal vs. prepping your home and selling it, the difference being done about 60-90 days faster than via retail.
The company I sold to already owned four houses on my street. It's crazy.
I really hate the idea of selling to these "we'll buy your home fast" shops, but I have to be honest that had I needed to make that move, it would have been a very real possibility.
The actual data provided was:
> For example, corporate landlords own more than 12,000 homes in Paulding and Henry County, accounting for 11.2% and 9.9% of all single-family homes in the counties.
Maybe they should clamp down on that as well, especially individuals who are only purchasing SFH in residential neighborhoods as a way to park their overseas cash.
It isn't a bad idea, people will game whatever. A singapore public housing system might work better, but I doubt it would work for SFHs.
If the rule changes fixes it in 9/10 cases and 1/10 games it then call it success and move on.
So long as landlords grow their business by increasing the total stock of housing, no harm is done.
https://xcancel.com/KobeissiLetter/status/200899449445747946...
It matters, you just dont want to know it matters.
Besides all this says is that it matters for blackstone...not for the housing market at large.
> Besides all this says is that it matters for blackstone...not for the housing market at large.
It means that blackstone cares about this, which means they like buying houses, which means it matters.
And the stock dropped 6% today. That is what matters.
If I were to try and buy the condo I rent, due to interest rates, taxes, and HOA's I would be paying $1000 more per month. At the end of my mortgage I would given the entire cost of the property to a bank in the form of interest payments.
Rich investors and companies effectively get to buy homes at a discount vs average joes.
This, monthly rent actually costs more here in Ireland than what you would pay monthly for mortgage.
There's no free lunch. The more friction, taxation, and tariffs you add to the housing market, the higher prices go for both renters and home purchasers.
Very hard to make this work, people find complex ways around it; e.g. “I don’t own that property, it is owned by an LLC which is owned by a trust whose beneficiary is an LLC owned by another trust of which I’m one of the dozen individual beneficiaries”. Close that loophole, someone will cook up an even more obscure one.
Property tax has a known problem of taxing improvement in addition to land, which constrict urban development. Plus, imposing additional property tax means improvements are further penalized, which means efficient land ownership are penalized.
You should look up Georgism and read up on what they have to say. It's a reaction to the 19th century economic condition but it very much apply to our 21st century situation and even more relevant today.
This thread is interesting, as we are all naturally biased towards problems in our own area, and I'm learning some interesting nuances affecting other parts of the country. I live in Chicago / Midwest that has more land and residential high-rises, but our tax problem is a nightmare.
I just plugged in some numbers using (estimated) purchase price, taxes, HOA for the unit I'm in now, and it would cost me a little over $1M over 30 years to own a $300,000 1br apt.
Making rent more expensive doesn't make ownership cheaper, just makes it more attractive relative to renting.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-part-2-c...
Suppose you had $100,000 in cash, and buy a house for $100,000. You'll not be paying 5% interest on a mortgage. But if you did not buy the house, you would be investing that $100,000 for a 5% return.
So, you're either paying 5% on the mortgage, or foregoing 5% return for investing that money.
The rich person is not getting a discount.
What interest rate do you think rich people are getting?
As for the Covid interest rates, those were available to everyone.
Third, we're talking about buying houses, not renting.
Depends how rich. Banks have long been known to offer below market or even zero interest loans to the richer segments in exchange for/in the hope of securing other business from them.
I.e. they'll be paying the market rate one way or another.
Rich people do not have cash, as they invest it all. (That's how they became rich.) Rich people do not get away with not paying their bills. Rich people do not earn rent on the house they are living in. Rich people do not get better mortgage rates because they are rich. They get credit-scored like everyone else. Bankers want to charge as much interest as possible.
My wife and I have owned (at separate times) a couple of rental properties over the years due to various life circumstances (we no longer do). Both properties were valued in the mid $200k range. While being even in that situation certainly makes us unusually fortunate, it gave us no access to cheaper credit.
Now, I appreciate that there is a version of a "rich person" who does. But the GP's example wasn't specifically restricted in that way.
The rich person gets to rent the house, while the "newly weds" are living in it. And most importantly - the house itself will appreciate in value at a rate near 5%
Assuming they both buy a $500k house w/ a 20% down payment and a 5% loan. Realistically the young couple would get a worse rate but lets say they both get 5%. Monthly payment is $2,522.29 w/ taxes and insurance lets call it $3000 a month.
The newly weds are just eating that entire cost every month for 30 years, whereas the Rich landlord rents it out. After a quick and dirty Zillow search lets assume $3500 a month rent to start, so he's making $500 a month profit on an asset thats already increasing in value 5% ish per year.
So, with these assumptions: - Home cost increases 2% a year - Rental price increases 3% a year - Home value increases 5% a year
Total rental profit is $537k Final home value is $1.56 M Total Loan cost: $873k
Bringing the landlords return on 100k to be $1.224M in profit over 30 years (Final sell price - total loan cost + rental profit assuming they stuff it under a mattress). Whereas $100k at a 5% yearly return will be ~$430k
disclaimer: Im not the best with Excel and ive never actually bought property so im sure there are flaws in my math.
or 0.7% ... or 20% ... or ... -2.3% ... or ...
In states I've lived in with property tax there is a homestead exemption for the house you live in. In my current state that's about twice the tax.
The effect: Rent goes up to cover the tax and margin is added, so the rent goes up more than the tax.
>Rich investors and companies effectively get to buy homes at a discount vs average joes.
Usually the difference is that the big investor bought the property at lower price, and your rent is based on the lower valuation. Annual rent increases are usually are much lower than market increases - there's a lot of value in keeping a tenant year over year.
Well-established effect and it applies to everything. A huge portion of all technological improvement/productivity gains and nearly all public investment money ultimately accrues to land rents which we then later just call "the cost of living."
In order for the economy to function there has to be ~ SOME ~ landlords. In my experience the random people that rent out their second property are usually good landlords, whereas the massive players treat people poorly. If this tax were implemented well, the latter group would be taxed more forcing them to stay honest. The small landlords would have a competitive pricing advantage over the big players, which should go a long ways to keep rents fair.
2) Would just inflate home prices.
That depends on demand. If no one wants to buy homes at the prices offered, prices will drop.
... and you would be building equity.
So you pay less and get less, right?
You're thinking this is a sign that you are being cheated. It seems to me that it's a sign you're getting a better deal by renting so that's beneficial to you.
You lumped a bunch of factors together (interest rates, HOA, taxes) that don't do much for your argument. You would pay less taxes than the landlord in most jurisdictions, because the unit would be owner-occupied. Do you think the landlord isn't paying HOA assessments? Sure they are. The landlord has a loan at 3% because they bought in 2021. You're offered 6.5% because you're buying in 2026. I'm not convinced it's worth my pity.
If you house owned by commercial entity - taxes are payed from full value, but the valuation to any collateral/derivative goes by something like (0.75x)^l, where l how many levels deep (counting ownership levels). For example it house is in some sort collateral/derivate/indirect ownership mix with 4 levels deep, it can only valuated as 0.31x value (you can only account as it is worth 1/3). In my mind it should reduce attractiveness for speculative buying.
That being said, it sounds like a land value tax might be a better approach to my first suggestion. Regardless, this would not effect people that truly "own and live in their only house"
Yes mortgage is often cheaper than rental, but the whole tradeoff is the commitment, just like all kinds of services, if you pay 40 years up front you can get a good deal, but do you really want to take out a loan to do that?
Limiting landlords ability to buy property is reducing demand for construction, you want to increase demand for housing, not decrease it.
As I said in a sibling thread, it does suck that property owners are incentivized to raise their property values, preventing supply from reacting to demand.
The bigger thing, though, is so many people are currently priced out from owning something for themselves. Your home is such a fundamental part of your life and for a lot of people renting fucking sucks. They can't live their lives the way they want to. To have that be the case because others are buying it up to profit? Ehh..
My intuition is that the majority of renters would rather be owners paying mortgages. This is less true of certain demographics (young people, students) and more true of others (older people, families).
I also wouldn't characterize being a renter as low-commitment. Say you're renting a place for 1.2k a month. When you sign a year lease, you're committing to pay 1.2k x 12 in rent, plus (at least) a month of security deposit, for a total of 15.6k. That may not be a down payment, but it's still a huge commitment, especially given how hard it is to assess potential problems with a living space before you've actually lived there.
Now imagine trying to asses the potential problems with a living space before committing the next 30 years of those payments, plus locking yourself into that single living space and taking on the single and sole responsibility for repairing or addressing all of those problems yourself.
Look, I really like owning my own home, but when I signed a rental agreement, for the duration of the agreement that was the most money I would ever spend on my housing. And I never once worried about replacing a roof, or replacing an HVAC unit, or replacing a water main. I've owned my own home now for over a decade and my monthly housing expenditure is nearly 2x what it was when I started between tax increases, insurance increases and loans to pay for the various major repairs, and that's with a fixed rate primary mortgage. And that's my cost increases AFTER the insurance payouts. The townhome I first rented when I moved to the area currently rents for about $100 LESS than I pay each month. Granted when I bought the place, it was renting for about $200 more per month than I was paying but that basically means renting vs buying was a wash as far as costs go. Yes, to a degree I got unlucky, but that's also the point, I couldn't know if I was going to be unlucky or not before agreeing to the mortgage. As a renter I could get reviews and recommendations or warnings from prior tenants and at least have a chance of knowing what I was getting into.
Didn't we already try that with housing?
As someone that's renting because buying is impossible i think this would be fantastic. They should do it with Airbnb too.
Not American or in the US, this is problem everywhere now. People thinking they're entrepreneurs for gouging.
People will come up with all kinds of reasoning, its the property tax, it's migrants, its minimum wage, it's millennials, it's inflation ,when ultimately it's just that landlords will charge whatever they think they can get away.
and sometimes they'll try to charge in other ways...
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2025/02/...
IMO it's a crooked notion that landlords are rent seeking and nothing else - they do create supply and maintain housing.
Issue is when they want to politically and artificially raise the value of their property by preventing more housing from being built, so, if you're going to ban something, ban artificial regulations on construction!
North Carolina has done some good by loosening up code around tiny homes, but, a lot of municipalities want to enforce big homes only because they like the property tax of high value houses, 4 bedroom and all. Small town I'm in basically won't allow expansion of housing because the people that live here don't want the village to get any bigger, but if it's democratic like that I'm mostly OK with it, it's when there's demand for housing and someone with a perverse incentive to block it that we should want to solve for.
Perhaps they ought to be more careful when filling out paperwork. Or perhaps they’re not accidents.
Proof: Propose a 100% land value tax, which definitionally only removes that part of income that is generated by the community around their property, and see if they go for it.
Well sure, but it's good to incentivize looking for sources of wages other than (literally) rent-seeking.
> Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating public policy or economic conditions without creating new wealth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)
Given that renting out property you own doesn't meet this definition it can categorically not be called rent seeking. I'm always shocked that people apply this definition exclusively to property rentals, and not VHS rentals, without seeing the hypocrisy.
Googling it after reading Wikipedia shows that about half the sites out there talking about it are also using it wrongly.
Thanks for explaining!
I think we're at the bottom of the discussion here. You've got your opinions but each time you've been pressed you don't really have a justification that stands up.
But no, VHS tapes are not factors of production. That’s a term with a widely understood definition, and linguistic tricks like “a VHS tape causes an image to be produced on a television” or “viewing an VHS tape produces a sense of enjoyment” are not valid arguments.
A VHS tape is capital in the same way that a machine or house is capital. They are capitalized goods that produce something of value on the other side. You still haven't been able to demonstrate that renting one is morally questionable while the other is fine except by special pleading.
Clearly you have never interacted with most land lords
Point is, in choosing to be a landlord and buying property, an ideal world would respond to this demand pressure by building housing, didn't mean to suggest the landlords themselves put on their hard hats and frame a new building. Just that they're also part of the marketplace.
What’d make sense for me is if a rental has a documented history of being poorly maintained, past some threshold the property can be auctioned off, with the proceeds going towards funding public housing. This should help filter slumlords and bare-minimum-effort speculators.
One thing to keep in mind. It might be that it's "democratic" in that all the homeowners are allowed to vote for or against the zoning policy (or for or against the local leaders who set zoning policy) but ONLY the local homeowners are allowed to vote. Those who rent (or who can't even afford to rent) live in a different district and aren't allowed to participate in the election.
If that's the case, then voting doesn't represent "the will of the people", just the will of those people permitted to participate.
To what extent, and by what mechanism, should the government of those two areas weight my preferences on housing policies in those areas? (I think it is properly exactly zero, even I say really, really want to.)
Noone says it's nothing else. But rent seeking is a big component of it, you just focus on other minor parts.
In general, locking down some limited but critical commodity (e.g. land) is bad for any economic system. It doesn't really matter whether it's "Wall Street" or "your neighbor". A healthy economy is geared towards creating an added value.
I am trying to read this charitably, but it is hard to read as anything but: 'landlords do not add value'.
Germany practices basically rent control, so that 60%+ of population rent and consider it stable. That's another way.
Maybe there are more, I didn't think hard. The basic idea is to prevent formation of an "aristocracy" that holds some limited but necessary (not luxury) resource. Pretty much every revolution happened because of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Tenants who rent property get something tangible in exchange for their cash - exclusive use of the property.
Just because the word "rent" is common to both, doesn't mean they are connected in any way.
The concept of "landlords do nothing while collecting passive income, therefore not creating any value but instead are just exploiting that they own the land" would be correctly described as "rent-seeking behavior".
Criticising landlords is fine, but words (and phrases) have actual meanings, and the term "rent seeking" has literally no place in a discussion about landlords.
> the term "rent seeking" has literally no place in a discussion about landlords
Having "literally no place" is certainly a strong choice of words, particularity as it was introduced in this thread as being a inaccurate label to apply to landlords.
Personally, I first learned about the term applying it to Feudalism, in which the (land)lords' only contribution was their ownership of the land. That example alone seems to pretty handily disprove your claim of "literally no place", in fact it's specifically cited in the Wikipedia article as the Georgist interpretation of economic rent.
This is almost never true. Leases come with a million stipulations, and they get to decide what you can and cannot do. It’s exclusive in the sense that the landlord can’t force other tenants on the place you’re renting.
They're orthogonal. In a competitive market, landlords earn no economic rent. In a market with supply restrictions, however, landlords will earn a return "in excess of the costs needed to bring that factor into production" [1].
Rent income is not wages, that's the critical part you're mistaken. Income and wages are not the same thing. Rent income is as much wages as Elon Musk selling stocks is to him, or a bank making income on interest payments. Renting is a business, it's income is business revenue, not wages.
There is this terrible view that landlords are "just like you and me, hard working regular people" - not that it's false, but so are the people that own mom & pops shops, or a local subway franchise, they're all business owners making business profits, not wages.
Business practices that harm the public should be regulated and curtailed. With taxis for example, the medallion system was used to limit the number of Taxis in operation. Similarly, not only should an individual be limited to (directly or via an ownership/shareholder interest in a company -- even with them or their family) a reasonable number of properties, but the number of rental properties in an area should itself be limited. Property owners can either sell houses, or sell condos and make income via condo (regulated) condo fees.
Food, shelter, health-care/medicine should be heavily regulated, if private parties take part as intermediaries between individuals and their food, shelter, health-care, they should expect lots of red-tape and limits. Ideally, the government itself would be driving these markets directly by building and selling properties, hospitals, pharmacies, grocery stores, etc.. that's not socialism or communism. That's just common-sense capitalism, everyone, especially the richest make more money this way. not only that their money will spend better this way.
The kind of capitalism we have now is a short-sighted parasitical money-grab. The kind where if fully realized, you'll build your own mansions and sky scrapers but you'd be complaining about the slums and crime nearby, how you can't get good help, skilled labor, and spend a ton of money on bribes instead of paying a fraction of that in taxes.
In theory, reaganism and trickle-down economics could have worked. A rising tide does indeed lift all boats. But in reality, it's more of the "scorpion and the frog" story. In this case, landlords can own a reasonable number of decent homes and make decent income, and then diversify the money in other markets. But currently, it's a race to become the biggest slumlord or until the markets collapse again.
> The kind of capitalism we have now is a short-sighted parasitical money-grab.
This is completely false. This might be surprising to learn, but for normal car dealerships (not buy-here, pay-here or used car dealerships) a huge amount of their compensation rides on receiving holdback payments from manufacturers, as well as per-unit bonuses that often have cliffs.
Cash buyers paying invoice price are welcomed (if they aren't too big of a headache) because they push a dealership over or at least closer to the next sales-volume bonus cliff.
Holdback alone is worth more than any realistic origination fee.
Dealerships are also earning miscellaneous per-car bonuses which are also profit, which go up based on overall volume: if they sell 50 cars, they get $200/car, if they sell 100 units this might jump to $500/car - just a random example.
If a car is in high-demand or really uncommon (in reality, not sales-speak, and a customer has no other options), they can afford to not sell a car at invoice - but this is an exceptional circumstance.
They don’t create supply in any way, the only ones who do that are builders. But sure they maintain houses. Although just the bare minimum, they will never fix it nicely - just enough to rent it out.
I just can't bring myself to agree with the hard-line socialists who think landlording is fundamentally a bad thing. There are a lot of problems with it, but it does have a legitimate place in the world.
For a house to be available for me to rent, both things need to happen.
Someone had to build it, obviously. But just as necessary, someone needs to offer it up for a rental.
Depends a lot on the landlord. Many will fix it up nicely because they can charge a higher rent. Much of my work is repairing rental properties and I've seen all types of landlords. I try not to work for the cheap ones if I can help it because I don't want my name associated with the crap they want me to do.
I spent over a decade living in various rentals after I moved to a new state. I didn't have the money to buy when I first moved, and even if I had, I didn't know the area well enough to know whether I would want to buy where I first lived. And having the ability to just pick up and move meant I had a lot of flexibility for chasing job opportunities. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to love about the home I own now, but it absolutely ties me down and anchors me in ways that renting never did. I for one am glad to have had people willing to rent property to me.
Like I said in another reply, I don’t consider landlords to be inherently bad. But there are a lot who will try to take advantage of you if you let them. You have to be lucky to get a good one - I only had a couple out of the dozen or so and I wish them the best.
A renter is someone looking to rent. If someone buys a home then rents it out they just +1 the supply of rental units.
A high proportion of real estate sales are owner churn, not the purchase of brand new never used before properties.
Growing municipalities kind of have to choose if they want to become bedroom communities or industrial/business communities and if they choose the former optimizing for rich people is the easy lazy not sticking their neck out choice and what does government employment optimize for if not retaining people disposed toward that sort of decision making.
IF you want affordability? Tax land.
Doesn't matter who owns them. Your grandma or wall street.
This is literally not true.
A landlord owns the property. Property managers operate the property. Sometimes these are the same people (in mom and pop scenarios), but typically and at scale they certainly are not.
Property management is a job. Landlording is not. It is simply owning an asset.
+1 on taxing land though.
Yes that is correct if you occupy land while your community makes it more and more valuable, you should not get wealthier and wealthier for no reason. All of that should be taxed away.
I'm not sure what this applies to with regards to my original comment. Improvements, insurance, and taxes are capital expenditures which need to be managed. This was to counter that landlording "is simply owning an asset."
> Yes that is correct if you occupy land while your community makes it more and more valuable, you should not get wealthier and wealthier for no reason. All of that should be taxed away.
Why assume that the landlord isn't getting the brunt of the cost for making the community more valuable? I don't think there's a strong case for saying a property manager is a job while denying landlording being one. Assuming landlording is completely passive is as far-fetched as thinking that property management is completely passive (both may require irregularly tasks to be performed or require no involvement in the ideal case).
More like "was too rural or too poor in the 70s/80s/90s to indulge in the then trendy policy like zoning the crap out of themselves and passing a bunch of ordinances more akin to country club rules thereby making incremental growth and development actually possible in the 2010s and 2020s"
Because most development today seems to correlate with whether or not that particular policy bullet got dodged than culture or spirit or anything like that.
These costs aren’t that high though, compared to rent. 3 months of rent covers a year of property taxes where I live. Major repairs are about a couple months rent. There is still another half year of rent that’s pure profit. Then they raise your rent every year, demonize rent increase caps, and then vote for reduced housing builds. I find it very difficult to accept them. If I had the money and the capital I absolutely would own a dozen homes and rent it all out, you would make insane money. Not to mention the mortgage costs being so low during ZIRP days. At the rate of AI coming for SWE jobs, landlords seem untouchable.
You missed insurance and mortgage.
If it is, why not do it and become rich too?
It's not really a particularly good way to make money. I've run the numbers on hundreds of properties over the last two decades and I've yet to find a scenario where I could buy something and rent it out with enough profit to be worth the hassle. You'll be much better off investing in some index fund instead.
If I had the capital I absolutely would have. It’s a bit worse now but any property you bought pre-covid (at least in big cities) can be rented out for more than what mortgage costs. I remember looking at houses in the Bay Area and the monthly mortgage would be 3K while you can rent it out for 4-5K. Anyone who owned property in the 90s and early aughts are absolutely rolling in it. You can invest the profits in an index fund on top of it.
I bought a house in the Bay Area in the 90s and the mortgage was well over $3K (remember interest was over 7%) and an equal house back then was renting for $1300 (my rent at the time for a 3br house in south San Jose).
Try to run the numbers for any property you like. Remember to include taxes and insurance and maintenance. Just to break even is not easy and then you'll have to work for free on the maintenance. Or pay a rental management company, which is another 8-10% taken from the rent.
Want to punish the right people? Cut taxes so that people can save cash faster, afford houses earlier and stop renting from their landlords.
Build more actually-affordable housing, too. Not these blocks of luxury apartments with swimming pools that nobody uses. (See HDB, Singapore -- that’s what the US needs more of)
The tax simply redirect the unearned income to the public coffer which are either spent on public investment that further increase land value or redistributed as citizen's dividend.
Meanwhile landlords are free to construct as many buildings as they can without being penalized by higher taxes.
Empty lot, parking lots, and self storage facilities would be penalized because they wouldn't generate enough income to cover taxes on land, leading to more efficient utilization of land, as improvements are no longer penalized.
Right, so the city would be nothing but luxury (to maximize income to pay those taxes) high rise apartments packed tight every block.
No parks, no playgrounds, no soccer fields, no sports courts, no bike trails, no dog parks... none of the things that make living in an area pleasant. Also, no low income housing. Because none of those maximize "efficiency" (measured only in dollars) of every square inch of land.
Life is not pleasant if maximizing value extraction is the one and only #1 criteria. This is what land value tax misses.
Also, "luxury" housing cause what economists called "filtering", in which new construction are occupied by the upper strata of income, which means they pay for the cost. As housing age, this naturally becomes more affordable to the lower strata. This of course, depend on sufficient housing stock. Otherwise the inverse will happen.
Also, you only need to cover the cost of paying the land value tax to keep it, not to generate the maximum amount of revenue for that plot of land.
We are not talking about value extraction here, but making sure that landowners work for their keep, while the unearned income/economic rent that would otherwise goes to them is returned to society, because the value of the land is largely determined by the agglomeration effect, the sum total of the community's effort and entrepreneurial spirit. Otherwise, your private effort as individuals would flow to landowners reaping the benefit of increased land value, hence appreciation in real estate price.
So if a LVT has the explicit goal of eliminating things like parking lots and self storage units because those don't generate enough income to pay for the taxes, then what hope do things like playgrounds and parks have to continue existing.. they generate far less income than a self storage facility.
Explain how.. In a dense urban area, with LVT, that lot that held a park will bring even larger tax revenue when the city sells it off to a developer. Having the tax be based on maximum potential usage will only increase the temptation to sell it off and remove yet another park from the people.
That creates a virtuous cycle for the local government who is administering those taxpayer paid amenities, same as other form of infrastructure and amenities.
People act as if this is due to 'private greed'. It's not. American public pension plans are underfunded and need more returns. Thus they turn to the private markets, who offer them that which they are seeking to purchase. The market is heavily distorted by these public players whose policy and aims are not constrained by the market but by public policy.
Let's ignore property management for now and focus on landlords (i.e. people who own homes and collect rent from the people who live in the homes). That is very much not the same as any other job. Most jobs do not consistent entirely of literally rent-seeking.
People assume that renting out property is rent-seeking literally only because they both have the word rent in them.
I would note that people don't use the word rent-seeker (or parasite) when it comes to banks renting out money. I assume this is partly because banks use the word `loan` and partly because referring to bankers as parasites would be a little too close to dog-whistle antisemitism.
It's not a coincidence that they have the same word in them. It's literally just the same word with the same definition and etymology in both cases. Rent is a payment demanded by property owners from people who want to make productive use of that property.
> Rent-seeking is the act of growing one's existing wealth by manipulating public policy or economic conditions without creating new wealth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking)
This definition doesn't overlap with renting.
Why are you thinking of it as a job? Is putting money into the stock market a job? Owning property to rent out isn't a job, and that's perfectly fine. People make money off non-jobs all the time.
First off you're using "rent seeking" wrong, it's a specific economic term that means something else.
But using your definition....
There's entire industries built around renting capital investments. Sometimes purely, like rental equipment. Sometimes the investmentents are so expensive they come with the labor to operate them (the way many buildings have a building manager and a desk person). Many industrial transactions are structured basically the same way as commercial rent.
It is a specific term, but it means: taking control of a limited resource (e.g. housing), most typically by ownership, that you do not have any direct use for, and then seeking revenue by then renting it to other people who actually want to use it (e.g. live in it).
Which, not suprisingly, is precisely what landlords are doing.
And also not surprisingly, those "entire industries" would be rent-seeking if the resources they rent out were limited. However, that does not apply to rental equipment, for example (though there are a few specific exceptions in the case of extremely expensive, very complex and/or very large equipment).
The bulk of the political will for this garbage doesn't come from landlords. Landlords want more, more, more. There literally aren't enough landlords in this country for that.
It comes from existing homeowners who are not landlords and don't want a bunch of high(er than them) turnover housing near them let alone cheaper housing because of the "neighborhood character" or whatever. Basically got mine fuck you.
And this is enabled with the remainder of the political will being provided by a select number of unconscionably ignorant non property owners who have insane takes about how the government should manage all this, be deeply involved in this, immensely scrutinize any sort of property development, etc, etc, all of which is to the benefit of megacorp landlords and developers and the detriment of the small time guys who own a number of properties you can count on one hand with a sum total of units you can count on two or thereabouts who make up the overwhelming majority of landlords on a unit basis and if even a small percent of them added a little bit of capacity would be a huge amount.
> However, that does not apply to rental equipment, for example (though there are a few specific exceptions in the case of extremely expensive, very complex and/or very large equipment).
They don't rent seek the literal equipment. They rent seek your ability to use it without a bunch of thugs showing up with a "stop or else" proposition. You can literally buy a car crusher on Alibaba but you can't open a junkyard in my state without a permit that they have a well known hospital-esque "we only allow X to exist overall" system for, assuming your town doesn't outlaw the business outright.
Once again, this is all to the benefit of big business for whom a few million bucks of donations to the right stuff and work directed at the right firms as needed to get a variance (i.e. pay the law away) for their billion dollar dildo manufacturing plant or whatever whereas the guy who wants to, IDK, take his HVAC bending business to the next level, open a second site and get into process equipment is shit outta luck because without greasing palms he can't afford to the government will hem and haw about every goddamn detail and prevent anything from happening. And the existing industrial plant that got in before the rules is laughing its way to the bank the whole time, well, right up until it gets regulated all the way to China but that's a different problem.
The government steals half of my money, half of my landlord's money, and I have to pay my landlord’s income and property tax in addition to my own income tax.
This is why I still cannot afford a home even though I work in a senior role in AI. After paying all those damn taxes and everyone else’s taxes there is almost nothing left.
The logical conclusion is that the residents of these desirable areas like the bay / San Diego / Seattle / DC actually want housing prices to stay high.
Repealing all the bullcrap from the last 50yr that makes that artificially expensive to the point of being a non starter if not outright illegal is the hard part.
Also doesn’t help there’s a lot of red tape as the other commenter mentioned.
I live in a former socialist country (well, part of a country, the country does not exist anymore), and when we needed more housing, we designated the land in the city to be for housing, ie. large socialist buildings. Then 1990s came, no more socialism, capitalism now, and no more large building projects, no new neighborhoods. So now, we have cows and cornfields in what would be prime realestate because the government won't change the zoning, all three neighbors there complain and apartments that used to be 120k eur maybe 20 years ago are now close to 500k eur.
If you want to live next to cows, move to a village, thousands want apartment buildings there, to live in a city.
Landlords owning property is not a problem. Some people prefer to rent - they may be students, or they may not anticipate being somewhere for long, they might not want the risk of owning a home, lots of valid reasons. Having housing available for these people is good and landlords are a necessary and valid part of this market.
The problem is when people who want to own houses can't afford them, even when they contribute meaningfully to society. The root cause of this is not landlords existing. It is wealth inequality. A vanishingly tiny number of people own almost all the wealth in the system, to a point that the additional wealth gives them no real benefit, but serves only to remove that wealth from the vast majority of otherwise middle class people.
If you want to fix this problem return the top tax tiers to what they were 50, 75, 100 years ago and the problem will be severely reduced. It's not sufficient to solve it, but its low hanging fruit.
Correct.
It is wealth inequality. A vanishingly tiny number of people own almost all the wealth in the system
To the extent that this is true, it's not why housing is unaffordable. Even if Larry Ellison buys a dozen mansions and keeps them empty most of the time, that's not going to noticeably affect the market for normal people. Houses are expensive because they're scarce; you're far more likely to be outbid by the guy who makes $10k more than you than by an evil billionaire.
I'm not sure this is true. Based on a couple articles I found, this is what the current situation looks like in USA:
a) Billionaires, (of whom there are about 1,000) own about 5% of the wealth
b) Millionaires, (of whom there are about 25 million, or 7% of the population, excluding billionaires) own about 74% of the wealth
This tracks with my impression of the rental market. Most rent money isn't going to the billionaires or big corporations, it's going to the 10 million or so mom-and-pop rental property owners.
I'm not an expert on this stuff by any means, but my intuition is that it's a cycle, wherein the rental system is one of the largest drivers of wealth inequality in the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Unite... https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-concentrat...
Nothing like middle school economics to help a debate along ... have you checked on the level of economic activity that is due to those 30M foreign nationals, and considered if there might be any downsides to them no longer being here (and presumably not being replaced by other foreign nationals) ?
Price controls and limits like this rarely work out in history.
Around here, many landlords renovate or build new high density construction. Put a cap on how many properties they can own and they'll switch from building/renting as many units as possible to maximizing the rent on the limited number of properties they can own.
Restricting the market in one dimension rarely has the desire effect.
Many people wish to rent, not buy. If we make it so each landlord can own fewer homes, but renting demand stays similar we just incentivise more people becoming landlords
India still has this in some states [1]. You wind up with everyone in the family owning a house. After that, other people own it and pass on most of the rent.
Better: progressive capital-gains taxes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Land_(Ceiling_and_Regula...
Here in Norway the solution, as with so many other things, is taxing. Your home is evaluated at some "market rate", but if it's your primary residence the effective tax value is just 25% up to $1 million (70% on value above $1 million). For reference, a typical 3-room apartment in Oslo, the capital, is around $400-500k.
However, if it's not your primary residence, then you pay tax on 100% of the "market rate". The tax rate is 1%, so not insignificant.
Until a few years ago, tax on non-primary residences was much lower, and hence we had a lot more people buying to rent if they inherited money or similar. Some even had a dozen or more properties. These have now exited, so policy is working as intended.
One thing of course politicians for some reason didn't think of is that if most of the landlords suddenly sell, rental market will shrink. So now it's super-expensive to rent, and those who rent usually do so because they can't buy for one reason or another (no stable income to support a loan for example).
And as if it was ordered, a news story[1] on exactly that this morning. Last year alone the average price for a rental unit went up 6.3%, and simultaneously a record number of apartments were sold. So very unlikely to come down.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/norge/leieprissjokk_-nesten-20.000-kroner...
You've also encouraged your middle class to massively over-leverage themselves to a single house/apartment by creating a huge tax subsidy for them (from 30-75%), which will no doubt continue placing upward pressure on house prices and also create risks if interest rates increase. Why would you not take the biggest loan the bank will offer, given interest rates are quite low in Europe and you will not be taxed on most of the value of that property you can acquire with leverage?
Crazy thought, did your politicians ever think about the idea of NOT subsidizing the demand side at all? If the issue is the price of housing, subsidizing demand for it in any way is going to make that problem worse!
Real estate works for this because you can really put in as much as you want into it.
Other business activities do not work because the entrance cost for non-rent-seeking business is extremely high and the risk is way too high compared to real estate. This is due to American regulation and labor laws.
This is a 'first-world problem', but now that I have capital, the question is 'what to do with it'?. Yeah, you could throw it in the stock market, but that's also rent-seeking in a sense because you're not really able to invest in primary rounds (I mean you can, but it's hard to find deals), so basically you're just providing liquidity to people, which is rent-seeking of a different kind.
So then the question becomes what else to do with it? I've given a ton away, but that's useless for the most part since it barely creates any economic value.
In my ideal world, I'd start a factory and hire a manager, but the capital cost of that is high, not because of the material or the rental cost, but because of the labor cost. So then, what's the option? I could easily outsource it all to China or India, but that's completely useless for the United States.
Then the question becomes, why start your own, when you could invest in others. Great! I would love to do that. It would be even better if I could simply invest in a local enterprise... Except, that's not easy either. Regulation over investments means that even investing in this is fraught with difficulty unless you want to establish some sort of 'fund'.
So basically, there's nothing to do with the money, which is sad, since I end up giving most of the money I make away anyway, and would prefer to have more of it to give away.
Until America figures out what it wants to be, it's going to be real estate for me... consistent incomes, fairly uncorrelated with equities (which I have a lot of too), etc. There's really not many other options here. There's barely any 'productive' activities taking place in the United States.
Things like the largest pension fund in Sweden is invested in buying SFR. Or the sovereign fund of the UAE.
I’m not sure if that changed your opinion on this not having practical benefit for the average American.
Why is this a problem? Build more homes, get rich from the Swedes!
The things that they do have massively outsized downstream impact contrasted against their relatively tiny overall participation in the market, and they can afford to behave in ways that manipulate the behavior of the majority.
If you can decouple them from the housing markets, you also decouple the interests of the donor class, and you allow for policy that doesn't maximize the cost of real estate over the interests of the majority of the population.
Raising prices when you only have a tiny portion of the market does not work. People won't buy them when there's another house for less.
Normal landlords don't have effectively infinite money with no forces bearing prices down, nor do they have the capabilities to influence markets. Even tiny percentage shifts can result in significant fluctuations in the prices consumers see. It's a very nuanced and complex system in which these institutional investors have very outsized influence.
Prices are high because we don't build enough houses which is mostly because it's really expensive to build houses, then the houses we have built are all owned by empty nesters and people with 1 - 3 investment properties.
Everything else you're describing is completely ridiculous.
Assuming you're referring to the typical high CoL areas, the shortage has very little to do with the expense of building. The zoning laws don't permit sufficient supply in those areas. And that's quite unlikely to change (at least quickly) because anyone pushing such reform would be obliterating the average Joe's net worth.
Agreed. They will generally build as tall and as dense as they are permitted to because (within reason) it reduces unit cost. Obviously there are limits to that. No one wants to build a high rise in the middle of nowhere.
But within high CoL areas they are generally severely limited on both of those aspects. That's due to zoning laws.
Of course that's not the whole story. Infrastructure has to be upgraded to keep pace with growth. But that's on the local government to plan and execute properly. Right now they largely just say "no".
Right, and that bureaucratic red tape is one of the things that makes the cost of building higher. If the builder expects they won't be able to break ground for two or three years because dealing with the planning commission takes forever, or because they'll have to deal with environmental lawsuits before they can build, then they will need to target higher-end buyers (by building a higher-end property) in order to make a profit. And if they can't do that... right, they simply won't.
Cost of living is high because local incomes are high which increases the price of land and labor which increases the price of building.
Restrictive zoning is bad for lots of reasons, but solving it does not solve affordability.
https://bendbulletin.com/2025/12/13/middle-housing-slowly-de...
Or this:
https://bendyimby.com/2025/06/12/detached-townhomes-come-to-...
And it continues:
https://www.sightline.org/2025/06/04/oregons-zoning-reforms-...
It generally does not drop values, just allows for cheaper options.
That can only be true if you suppose that the current values aren't driven by supply and demand. How do you propose to explain that?
> anyone pushing such reform would be obliterating the average Joe's net worth.
The "crisis" is specifically the high cost of housing. So if whatever you do doesn't lower the price then by definition you've failed to solve the problem.
It's certainly a dichotomy but I don't see how it's false?
> We can easily build twice as much in high cost areas (with the strongest job markets) with little impact on existing home owners.
It's certainly possible to encounter nonlinear behavior. If some aspect has saturated then we might build quite a bit without seeing any substantial price movement. But eventually prices would start to decline.
I'm not sure if "obliterated" is the right word to use, but if making housing affordable means a 20% drop in home prices (which is perhaps not even enough in some places), average Joe existing homeowner is going to run into financial trouble once that happens.
> We can easily build twice as much in high cost areas (with the strongest job markets) with little impact on existing home owners.
If that's the case, then all that new housing will also cost more or less exactly the same as the existing housing stock costs, and the problem will not have been solved yet.
Many people have been sold on the former and will (fairly understandably) act to protect the value of their single largest purchase which often has a large mortgage attached to it.
Sure, if they need to move and sell, the price difference might be less favorable to them, but having to weigh cost vs benefit of moving is a fact of life one way or another.
It's a strange expectation to have that home values should act as an investment that can only ever go up.
Letting that expectation influence policy on making space for living available is one of the root causes of this crisis.
These processes are intentionally labyrinthine
Only in a purely illusory sense. Suppose you have all your net worth tied up in a house. If your house magically vanished, you'd have nothing but your job.
The price of houses falls to $500 and you potentially go bankrupt. Then, you buy a house for $500.
You, personally, are now better off than you were before. Some examples:
---
1. You have $200,000 of equity in a $700,000 house. After the price drop, your net worth in dollars has improved by $300,000. Your net worth in "stuff" has risen dramatically; you kept your job, and now you have 100% of a house instead of having 30% of a house.
2. You have $700,000 of equity in a $700,000 house. After the price drop, your net worth in dollars is down by $699,500. Your net worth in stuff is unchanged. Assuming you always need to live in a house, this will never have any negative impact on you. You retain the option to live in the house you have (which leaves your life unchanged), and you also retain the option to sell your house and use the proceeds to buy another house (and this option looks a lot better than it used to; given the crash in prices, you can probably afford a much nicer house).
3. You have $200,000 of equity in a $700,000 house. You also have $15,000 of "equity" (resale value) in a car that you owe no money on and bought for $50,000. After the price crash, you lose your house and your car, and then you buy another house for $500.
Replacing your car will cost you $50,000. You are in a similar position to the guy in example (1), but $50,000 poorer. So now we ask: was it better to be $500,000 in the hole on your house before, or to be $50,000 in the hole on your car now?
---
There isn't a way for the average Joe not to come out ahead. There is a way for someone else to lose out on the price crash: if you had more than one house before, you lost everything on the houses you weren't living in. But that's got nothing to do with the average Joe.
In the past tense it should be easy to do. Since he is better off, and he has a good view of how he's doing personally, you don't really need to do much. The difficulty is in convincing him that it will be good for him, not that it was good for him.
Compare congestion pricing in NYC, or self-service gas in Oregon.
Also in the case of mass bankruptcy and mortgage failure of the lower middle class I guess there would be risk of bank failure as in 08? That said, I still think the hypothetical illustrates the overall situation quite well.
How?
A drop in the price of houses means it becomes more difficult to exchange houses for non-houses.
If you borrow against your house to obtain something else, and then the price of houses falls, you successfully timed the market. That's all upside for you.
What do you think is the difference between example 3, the guy with a $500,000 mortgage on a $700,000 house, plus a $50,000 car, and example 3', the guy with a $450,000 mortgage and a $50,000 car loan on his house, plus a $50,000 car?
Say I inherit a $700,000 house and, being the kind of guy I am, immediately mortgage it for $500,000. But I stop renting and move in to my new house. Also, I hire a bunch of call girls to live with me in my house. One year later, the price of my house drops to $100,000, and I turn it over to the bank.
I started (the crash) with a $500,000 loan and no way to pay it back other than selling my house. At this point, the faster I realize what's happened and sell my house, the more money I'll be left with. (If I sell immediately, I'll get $200,000!) The longer I postpone selling, the worse off I'll become. (Though since I can live in the house, this trades off against what I would spend on rent.)
I've also spent $500,000 on entertainment and one year's rent. Mostly entertainment. Is this a harm that was dealt to me by the fall in the price of my house?
When the price falls, this forces me to sell the house, locking in a profit of... $500,000. (Which I've already spent.) It could have been $700,000, in theory. This $200k difference in profit vs potential profit can be seen as an effect of the price crash. But that's pretty good for an event that notionally took $600,000 out of the value of my house. Borrowing against the house helped me.
If you want to talk about a negative effect on someone, walk me through the accounting.
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
| event | my equity | my cash | my debt | bank equity | bank cash | bank held debt | hookers |
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
| baseline | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
| inherit | 700k | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
| mortgage | 700k | 500k | -500k | 0 | -500k | 500k | 0 |
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
| party | 700k | 0 | -500k | 0 | -500k | 500k | 500k |
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
| price crash | 100k | 0 | -500k | 0 | -500k | 500k | 500k |
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
| bankruptcy | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100k | -500k | 0 | 500k |
+-------------+-----------+---------+---------+-------------+-----------+----------------+---------+
Before the price crash, I had "200k equity"† in that very house, leaving me $500,000 short of a house.
After the price crash, I was deeply underwater on the house. Without bankruptcy, I was still $500,000 short of my house, but only $100,000 short of some other house.
And then, after the bankruptcy, I was $100,000 short of a house.
1. What is the harm that I suffered from the price crash?
2. If the "hookers" column had some other label, would that change the harm that I suffered from the price crash?
† You might note that this is accounted as 700k equity in the table. The table is correct, but that's not how we talk about it. There is probably an error in my earlier comment related to this.
Well I suppose that guy might come out unscathed since many US states protect your primary vehicle in a bankruptcy. But to an approximation declaring bankruptcy involves losing all of your remaining assets. So in that scenario the borrower is on the hook for the cost of replacing those assets (limited by how far underwater they were on the mortgage naturally).
Your other example involved blowing the borrowed money on entertainment in which case I agree that you come out ahead. But that is precisely why I used the term "assets" in GP.
Also I don't think everyone just gets let off scot free after a bankruptcy? Don't you sometimes get stuck with some amount of repayment depending on the nature and volume of your income?
My question about bank failure also still stands. While the impacts of this hypothetical on personal finances are certainly interesting to consider, I'm thinking we really don't want to do the whole widespread mortgage default thing again.
I get why people like telling stories like this: it suggests there's a single boogeyman that can be dispelled to solve the affordability problem without painstakingly goring people's oxes state-by-state and municipality-by-municipality. But it's a fantasy.
If you can tell this story in simple step-by-step form, you will. I think you could tell a story about how a large corporate buyer clears out all the marginal buyers for some thin market like an individual subdivision or tranche of new construction housing in the Sun Belt. But I don't think you can tell a realistic story for them being "a huge driving force in setting and manipulating prices" across the whole market. I look forward to seeing your attempt, though.
They behave accordingly. The do things that they can, and because those things are relatively new, it's a type of information asymmetry and policy / good intentions / competence arbitrage that we haven't had to cope with before.
You might end up banning certain types of institutional participation in the housing market, because there's no way to protect against the negative consequences that doesn't have even worse consequences for either the participants or the population at large.
It'll probably have to be arbitrary, and the cost will be a bunch of firms no longer get the opportunity to make a bunch of money by leveraging their resources in that way.
And we see the influence and impact constantly, with outlandish asking prices being immediately met by institutions that have decided they want a particular property in a particular region. Or house prices being set to an outlandish level with no reduction in price over months and months on the market, because they can afford to sit and wait for the market to change. And if they can afford to do that, then all of a sudden they've got an incentive to drive prices up in that region, because local and state governments, banks, and realtors tend to use the same basic rubric to evaluate price. If a lower valued area sees home prices go up, properties in the higher valued area will be raised accordingly. There's no secret quant voodoo, it's just using a level of liquidity and staying power not accessible to non-institutional homeowners.
Supply and demand normally influence pricing feedback at much more granular levels which benefits individuals, and our policy and regulation and evaluation models are largely built around those assumptions. Without the negative feedback driving prices down, bad things happen for consumers, good things happen for those who already have lots of money and property.
Because if I saw a house 15% below market where I live, I would buy it (to live in). I don’t imagine I’m the only one. Institutional investors can’t stop me from doing that if it’s offered - can they stop the seller from offering that?
There's not enough houses on the market (zoning, and people want to keep their low-rate mortgages), there's people worried they can't afford houses (prices inflated faster than wages, rates went up), and a large amount of housing transactions (someone quoted 29% of starter homes) are being paid for by institutional investors (who can pay cash).
Wouldn't these institutional investors buying houses be "marginal consumers", kind of like the marginal producers who set the price of inelastic commodities such as oil? Seems like 29% of transactions is even more than marginal.
I assume that sellers would need to come down in price to what non-institutional buyers could afford if institutional buyers were removed from the equation.
As an aside, I'd rather see supply increased, but maybe demographics over the next decade or two will fix that problem anyways.
To be clear, I don’t think institutional real state investment is a substantial part of the reason housing prices are so high. I’m just trying to push whatever argument they were thinking of toward something quantifiable.
The main contributor to the price here is financialization. The more money the average buyer can raise for one of the scarce things, the more they cost. Nobody wins from this except the banks, so perhaps it should be more regulated.
Building regulations are also a problem. Legalize whatever you feel is the minimum safety standard of homeless encampment or slum, and watch house prices crash overnight, since prices are set at the margins and a lot of people (including me) would be happy to find a way to work with simple concrete box if it was cheap and secure, but it's not legal to build those.
Yes, you still need to solve the problem with 'money', or more accurately a tax. That tax is based on the assessed land value using market knowledge, but it would ideally be set to drive down the price of land to zero. However since we don't live in a world of spherical cow, tax would be set below that ideal to avoid land abandonment.
This is not even new by the way. The crisis we face is the same as in the 19th century when Land Value Tax and Georgism was proposed.
The Netherlands and Tokyo beg to differ.
I can buy a house tomorrow and hold it vacant off the market at a listing price 3x its value. I will have zero impact on the housing market. You may be conflating the listing price of an asset with the clearing price of that same asset. You can, obviously, build up inventory to manipulate prices. To do that, you have to be able to generate scarcity, which is exactly what corporate investors aren't doing.
You've just given me 6 more paragraphs about the control you think they have, and you still haven't told a simple 1-2-3 story about how they're using a microscopic footprint in the total housing market to distort prices.
You have to do better than "supply and demand normally influence pricing feedback at much more granular levels". In the context of your original claim, of them being "a huge driving force in setting and manipulating prices", you need to explain how that would actually work, and not rely on handwaving.
> To do that, you have to be able to generate scarcity, which is exactly what corporate investors aren't doing.
But they did. When inventory was low and then zero percent rates where available, they bought everything they could and drove prices up and created an appreciation bubble. I don’t think they have some other dark patterns for manipulating the market but they had access to a lot of basically free cash. Inventory of houses for sale is a tiny portion of the total market and they could and did contribute to driving prices up. But so did everyone that had the opportunity and inclination to do so, and why not when money is free leverage the shit out of it in an asset class that will generally appreciate without much risk.
I don’t know what ever came of that now that rates have increased. Are they still holding those homes? Did they sell them after driving prices up? (But not fast enough to make prices go down again obviously). Are they landlords now? Etc.
The market is still reeling from that economic situation that created this. Prices may eventually float down but no seller is eager for that so it’s a bit sticky.
My claim would be that in any any of the top 10 markets by transaction volume (just to pick a handy metric out of the sky; you could choose others), corporate investors are literally a nonfactor.
They can also target just specific areas of specific major metros and there are ripples throughout the entire market.
The housing “market” does work the same as the stock or commodity markets. People aren’t buying an intangible share. They’re buying this specific and unique house and if they’re told “we just got a cash offer for $50k over ask”, they may be tempted to beat it. That doesn’t happen when people buy AAPL. The shares are fungible.
There’s only empirical evidence of their buying activity. We’ll never know how many deals they bid the price up on but didn’t buy. This auction like quality is evident in any market like this; watch Storage Wars and one disinterested buyer will bid up the price just to fuck with his competing bidders.
Where did this occur? Is this substantiated?
Googles AI overview of my search for “ covid era corporate home purchases”, also plenty of substantiating references in those search results;
> Corporate home purchases surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by factors like low mortgage rates and increased demand for single-family homes. While this trend has plateaued since the peak, investor activity remains above pre-pandemic levels and has sparked significant public debate and legislative action.
A tidbit from an article indicates they doubled their prior investment activity. Probably more than double because investors bought homes increased and their share of that metric doubled.
> Prior to the pandemic, mega investors averaged about 7% of overall investor purchases and their share increased to 14% during the pandemic — it has now slowed
It's just land ownership isn't being taxed properly, no matter who owns the land. We homeowners get a free lunch from economic growth and price appreciation of real estate while penalizing capital investment.
The solution is simple if not necessarily easy to implement. Tax land and at a high enough rate, and exclude building and improvements. We'll reap bigger benefits if we reduce taxes on income and capital and eventually phase it out.
Some people do that, but they aren't good businessmen. Vacant houses lose money at a prodigious rate.
Many vacant homes in the SF bay have been that way for years and have appreciated tremendously.
Mant would perfectly prefer buying poorly maintained boomer stock, holding for roughly forever (in ideal markets, like the distorted California/Prop13) and leveraging it like a brick of gold. Actually having someone live in it doesn’t outweigh the risk of managing pesky tenants esp. when the houses are appreciating 500k over 5 years.
Institutional investors own ~3% of single-family rentals nationally. But per CoreLogic they're 29% of purchases in the starter home tier. That's the market where we first-time buyers actually compete.
In some metros it's more concentrated.
Atlanta: ~30% of single-family rentals corporate-owned.
Charlotte neighborhoods in 2022: 50%!!! of sales to institutional buyers.
So for your 1-2-3... maybe something like?
1. Institutional buyers concentrate in starter homes where they're 29% of transactions, not 3% of stock
2. Target metros/neighborhoods go higher still
3. Real estate uses comps-based pricing - their winning bids propagate to surrounding valuations
The mechanism isn't inventory control, it's just a buyer with a different utility function (rental yield vs owner-occupancy) systematically outbidding price-sensitive first-time buyers. In a thick market that gets arbitraged away. In a thin market with sparse comps, each transaction is a price-setting event.
The St. Louis Fed found institutional presence specifically increases price-to-income ratios in the bottom tier.
If you're evil corporate Landlordman You don't need to affect the whole market. You just need to cut off the bottom rung of the ladder.
Is this Trump move the right one? No frickin idea! But I do think we need to reckon with what's actually happening to first-time homebuyers. I bought a place in Englewood Co last year and ... it was pretty rough.
* They impact listing prices but not necessarily clearing prices.
* They assume all the sellers, who are not corporate investors, can mechanically anchor off those inflated comps, without factoring in buyer budgets and carrying costs.
Real estate is slower than most financial products, but it's still an actual market. You can't just buy a tiny fraction of the inventory at an inflated price and assume the whole rest of the market will follow you.
The timing and pricing of investor selling is different to residents selling.
Residents sell (mostly) for reasons other than profit. They might be moving up, or moving away, or whatever. There's some pressure to "get it done" so they can move on. They can't really afford to "time" the market.
For investors there's much more "buy in the down, sell in the up". Except that it's been going up for a while, so there's no motivation to sell at all. It would be uncommon for them to accept a loss. Even unoccupied it's (mostly) better to hold rather than sell at a loss.
As mentioned elsewhere, overall market penetration by investors differs wildly by market, and segment. So 3% overall might sound low, but 20% of a dwelling type in a specific market is plenty to alter market forces.
I say this as someone who has owned property as an individual, and also worked in a business that invested in property.
I'm not saying comps magically anchor prices. I'm saying institutional buyers ARE the clearing prices, because they are anchored to "how much can I rent this out for" whereas first-time homebuyers are anchored to "how much can my mortgage cover?" which are different questions.
29% of transactions, not 3% of stock.
Those become the comps. There's less of a gap for "but buyers won't pay that" because the institutions *are the buyers. The call is coming from inside the housing market.
Now this only really works in constrained markets, but intrinsically there's always a time constraints in buying (our lifetime of course, but also life events and lease renewals and er ). There's of course also selection constraints because of the aforementioned time constraints, and location, and whether new construction in happening within those.
Saying "they impact listing prices but not necessarily clearing prices." might be logically consistent, but is disconnected from the reality of the housing market.
If you're big enough, you can cause prices to ripple, get others to lose rationality and buy in on the ascent as you cash out and leave everyone else holding the bag for the crash.
It depends on the swing of the market if it's a buyers or sellers market.
In the past there was far more spread in housing prices. These days real estate agents tend to follow a few market making sources for setting those prices, along with personal home sellers looking at 'internet prices'.
>inventory at an inflated price and assume the whole rest of the market will follow you.
When you target particular areas you absolutely can.
The average 21+ US resident may own 2+ properties but I'd be surprised if the median equivalent owns 1. It kinda hides the equivalent of the top x% of individuals owns y% of the stock market where y is unreasonably disproportionate to most.
Not true. That 29% is “investors”. Only one fifth of those transactions are from “institutional investors”. It’s mostly evil non-institutional investors, who also own ~97% of single-family rentals.
No homes for sale. Rent only.
Stuff like that is becoming a big problem.
This is a recurring theme k see among both right wing and left wing people when it comes to looking at single family homes.
How does it matter whether "a lot of people don't consider" something if there are no laws or enforcement actions that make their opinions actually effective in the world?
How do you come to that conclusion? The people who show up to local planning meetings are clearly very effective at enacting their opinions in the world, and local planning is the place where a tiny number, perhaps 3-5 people, can drastically change the results for an entire area.
1) Local planning decisions are not made on the basis of democratic votes, they are political decisions made by a tiny number of people that are highly susceptible to influence. In particular, money and local political power has a huge effect on who gets elected, who is paying attention to what happens, and who benefits. There's very little attention paid to these matters except those with highly conflicted interests, which means that highly conflicted decisions are the most common outcome. Which leads to suboptimal results over longer periods of time, as happens in any system that appears to be democratic but is actually corrupt.
2) Even in democracy, one bloc deciding that another bloc's interests can be ignored and don't matter to the functioning of government is an extremely toxic environment which results in awful outcomes. I view any system where there are second-class citizens as a fundamentally un-American idea and counter to the goals of our nation. Those who wish to exclude an entire economic class from their community are trying to create precisely that sort of second-class citizen.
But either way this has nothing at all to do with housing affordability.
When we constantly read stories about people not being able to afford homes today, it’s all driven by pure supply and demand. When a firehose of money gets aimed at any aspect of the economy everything gets more expensive.
This is from institutional investors. Sometimes it’s government when we are talking about the price of education or healthcare for example.
It also lowers the demand (it increases the supply of an alternative).
Instead, now they’ve created a slight reduction in demand for houses to buy by offering a housing alternative that didn’t exist before.
Sure, you can absolutely make the argument that for some specific region there are too many rental properties and not enough owner-occupied properties, by looking at the supply, demand, and pricing for each type in that region.
But you absolutely can't say that as a general statement. There is demand for both sorts of housing.
this is an impossible burden of proof. requiring a perfectly schematic, end-to-end causal story before acknowledging harm is a convenient way to dismiss any structural concern.
pointing out that housing markets are complex doesn’t invalidate localized, repeatable effects or concentrated power. that just raises the bar of explanation until lived outcomes are dismissed as “just-so stories”, which matches the tone of your condescension.
There is no narrative coherence to be found demanding the living honor social debts, contracts of history; yes children believe these successes you never witnessed happened! That surely cannot be used for ill gains.
This smells more like self selection bias. You have been successful and thus prefer care be taken tidying up systemic issues created by our ledger.
Am a Thomas Jefferson fan when it comes to generational churn; the only constant political rule should be to rewrite things every couple decades or the living end up ruled by fiat decree of the dead.
There's no reason to believe that someone owning a tiny portion of the houses is setting the market price.
> they are huge institutions with tons of money, and thus can hold houses longer, buy houses are higher prices, influence related markets, etc.
No huge institution is willing to lose enormous sums of money waiting for vacant overpriced houses to sell.
I've lived in many houses. One was in a development, and I wanted to sell it. There were several houses in it that were vacant and for sale with no offers in the previous year. I sold mine in 3 weeks. It was simple - I priced it properly, and I didn't have to pay another year of taxes, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and worry, only to have to lower the price anyway to get rid of it. A couple of the other homeowners were angry with me about that, but that was their problem.
Also these institutions would be buying houses in high demand areas.
I think you just explained partly the reason behind why a small number of owners can drive the prices up. But these are usually private owners. Whenever I see bank sales, they're more like flash sale and done.
Those who can afford to sit on the property trying to obtain a higher price will do it. Other owners will look at that and try to keep the price high with the illusory hope that they can also make that much money. Individual owners can suffer from FOMO and are influenced by success stories, so ask a high price hoping to capture as much of the value as possible.
I saw it in action when I bought my house. The seller saw his neighbor selling the house a year earlier for [princely sum] so he jumped to put his house on the market for [princely sum +20%]. The whole neighborhood was following the same playbook, looking at who sold and raising the bar. After a year with that house on the market I became interested and in a 6 month process I ended up buying the house for [princely sum -20%].
None of the neighbors know how much he got, only know how much he asked. A similar house 50m away is still up for sale for even higher price than than the listed price for mine. They can afford to sit on it for a while because the extra money they hope for covers the taxes and upkeep tenfold or more.
At least where I live, real estate sales are public and you can easily find the sale price at the county assessor's website.
Topics like this are hard on HN because a lot of commenters hold a deep, passionate hatred of something: Wall Street, Big Tech, OSes they don't use, even the concept of private automobile ownership. Once they descend upon a thread they're not interested in facts, they just want to tell stories that support their villain narratives. When it starts to get illogical they don't want to back down because doing so feels like an attack on their deep-seated beliefs.
There are some completely illogical economic theories being pushed all through this comment section. It's kind of fascinating to see how bad some of them are. Someone tried to argue with me that cars could be produced for a couple thousand dollars if not for all the regulatory overhead we impose on them in the US. It's almost hard to fathom how someone could believe that without stopping for a moment to wonder why no other country is building these $2000 full featured automobiles without these supposed regulations that increase the price by an order of magnitude.
I agree with your broader point though.
The real price in 2017 was $3400, which is $4500 in today's dollars.
The safety ratings and crash test results were also dire.
We don't need to explain how they do it. We KNOW private equity is expecting to make profit from their investment in residential real estate. That profit ultimately comes from people in houses, making them less affordable.
We most certainly do. PE owns pools of rental housing; this is a fundamentally different model from speculation. While both impact the selling price they do it in completely different ways, and if institutional investors own a tiny fraction of the total stock, they're not having a huge impact on the supply side which would potentially drive up prices.
You're supposed "logic" seems comparable to magic.
Housing affordability is inherently unpopular with voters.
> If they intend to purchase properties, it benefits them to depress pricing in the area
Yeah, that’s true of everyone but how would a bank/individual do that? By selling… But if they sell while they’re depressing prices, they lose money!
> Normal landlords don't have effectively infinite money with no forces bearing prices down
Neither do banks. They have quarterly earnings, tax bills, they need to buy more stock, cost of capital etc etc.
> It's a very nuanced and complex system in which these institutional investors have very outsized influence.
Just saying ‘it’s complex’ is trivially true. But, supply and demand isn’t some small factor in that calculation - it’s an iron law that exerts itself at all times.
If a bank wants to ‘manipulate prices’ then, without a monopoly, the only way to do that is to dump or buy. But if you buy up homes to ‘push up prices’ … then you end up with a bunch of homes which you paid more than their current value. Not a great business.
The person who has the real unfair advantage in the US happens to also be the most sympathetic person - the owner occupier.
Earlier you were arguing that investors were acting as marketmakers and now you say this. Marketmakers make their profit from the difference between buying and selling some asset. They don't want to hold prices, they want turnover. If investors really are acting as marketmakers it's actually a good thing because marketmakers have the effect of adding liquidity to a market.
You just haven't presented any evidence or even a hypothetical where this does or could happen.
There are many houses in the US. Not all of them are for sale. There's a difference between having a "tiny portion of the market" when you define "the market" as all houses in the US, and "tiny portion of the market" when you define "the market" as the houses that are actively being bought and sold. I would not be surprised if corporate involvement was a significantly higher proportion of the latter rather than the former.
It takes a lot less to put your thumb on the scale of the "liquid" portion of a stock if it is significantly smaller in size than the total stock.
In this way houses are virtually unique in terms of financial vehicles and it introduces all manner of complexity and otherwise strange forces into the market. You can't simply treat it like any other commodified asset.
In some dense urban areas, up to 10% of the local residential properties are owned by funds or investors. There's also overlap with investment networks where you're not getting to BlackRock levels, but you'll have a web of companies with mutual interests and a network of private debt and collateral, and these make up around 20% of the whole. For the most part, though, the majority of single family homes are not institutional. Even multi-family units, apartment complexes, and other rental properties are only in the ~10% range of institutional ownership, with the remainder owned by individuals, mom&pops, and small investment networks.
The conjunction of capabilities and incentives in combination with a huge buffer of wealth allows institutional investors to manipulate things in ways that aren't healthy for private home ownership, and the downstream social and economic impacts of being forced to rent, or hold debt that's not properly reflective of the value of the property.
We should impose reasonable policies that serve the interests of the people, and not simply maximize wealth building at the expense of citizens and families that would benefit from home ownership.
Dropping the price of a house by a few percentage points can be the make-or-break for some families. And small changes in availability can have large impacts on price.
If we banned (or severely penalized) all entities from owning more than 5 residential homes, this would probably reduce cost by a few percentage points across the board. That's thousands of dollars.
Personally, I think unoccupied homes in general ought to be penalized (beyond just tax burden, an actual vacancy tax).
> home improvements, which means remodeling your home or doing other perhaps large pieces of upkeep will not trigger a property tax increase as it does today
What WILL change your property tax is an addition or similar that makes your house go from X (same as everyone around you) to 1.2X or similar, then you'll proportionally pay more tax.
(It varies by district, but most USA property taxes are calculated by figuring out the budget for the city/county/school district, and dividing it proportionally amongst the valuations of properties/houses. This is often displayed as a percentage of the value, but it is not a percentage TAX - as if everyone's property doubles overnight but the budget remains the same, the property tax dollar amounts would remain the same while the percentage reported goes down.)
But if the improvements on your house makes the neighborhood more desirable and your neighbor's house sell for a higher price then your locality expects, then your house will be assessed at a higher value the next time the locality does their assessments, which means higher taxes.
Of course, improvements to your home that increase a sale value will affect the taxes, but the buyer has to deal with that.
Do some localities assess homes individually every so often? I wonder...
A roof replacement isn’t really an improvement so much as expensive maintenance.
As is done in the UK
https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-proper...
If you buy 60% of the properties on market, the rest will see this and adjust their own prices. Usually this only works when the macro is favourable (low interest rates, easy mortgage applications, etc.), but it is definitely a large factor. It sometimes creates a even hotter market, with people thinking that real estate goes up forever, then they sell.
You're right that it's not always large investment groups. Vancouver in Canada had the same thing happen, but mostly from foreign investors and criminals washing money. The latter was facilitated by politicians who cashed in big on this.
They're going to skyrocket in a seemingly irrational way. But it's completely rational. The reason is that they're a finite resource that is needed, and so there is very minimal price elasticity. People will pay as low as they can, but simultaneously must have oil and so have a practically uncapped price ceiling if that's all that's available. The same is true of housing.
You're right that people won't, generally speaking, buy a house for $100 when there's another one for sale for $80. But what you've done there is greatly increase the demand for that $80 house, which is now going to naturally send its price upwards.
---
Finally there's the issue that figures on the percent of homes that are owned by investment groups are misleading, because they aren't just buying homes randomly. They're going to pick up lots of houses in precise areas, and so the impact on prohibiting this behavior will be dramatic in these areas.
https://papersourceonline.com/wall-street-has-spent-billions...
https://www.kut.org/texasstandard/2022-06-14/texas-home-sale...
As others have pointed out housing markets are illiquid and tend to have a limited set of sellers at any given time such that the race-to-the-bottom doesn’t happen very often.
Rather, an institutional investor buys high on houses in desired neighborhoods then charge high rents on their portfolio. Subsequent sellers in the same neighborhood see the high closing price and ask for even more.
Does no one remember “drive til you qualify”?
If you doubt they will lobby to increase their profit, try proposing anything that has a 0.1% risk of their property value going down and see how they react.
Spoken like someone has no clue what they are talking about and just throwing out jargon
How do you think homeowners would feel about a policy that doesn't maximize the value of their homes. That's just another way to phrase "maximizing the cost of real estate"?
A rebuttal to that article from Derek Thompson: https://www.derekthompson.org/p/the-anti-abundance-critique-...
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/corporations-arent-the-reason-...
Quoting Thompson:
"The U.S. has roughly 140 million housing units, a broad category that includes mansions, tiny townhouses, and apartments of all sizes. Of those 140 million units, about 80 million are stand-alone single-family homes. Of those 80 million, about 15 million are rental properties. Of those 15 million single-family rentals, institutional investors own about 300,000; most of the rest are owned by individual landlords. Of that 300,000, the real-estate rental company Invitation Homes—in which BlackRock is an investor—owns about 80,000. (To clear up a common confusion: The investment firm Blackstone, not BlackRock, established Invitation Homes. Don’t yell at me; I didn’t name them.)
Megacorps such as BlackRock, then, are not removing a large share of the market from individual ownership. Rental-home companies own less than half of one percent of all housing, even in states such as Texas, where they were actively buying up foreclosed properties after the Great Recession. Their recent buying has been small compared with the overall market."
The gobbledygook you posted, “ properties get leveraged, instrumentalized, and securitized, with derivative products, speculation, and all sorts of incentives that you don't normally want operating in the arena of housing”, is just that, gobbledygook.
Just because a buyer as Inc. behind its name doesn’t give it magical powers to set market prices.
If you think it does, then please explain it to us like we are really slow.
https://www.milliman.com/en/insight/mortgage-market-and-hous...
https://www.sifma.org/issues/market-structure/housing-financ...
> because their properties get leveraged, instrumentalized, and securitized, with derivative products, speculation, and all sorts of incentives that you don't normally want operating in the arena of housing.
> instrumentalized
> securitized
> with derivative products
> speculation
I mean BlackRock and Blackstone creating securities backed by real estate in general, not only single family homes.
What if this new type of asset signals to the broader real estate market that regulators favor large investors?
Even more likely, what if this new type of asset succeeds at the expense of first time home buyers?
I can easily live a full and meaningful life without owning gold, drinking cocoa or eating mustard. Those aren't essential and have decent substitutes.
Electricity is essential, just like housing and it's very highly regulated.
If you're going to use "housing" as an umbrella for its substitutes, let me do the same. Instead of wheat, beef, pork, cocoa, sugar, etc, let's call that "food". So now food is as essential as housing. Why doesn't the housing complaint against speculators work for food speculators?
We could start with I have traded wheat futures and could hedge with future contracts on all those commodities. You can't trade single family home derivatives in the same way because it is not the same.
This is unthinking market religion stupidity and the result is going to be a massive over correction towards socialism. You don't help free markets with this bullshit. You are helping to destroy them in the long run.
And you're claiming that the reaction to opposing state control and socialism is socialism? Not compelling.
If cocoa prices spike, you buy less chocolate. If housing prices spike in your job market, your options are: pay more, endure a brutal commute, or uproot your life. The demand is far more inelastic.
Like this one:
> In fact, institutional homebuyers (those who bought 100+ homes in a 12-month period) didn’t even reach 2.5% market share at the peak level in this data line, which goes back to the start of the century.
I don’t know how to evaluate this. I doubt this analysis rolls up subsidiaries. So what does it really mean for an entity to own 100+ units? Is that actually something we care about?
Imo only thing people need to give a shit about is whether a house is being bought to be lived in.
"US will ban Wall Street investors" != "Trump says he will ban Wall Street investments..."
This a Truth Social post from the President. It doesn't mean it has happened, will happen or will happen in the form that either Trump says it will or is being implied here.
This is a very difficult issue to properly address for lots of legal/logistical reasons. For example - many legitimate homeowners have their homes registered as LLCs and most home legislation is governed by states.
What it will come down to is the exact wording of what Trump means by "large institutional investors" (his exact words on Truth).
I'm pretty naive to the issue, but awhile back I took a look at property records for my neighborhood. In fact, equity firms, including BlackRock, were buying up a bunch of houses in my neighborhood.
A tiny datapoint, I know.
Edit: It might've been Blackstone. It's been about a year since I looked it up.
Edit 2: Looking up records now, it looks like most of these equity firm purchases are back to actual people owners! Interesting. What does this mean? Firm bought property and resold at a profit?
I never went far enough to get all the details back when I was considering a move, but my impression is a lot of these "buy your home and close fast" corporate purchasers were offering just enough to make the speed and ability to not have to make a lot of major improvements worth the lost money from selling on the market. Then they do just enough work to clean up any "show stopper" problems and re-sell at market prices.
So (very simplified) if you have a home that might sell for 200k on the market if you put 10k of work into it, but you need to move in a few months, and you need to pay off 100k on the loan, the company offers you something like 180k. You walk away with 80k (instead of 90k) in your pocket and avoid the various real estate agent fees and the need to do any of the fix up work or deal with trying to sell and move at the same time. The company puts the $10k of work into it and sells for the 200k, pocketing the $10k you gave up.
The last call I took, last year, they were ready to buy my house in cash at market value without looking at the property.
The majority of the houses in my neighborhood are rentals, and there are thousands of houses in my neighborhood under the same HOA.
Building has not kept pace with growth in households.
> Black rock isn't buying up all the housing, your neighbors are.
So in '08 we saw the veil drop on the mortgage folks. For a brief moment the sort of advantage they were taking of individual homeowners (I'm including landlords here) was plain for all to see, because the systems they had built to extract that value had been pushed too far and started to break.
The really clever/evil/nasty thing that happened next was that they all said "we're sowwy" and pretended to close up shop on the Mortgage Backed Securities markets, while sowing the seeds for a resurgence in mortgage lending by having Fannie run REO-to-Rental programs that sold foreclosed homes in bulk to investors. It would have been too obvious in the numbers if large institutional investors had bought those directly, so they let mom and pop go into business as landlords, effectively buying obfuscation of the stream of finances for the cost of whatever margins they had to take a hit on to allow for low interest rates to pump housing prices up to a place where, like in 07, they could go back to fucking around with mortages.
In less word salady terms, the plan looked like so:
- "oh fuck we pushed it too far and here come the torches and pitchforks"
- Stop making money on mortgages, but we're investment banks as well as mortgage lenders, so we can make up for the loss of mortgage money by buying a more significant fraction of the housing market at near-zero interest rates
- Wait for low interest rates to pump housing prices over time
- Okay cool, people have forgotten about the whole 08 thing and we've peeled back all the subsequent regulation so we can go back to making our money bundling risky ass mortgage securities again <--- we are here>
The essence of the problem as I see it is that finance has gotten so byzantine and complicated that the only people who understand it in real time are the people who are actively trying to manipulate it to maximize their profits, and by the time it becomes clear what dirty tricks they're pulling they've moved on to the next grift so it looks like they're innocent.
The people responsible for the cost crunch middle class people feel isn’t billionaires. Bezos isn’t using his money to buy up houses or daycare spots in your neighborhood or Disney Word tickets. It’s upper quantile white collar workers. They are competing with the middle class for the same goods and services, but make much more money relatively than they did in past decades.
With house prices being driven up by reckless lending through a debased currency, you enter a feedback loop where every inflating currencies drive prices higher, which only fuels a further frenzy of lending (including through FOMO) to driver prices higher once again.
You seem to want it both ways. It was a misconception, but it apparently did happen, and apparently "cooled down?" I don't think all these things can be true.
It's highly possible they were heavily investing and were planning on continuing but people noticing and the social pushback it created caused them to change their minds about the strategy.
> Black rock isn't buying up all the housing, your neighbors are.
People may or may not be. They may or may not be my neighbors. You seem to be pushing a set of ideals rather than a set of facts.
To a degree, but there's a whole tranche of investment vehicles that accredited investors use to invest in single-family homes that is not securitized at all, and not on Wall Street. The whole fix-and-flip industry feeds into this now, loaning out money to turn houses into rentals that some LLC holds.
If Black Rock is guilty of anything here above all else, it's taking advantage of a situation deliberately created for someone else. If government policy wasn't already going balls to the wall trying to constantly pump up property values, there'd be no investment returns to be had.
Give me the levers of federal, state, and local government and I promise you I can completely tank property values in 48 hours or less.
Atlanta specifically when I was flipping houses in 2012-2015 had a lot of corporate investors buying up low income properties, fixing them up, then renting them out.
You are correct however that smaller private investors are more common. I live in a small city. Small property management companies from NYC and NJ are pretty commonly buying up 2-4 family houses. I suspect that some of these "small" players aren't small at all, but hiding in a maze of LLCs.
I know a couple of dudes from way back that have leveraged their way to a real estate empire with >2000 homes in the region.
This is a common trope.
"It's not big conglomerates that buy and hodl the homes where families are supposed to live, its mom and pop investors so please be nice."
Having a home is not something to speculate with or leave it to the supposed "market forces".
Housing projects and regulation is what this country needs, yesterday.
"The Arrived team is cracked, and I love the audacity of their vision: a stock market for real estate," said Ali Partovi, CEO of Neo, in a release. "I'm betting on them to democratize and digitize access to America's $50 trillion in residential real estate." [0]
Should housing be a “$50 trillion” market for fractional ownership, bundled with its own secondary/speculative market to turn around and flip like penny stocks?
Lovely knowing I can have “access” to that platform and own a 0.004% share in a house someone somewhere out there lives in (rents). While I’ll probably never own a house again.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/11/13/arrived-launches-trading...
> "Large institutional investors, defined as those owning over 100 homes (which includes private equity firms), own 3 percent of the single-family rental stock nationwide according to Brookings. This share is higher in some local markets — in the 20 Metropolitan Statistical Areas where these investors are most present, they own 12.4 percent"
I personally believe that its problematic that large institutional investors own 12.4% of single family properties in the 20 main metro areas of the US.
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.
If you believe that banning investors from buying SFHs will decrease the price of SFHs, why not also ban investors from buying apartments/condos?
The problem is, you can’t do that at the federal level, and the people who vote at the local level are the homeowners who benefit from housing restrictions.
The federal government has a very difficult task. They want to make home prices basically stay flat for a long time, and they have limited tools with which to do it since they can’t do the one thing every economist agrees would solve the problem.
Most people have most of their money tied up in their home equity and would lose an amount that hurts
related to: Warren Buffett's Thriftville
So out of touch to think the net spend of a gov directly on an individual would be worth sacrificing all of that additional capital injected to your other neighbors and their businesses.
And at the new home I moved into, the house next door is owned by foreign interests and rented out to the highest bidder. It makes it extremely difficult to get anything done that involves shared areas (like common fence or overhanging trees) because the owner is essentially unavailable and doesn't speak english. Not to mention that every year or so we have to deal with renters who are minimally vetted. We've had a group of 5 college kids turn the place into a frat house once. There is also a property management company involved, but they can't get in contact with the owner either.
In my experience, this seems to be a bigger issue than wall street investors.
Maybe they are next?
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.
I recently worked on an MVP for a Zillow-for-wholesale startup. As a curveball, our state passed a law restricting where and how these contract-to-buy sellers operate. So their workaround, after consulting lots of lawyers, was to provide a standardized LLC / Contract flow such that you’re no longer marketing a house for sale. You’re marketing a stake in an LLC, only that LLC has a sole purpose (a contract to option out a specific house).
Of course that’s unpopular to those who want to freely commit to bad practices.
Trump says a ton of things that he never ends up doing.
Like so many other big promises, it will appease a lot of people, but there will be no real follow through.
Any regulation that prevents unrestrained capitalism is immediately decried as socialism and therefore evil.
These kinds of promises are made which temporarily create market volatility, and once it later (usually quite soon) becomes clear that the big thing will not actually happen, the markets snap back. At this point, it’s incredibly likely that these situations are manufactured to both look good AND create large short term investment gains for people in the know - without actually changing anything.
You can increase supply but investors would just snatch them up. Maybe the feds could put a cap on the value of a single-family home that an institution can own and then make ownership very tedious. For example, no institution can own a home valued at more than $500k and for each home owned a quarterly filing must be made in person at the county the home is located. I'm sure these organizations would rather own very high value homes than lots of low value ones out in BFE.
And businesses can already expense that tax, so it's 20% off, while individuals have been subject to the SALT cap
However, California even tried to repeal prop13 for non primary residence and it failed! So i'm not sure how popular this idea is.
In theory this encourages a sort of spreading effect where at some point the Nth property is too expensive to buy to rent or speculate on, which naturally stops the exponential effect of making land lording your full time gig by continuously expanding the portfolio.
It's probably more accurate to say "they're just located where no one can get a job." You can give up you SWE job or whatever and move to a small town/rural area, but you're not going to convince anyone to give you a mortgage off your income from the subway at the local truck stop, or whatever labor gig you can get at the local industrial concern. Although if you're in medicine there is probably hope.
If only technology had progressed to an extent that we don't psychically need to be concentrated in 15-20 HCOL major metro areas to do most (if not all) office jobs.
There's certainly SWE jobs in LCOL places but even if there weren't, one's savings from a HCOL area should go pretty far in a LCOL one. Also, thinking that you can't get a mortgage off working at Subway in a small town is just out of touch. You'd probably have to work a lot longer than a cushy SWE job, but it's still possible.
It's strange to me that moving to LCOL wasn't a much bigger thing during the period when everyone was working remotely.
On another note, it’s amazing that in only a year, we accept a dictatorship where we are okay with the President setting policy that should require a law to be passed.
They also charge a lease renewal fee.
Corpo landleeches nickle and dime you (base rent + rent payment fee + pest control fee + trash fee + valet trash fee + fee for the service that bills water/sewage + mail room fee + others I'm no doubt forgetting) (but they only advertise the base rent), and they like to push straight up scams ( such as forcing mandatory renters insurance at 3x the market rate, expensive "benefits" packages with everything from HVAC filter delivery to credit monitoring, all heavily marked up.). The individual land lord? just a flat rent every month, no surprises.
I'm sure there are plenty of horror stories about individual landlords though; the same greed drives both to cut corners and maximize profits.
Because that could not be further from the truth. I'd that bet without googling, you can't name more than one jurisdiction in the entirety of the US that has rent control.
I can tell you that the suburb to a mid city on the eastern seaboard I lived in did not have rent control, but rentals in the $12-1600 range with pest and mold infestation are in great abundance. I'm sure it'd be a total surprise to hear that I live in a state that skews hard in favor of landlords and offers next to no protections for tenants, because you know, deregulation always works out for the little guy, right?
Did you read the article? The impetus was a tweet where he called on congress to write and pass a law to this effect.
> In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was immediately taking steps to implement the ban,
Edit: I think this was the post https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1158550595275...
I guess they didn't link it because it changes the meaning of the article, his post reads more like he's going to discuss it and wants to do something about it.
Australia's land tax system makes it effectively impossible for large corporations to own large chunks of residential property, but our real estate is amongst the world's most expensive and landlords are still awful - it's just that the landlords are hundreds of thousands of dentists and, yes, software engineers rather than corporate entities.
If you want housing to be cheaper and renters to be better treated, increase supply. Everything else is window-dressing.
I feel like there will be a difference between a handful of large corporations owning a majority of properties vs thousands of dentists and software engineers. Are you saying that all of these property owners are also soulless profit-optimizers?
I remember watching some video of tenants being priced out of their rental apartments so when they tried to contact the property owner, they found layers upon layers of managers and companies. It just seems better when there are more thousands of owners than just a handful of corporations.
Small businesses are often just as ruthless as large ones, just less competent. In any case, most rental properties are managed through agencies, who are soulless profit-optimisers.
In short, the appalling treatment of renters in Australia is due to the chronic undersupply of housing; if landlords had to compete for tenants it would not be possible to mistreat them in the way many currently do.
There is also scope for better regulation of tenancies and indeed the Victorian government has passed some reforms in this area.
Do we want to trade crazy high prices in the American real estate market for absolutely crazier high prices in the Australian real estate market?
That is a bit simplistic though, there could be other things going on in Australia, and all the other rich countries (e.g. Switzerland, England, China) where American prices look like a good value. I'm sure at the end of the day supply is the main factor, and not having a hot economy also helps, so I'm sure the USA will get there fairly quickly.
Australia I assume you mean the few places where people actually live in the country vs. the undeveloped outback?
It's just that everyone[1], given a choice, would like to live near the beach in Sydney's eastern suburbs[2], and there is most definitely no more land available in those suburbs. So the only alternative is to build up, and the boomers sitting in their multi-million dollar houses that were originally bought for $3.95 don't like that prospect one bit.
[1] Not everyone, but you get the point.
[2] and Melbourne's inner east, and the desirable parts of Brisbane and Perth.
It's awful, rogue landlords who do everything they can to not do repairs or improvements and when they do it often comes after a long time. Often as they have underestimated all the expenses they're liable for and find that the profit is not very much.
Give me a company that owns a whole block every day, they've modelled the risk better, have economies of scale, and you have more recourse against them.
I don't see how you have more recourse against a company with lawyers that can ignore you, and mom-and-pop. The latter are much more likely to respond to reason.
Of course, any landlord can be bad.
THIS. If Supply & Demand just feels too complex, then spend a day watching kids play musical chairs.
In almost all cities land has run out, so the only way to actually increase supply is to increase density. That means fewer single-family-homes, and more townhomes, multi-family, condos, and apartments.
The "American Dream" is a single-family-home, surrounded by other single-family homes, but even with urban sprawl we simply run into the limits of a commute and prices skyrocket.
Ironically we actually solved this problem: Indefinite Telecommuting. But then decided to take our solution that reduces property prices, reduces air pollution, and improves quality of life and then just threw it away because commercial property owners were losing money.
* American apartment complexes are typically ugly as hell. They're little building islands in a sea of asphalt, disconnected from the wider street grid too. They'd be more attractive if they were more like the complexes I saw while living in Munich: more green up front, car parking basically all underground.
* Require substantial backyards/courtyards for said complexes.
* More tenant protections that prevent landlords from arbitrarily non-renewing a lease, so that people in apartments can have long-term stability. If you break the rules repeatedly or severely, then sure, landlords should be able to remove you, but otherwise you should be left alone to live your life.
While in Munich, we lived in the Solln neighborhood. It's mostly apartments of some kind (we lived in an apartment, and then a backyard duplex), but they just look a lot less ugly than they typically do in the US. Example area: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Munich,+Germany/@48.081098...
Existing property owners can only afford to hold this opinion because land rents are insufficiently taxed. Through some sort of monumental stupidity we decided to tax labor instead of land. In this sense the SFH, “Americans like suburbia” problem is just a function of poor tax strategy. If homeowners were faced with the economic reality of their choices then markets would fix land use by themselves.
I live in Wyoming. We don't tax labor. Just extraction, consumption (sales), some investments and property. Our property is still expensive.
> If homeowners were faced with the economic reality of their choices then markets would fix land use by themselves
The problem begins and ends with supply restrictions.
And regardless, "we" also means the US federal government here, and everyone in the US is subject to US income tax, regardless of which state you live in.
The point is we have a natural difference-in-differences layout, and it doesn’t sustain the hypothesis that taxing labor is the problem (for this effect).
Yup. I'm a weirdo who owns his home but wants a shit-ton more housing built in his city, even if it means my home value goes down. I do know some like-minded folks here, but I would be very surprised if we weren't in the minority.
And it makes sense. We're taught (in the US) to treat our primary residence as an investment, and for most US homeowners it's the most expensive asset they'll ever own, and will be their main vehicle for maintaining their wealth through their later years, and for transferring the remainder of that wealth to their children.
Given that, you'd either have to be self-sabotaging-ly altruistic, or otherwise wealthy enough (outside of your home) that a significant dip in your property's value doesn't tank your finances. I expect that describes a small number of people.
That's incredibly untrue. There are numerous cities, even in CA and NY, that have plenty of room for new single family homes.
The response to that is usually some variant of "eww, gross".
In the past, we had that incidentally or almost "accidentally" as new industries would create or vastly expand existing towns, and development would occur around them.
Now most "work" is more fluid, and doesn't build company towns, instead you get endless suburbs expanding off an existing city, even when they're technically their "own legal framework".
Even after we moved off the "factory town" type new cities, the suburb development wasn't a major issue because each new exurb usually involved a new highway direct to the city center - but new highways have been rare mainly because all the "reasonable" ones have been built now.
You could either create demand for cities somehow (look at Las Vegas, built out of nowhere) or you could use high-speed commuter rail to empty areas to give room for a seed to grow.
It will make very little difference if Wall Street investors hold very little property.
Putting a finger on the scale of how much real estate is individually owned definitely makes a difference though. It makes it worse.
100,000 individuals who own 100,000 properties have far more political power than 10 companies who own 100,000 properties.
>If you want housing to be cheaper and renters to be better treated, increase supply. Everything else is window-dressing.
Yes. However supply is artificially restricted by government, to the approval of the average property owning voter. So more specifically, that is what needs to be changed. Everything else is window-dressing.
This is a country sliding further towards being us, with their housing being more restricted and more expensive.
Is that really true in the US?
Existing stock would be depressed in value as the pool of buyers would be smaller, but they'd be more likely to be first time buyers anyway (no capital gains to deal with) and demand for new would increase.
But you could end up with insane inversions where existing stock was pulled down to build new to take advantage of the gains exclusion.
The inevitable outcome of this is increasing homelessness, and likely slums when homeless just start building themselves make shift shelter in such large numbers that authorities can't stamp down on it.
It's a price we're willing to pay since we're not paying it.
I'm hopeful that successive governments over here show the courage of their convictions and enact enough change that my kids have a chance of getting into their own places, same as I did.
Tangent: how should we approach changing the housing mix in a city like Perth where 95% of new homes are large four-bedroom detached houses? It's all very well saying "That's what the market wants" when that's also all the market supplies. How do we bootstrap the idea of smaller, denser, affordable, more-diverse housing options?
The issue is exacerbated by the tax structures not incentivizing investments in other assets - e.g. in NZ if you invest over $50k in offshore equities, there is an annual FIF tax that must be paid, even for unrealized gains.
The fact that there is a housing crisis in most of the western world seems to prove this
"We're not trying to bring down house prices," Housing Minister Clare O'Neil declared on ABC's youth radio station triple j.
"That may be the view of young people, [but] it's not the view of our government."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-14/housing-minister-says...
So you have attractive locations being completely dominated by rentable corporate owned housing and the net outcome is that people are completely boxed out of home ownership. There's no way pricing comes down because they do this in areas where people are willing to pay top dollar to live.
I live near Ann Arbor and we're seeing it play out right now--more dense housing in the inner core is being allowed (as current thinking says should be done) and whats happening is that smaller old-timey landlords and homeowners are being pushed out and their homes and apartment buildings are being replaced with brand new high dollar rentals. Not condos (although there are some of those as well, but fewer), rentals. And the rental prices are going up! Normal people get pushed further and further from the attractive areas to live, and pressure from these people moving out pushes up rent in the surrounding areas.
When the market turns around (and every time in the past it was "only going up" it eventually ended) then suddenly you have apartment complexes turning into condos to sell off capital and stop the bleeding.
The problem for people "on the ground/in the rentals" is that can force you to act when you're not financially prepared to - it's easy to find situations where someone can afford the rent; even afford the mortgage to BUY the apartment as a condo; but cannot afford the downpayment (or otherwise qualify for the loan).
> homeowners are being pushed out and their homes
What does this mean?
The desire is that a row of single family homes (say a block has 10) get slowly redeveloped into a row of brownstones or similar density - but they're still single family and owned by the residents, but now you have 20 in the same space, or 30. You can triple the density and not really change anything else.
But what ends up happening is that the single family homes remain single family, get slowly bought up by a developer and rented, and then the entire block gets turned into an apartment complex, perhaps with the same or even more units, but they're all rentals forever.
This might be fine, and perhaps even encouraged in some areas, but it does reduce the supply of homes to buy.
That's true of most of the Western world, unfortunately.
> a primary mechanism for wealth creation
I don't disagree but this needs to be correctly framed publicly as simply stealing from the next generation because that's what it is.
> Tax incentives
For anyone unfamiliar, Australia has a system called negative gearing. In the mid-2010s the then Labor party proposed scrapping it and lost the election. It really is the third rail of Australian politics. This is a shame because it needs to be scrapped.
It allows you to deduct losses on property against your ordinary income. So if you have a mortgage payment of $3000/month but only earn $2000/month in rent then your income is reduced by $1000/month. That's waht drives a lot of small investors to essentially speculate on property.
The US actually has a better system than this, which is that if you earn over a certain income level, you cannot deduct passive losses (like the above situation) against ordinary income. That would be better but still not enough.
So many upper income Australians essentially end up just hoarding property. They'll call it "investment properties" but really it's speculation. Historically, property was treated as an income producing asset, not a speculative capitals gains asset.
Oh and capital gains on non-primary residences should be like 70%. If you want to stop rampant speculation, that's how you do it.
> Tangent: how should we approach changing the housing mix in a city like Perth where 95% of new homes are large four-bedroom detached houses?
Perth like every Australian city is an urban planning disaster. It's just endless sprawl up and down the coast and inland to the hills. A generation or two ago it was a quarter acre block. Those days are long gone unless you're wealthy or you're 50km+ from the city (less if you go east).
So it's a car-dependent soulless hellhole. I say this as someone who knows Perth well. So even now if you build higher-density housing along transit routes, as they're doing, you still need a car (or 4) to go anywhere but work. And high land values make infrastructure projects incredibly expensive. Like imagine trying to build the Perth to Mandurah train line now instead of 30+ years ago when it was actually built. I guess they could utilize the Freeway they already had but what about the fremantle or Midland lines?
What you should do as you build out is reserve space for future infrastructure. AFAIK no Australian city, especially Perth, has never done. So Guildford Road or Great Eastern Highway should really be a freeway. Same with Albany Highway.
In 2024 Western Australia did really relax ADU (granny flat) development rules. The rules used to be really strict. Now you can basically always build one with normal building approval if you meet the minimum lot size requirements (generally 450sqm, sometimes as low as 350sqm, depending on the council).
Single family home zoning is really cancer to any decently sized city.
Anyway, the truth is, I'm not sure it can be fixed now. Big infrastructure projects are prohibitively expensive even with tools like eminent domain. We need to look at why it's so expensive to build apartments.
I think the only thing you can do now is for the government to become a significant suplier of housing to increase supply and stabilize rents.
So much of the wealth of our middle- and upper-class is dependent on property ownership and rent-seeking, it's depressing. That population essentially needs to vote against their own self-interest to help improve housing affordability, so it's hard to see that ever happening. The best I could foresee is a government forecasting a stepped reduction of relevant tax benefits over time (e.g. in three years negative gearing gets reduced by half, then half again the following year, etc.) and then future governments honouring that commitment. As you pointed out though, it's a surefire way for any Australian political party to shoot themselves in the face.
I sometimes wonder how strong the demand needs to get for more-affordable housing before the market responds enough to matter. State and local govt could likely have a role in unlocking infill developments and increasing the allowed densities, but I'm not plugged into the planning system. I also strongly agree that state government should be more proactive as a housing supplier (in conjunction with private industry).
In the past this effect was localized and when housing prices went insane, it was usually in a city, or a region, not a whole country. And high prices would encourage development in the cheaper areas, and people would move "out there".
In that light, this move is A-OK with me.
China did "over" solve it by building loads of houses, so everyone's house value just crippled down like crazy.
If buying a house delivers 5–10× the ROI of the S&P 500, that’s not “smart investing” then there is a huge problem to be addressed ... (preferably by building more)
That's not really a bad thing unless you believe real estate should be a vehicle for investment. However, in T1 and T2 cities asset prices are roughly on par with western major metro areas. However, property management fees tend to be lower. I suspect the Hukou system contributes significantly to keep housing affordable, and it's not just the massive supply.
And leverage brings all the problems associated with it; if you own your house outright and it goes down %10 you're out 10%; if you only have 10% equity and the same happens you're down 100%. The gains, of course, work similarly which is why for so long it's been a heads I win, tails I win.
My reasoning is we have a massive construction sector compared to other nations, with a relatively high productivity in terms of dwellings built per capita. We also have pretty slack standards, with even weaker enforcement.
In addition to that, we have a very weak growth in productivity per capita; and since we are trying to rapidly grow, we have to play catch up to provide the same level of services. This needs to happen while our construction sector is stressed, so the same amount of wealth goes a shorter distance again.
You can also see this in rental prices; negative gearing should allow the capital price to decouple from the rental yield to a larger extent than without it; but we still see high rents...
There's a counterpart to supply in supply-demand. I wonder if we could also adjust that.
You can also look at reducing demand due to mass migration.
The point is that there isn't a distortionary corporate investment force preventing young people from doing that; what there are is zoning and permitting rules locking every desirable location into stasis.
* Subsidizing first-time buyers will increase home prices. That's the opposite of the point.
Subsidizing first time buyers does increase prices overall but you have to consider the effect of such a policy relative to its cost. It has potentially positive externalities so that’s worth considering while balancing it out eg with the previous policy.
Can’t buy a single home but an entire community is okay.
Do it. Do it now.
But at least people eating the chaff of property owners will celebrate it, I guess.
- Whether this is needed or helps depends not on percentage of owners or buyer/sellers, but on the effect in the market of such players. REIT's have an outsize effect because they are repeat players, and thus lucrative clients for brokers, who qualify themselves by skewing local markets accordingly.
- Policy-wise, it's hard to distinguish by size: second homes, mom-and-pop with a few rentals, REIT, private equity. (This is how corporations get free-speech rights.)
- Politically, it's a shame that a real problem is addressed via scapegoating
- Practically, it will have little effect since REIT's and home builders are sitting on a lot of inventory that they can't sell, so they've stopped accumulating (and they're resorting to secondary offerings to pay off the original investors). Indeed, to the extent this stimulates buying, they're all for it.
- Ethically, the US has been a magnet for money laundering, much of it via real estate, which has pushed up asset prices and de-conditioned professionals. Scapegoating only delays reform.
Quote from the article: "In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was immediately taking steps to implement the ban which he would also call on Congress to codify in law."
The president can't do this. His EO will likely be some kind of statement of intent or request to the FTC to see what can be done. Really, this is an exhortation for Congress to do something. A bill has yet to be written.
People don’t have a natural feel for how little you need to alter flow to cause liquidity in a system to collapse.
This will be good for existing homeowners because it will increase home prices and increase rents.
It's bad for renters.
The most absurd example is here in SF, where... okay, context. A recently-passed state law overriding local zoning means that there's a high-rise building project in the Marina district (https://sfyimby.com/2025/12/preliminary-permits-filed-for-fo...) that will almost certainly get built, despite people endlessly protesting it. It will add 790 apartments, 86 of which will be required to be affordable housing.
Before this, in 2024, there were 7 net housing units added for the entire year in the Marina District. No typo there, literally just 7, in the most expensive neighborhood in the city, in the most expensive city in the country.
This one building, only possible because the state overrode local zoning, will be adding by itself more than 100 years worth of new housing to the neighborhood. That's how fucked the approval process is.
So my big worry is that the Trump admin will say they are going to only eliminate the most obvious cases and the problem will remain. The LLCs and shell corps, etc.
EDIT: Also it does not address the massive amount of housing stock that is foreign owned by people that don't even live in the country.
We’ll try everything except for a land value tax, so that we can eventually prove once and for all that LVT is the right thing to do! :)
But actually, it’s good to see movement on the underlying problem (affordability of home ownership). This is The Domestic American Problem of our times, and it deserves to be closer to the center of the Overton window of our politics and policy-making.
Even if we think this step is kind of meaningless, it draws more attention to the problem, which is a good thing.
Denmark has an LVT and copenhagen affordability is... not good.
As in, you never really “own” your land, you’re just renting it from the sovereign. If you can’t make good enough use out of it to afford that rent, you should move on. You can find comments on this thread that make this argument explicitly in terms of “maximizing land use efficiency”.
This was the economic structure of feudalism. It … wasn’t great. Private ownership of land has its own tradeoffs but a few centuries of historical experimentation in both directions has been fairly decisive.
As near as I can tell, it is just a different way of deciding how the property tax burden is levied.
Downtown property gets taxed much more. Un-developed speculation property that doesn't contribute to the community (and derives value from other people's contributions) get taxed at the same rate as nearby developed property.
LVT is designed to achieve a different policy goal: Maximize the efficiency of land use. So its rates have to be set to achieve that goal and, for example, force grandma to move out of that condo in a newly revitalized downtown so a young tech kid who can pay more & benefit from it more can move in.
For example, if you own a lot in a downtown metro which is a parking lot you pay low property taxes because parking lots have low property values. You are disincentivised to develop it because your property tax would go up. Opposite incentives with a LVT.
Not that because "we have a right to housing" or other catchphrases, but because getting rid of the government sponsored local monopolies is impossible.
not that I expect it to even happen at all
Correct title is: "Trump says he will ban Wall Street investments in single-family homes"
absolutely, easily predictable
what should be a one page bill will have riders of insanity
they'll probably do it like they do with corporations having more than 15 employees, so every little business just has 15 people contracting out to the next business with 15 people etc., there will be a corporation for every 15 houses etc.
- 20% maximum corporate tax
- Personal Salt cap
Made it less expensive for an llc to buy a home than for most individuals.
To make individual ownership on par with corporate, individuals need to be in a lower tax bracket, be able to deduct taxes , interest, and insurance. And the $10k cap really hurt the ability for local property taxes to make it better for the individual. The new $40k cap may put it slightly towards the individual in some jurisdictions.
But raising corporate rates or reducing corporate deductible expense re real estate is the most efficient policy to encourage individual ownership.
Rammed earth is a very decent building material but if you make the walls thick and compress it hard enough (maybe add steam?) it will last hundreds of years. Other building methods should be considered ofc domed roofs are perhaps not cool enough.
Disassemble the machine, ship the containers and deploy it some place else.
Add some killer features to the homes so that people cant wait to live there. For the first 400 miles at least $30 billion comes out (over 30 years) or $15 bl per year for each year of construction. Should be good enough for investors.
If it works, build additional improved versions. Aim for a factory that makes these machines.
Something like a sane version of the line.
Something like this only 20 times larger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKi8VWRDA_c
Something like this but moving.
Houses are horrifically boring all over the world. There are so many data points that people building stuff are happy when all the boxes are checked. As you've pointed out they usually follow demand but it's not a rule, it doesn't have to be that way. We do living room, kitchen, dining, bathroom, bedroom but you could do many different rooms. Say a proper office with all the trimmings perhaps a network connecting coworkers. You could do a space for home manufacturing. If you could just dock a truck properly and roll pallets in and out it would go a long way. Could do a district cooling system and/or a centralized pool pumping station. Could have a fee to gradually green the desert behind the homes.
But the true killer feature is lack of red tape.
(And no, this is not a Trump thing. This has been the case for a while now.)
No actual implementation steps have been taken or explained. Will this happen before or after the health care plans are released? Before or after the still pending infrastructure bill?
“ Trump said he was immediately taking steps to implement the ban, which he would also call on Congress to codify in law. *It was not clear what steps he would take*”
The valuation of the property goes up and down directly with the interest rate.
The ROI of the house (we bought in 2016) was ~8% on the down payment over the past 10 years, excluding maintenance and interest charges. As an investment, property is not a very good one.
To get that 8% on the down payment, I spent 4% on the remainder. It really doesn't net positive after the mortgage interest (with a 20% down payment). It's about "forced savings" and having control over your environment.
As an aside, since people are stuck in houses (mortgage rates and prop-13), there is a definite lack of starter homes. Everyone adds the second bathroom, meaning there aren't any single bathroom homes to be found. That increases the market floor.
As a renter, I was drawn to this as a way to get some exposure to real estate, and I ended up investing in a vacation rental. At the same time, I'm pretty conflicted about it. Profiting from vacation housing feels different to me than profiting from people’s primary shelter, which is a basic necessity.
More broadly, I think as long as the incentives of property owners and renters are fundamentally misaligned, it will remain extremely difficult for middle-class folks who don't already own property to break into the market. The system optimizes for extracting rent, not for creating new owners.
If you believe that nobody should profit from providing housing, what do you propose as the incentives for people to build, capitalize, and maintain said housing?
If a corporation thinks there is demand in some city, goes and build housing for that demand and then rents that housing, that is good for the world.
Would be a better policy than letting corporations use their access to capital markets to outcompete individuals trying to buy a house.
Builders are more concentrated than landlords in pretty much any geography. A concentration that scales with the amount of bureaucracy and bullshit required to get permits.
We know using housing as an investment, at an individual level, is problematic (NIMBYism and failure to infill/redevelop/etc). Not sure how incentivizing MegaCorp to do the same on a massive scale fixes anything?
The key is increasing supply, and we should directly target that issue (or decrease demand, but people don't like that side).
Also, houses get older every day. Tastes change - ranch, open-plan, multi-story, multi family get more or less valued as time goes on. Not just 'fewer houses means better resale value'. In fact, a shortage may not change housing prices at all - sometimes it just makes them sell faster.
It's easy to take a complex picture, connect a dot or two and draw a line from someplace to some conclusion. But it's always a trickier picture than that. You gotta consider more dots and connect them all.
Assessed value raises (and drops) shouldn't directly affect property tax assuming the whole area raises and falls (in most areas) because of how the tax is apportioned.
The reality that people don't want to deal with is that it's personal and it is slow - there is no SimCity-style bulldozing and redeveloping without pouring in tremendous amounts of money, because people like living where they do and it's hard to get them to move involuntarily.
Anyhow, interest rates are the root cause now. Who in their right mind would do the trade I've described?
Why? Housing prices will rise, rents will rise.
He's issued plenty of other executive orders that aren't legal in order to continue to bullshit his base. The reason why he's deferring to congress now (instead of trying to take credit) is because he knows it's not possible and can use that as leverage against members of Congress.
(Of course, they were not buying it all.)
Given this, it’s inevitable - the New American Dream will be communal living.
If anyone thinks this is not a problem, why would they comment, it would be irrelevant as banning salmon from participating in taikwondo
Instead everyone says how it's so false and this is just silly. This tells me - they are liars and it isn't silly at all
It needs to be illegal for anyone to buy a single-family home that already owns one, and who won't agree to live in it, full-time and exclusively for at least one year. They must also agree to sell it ONLY to someone who also accepts the same terms. The penalty should be a criminal fraud charge with minimum jailtime -and- a hefty penalty.
1. Politically, this issue is a winner and it's crazy that the Democratic Party has refused to bang the drum on this, basically because it potentially upsets corporate donors. They have instead ceded this poopulist political ground to the Republican Party. The Democratic Party does not want to win elections and this should never have been more obvious than the 2024 presidential election;
2. Hoarding housing is state-sanctioned violence. You need housing to live. Housing affordability is the number one factor in homelessness [1]. That then subjects people to violence and danger that we, as a society, are allowing to happen. There is no reason that the wealthiest country on Earth can't provide a roof over the head of every man, woman and child within our borders;
3. The private sector will never solve the housing crisis because solving the housing crisis involves devaluing, definancializing and decommodifying housing. Wealthy people and large corporations who own a lot of real estate won't on their devalue their holdings. Things like Ezra Klein's Abundance claptrap are simply putting a Democratic bow on Reagan era trickle down economics and deregulation. This requires state action. That means the state needs to build significant amounts of housing to provide to people to regulate the housing market. The poster child for this policy is Vienna, Austria;
4. Voters have fooled themselves into thinking that increasing house prices are good for them. They're not. They're bad in virtually every way. There are people who bought a house for $100k in 1990 where that house is now worth $2M. Are you $1.9M richer? No. Because if you sell it what happens? You have to buy another house. And if every other equivalent house costs $2M you still only own one housing unit's worth of wealth;
5. Increasing house prices are simply stealing from the next generation and suppressing wages. Why suppressing wages? Because if you're laden with debt, you'll be a complaint little worker bee. You need that paycheck to not be homeless. You are in effect a debt-slave, particularly combined with student and possibly medical debt; and
6. The next wave of antitrust action will involve the use of AI as a means for market collusion and manipulation. A great and relevant example is RealPage [2]. If all the landlords use the same software and that software is designed to algorithmically increase rents, then that's market collusion. Honestly, dynamic pricing in general needs to be banned.
[1]: https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/0...
[2]: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-s...
This is often repeated but not 100% correct.
You are in fact richer, and you can leverage this $2m in equity to take on debt and buy more houses. This is what has been happening here in Australia, and it's a major factor in the continued rise in prices.
When you've done this, hung on a handful of years and all of your houses have gone up 20-50%, you can cash out for a very nice sum indeed. AFAICT this is now a pretty mainstream middle-class retirement plan in this country, and it's terrible because, as you point out -
> Increasing house prices are simply stealing from the next generation
The money is coming from people, usually younger people, who are funding the insane market with ever larger mortgages and staying in rental properties longer, both of which benefit the equity-holder.
Also, if you're taking the equity out of your $2M house, how are you servicing that debt?
My point is that it's an awful lot easier to buy 6 $100k houses than it is to buy 6 $2M houses and if houses weren't speculative assets, maybe we wouldn't get those buyers driving up prices.
I know how that paragraph reads, but the past couple of years have made me too cynical to trust anything they say they're going to do.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/07/home-sales-investors-make-up...
As long as we have this focus on using homes as investment and rent prices are kept high through collusion, the industry refusing to build "non-luxury" units, and regulation hurdles stopping new entrants, we will be stuck with this problem.
If your rentoid decides to rip the copper wiring out, or not pay their rent for a year, then you’ve wiped out 10 years of profit.
This is a government policy failure. Because no one is allowed to build fast enough, there is always a demand for luxury (higher profit) and thus that is what gets built.
Why would you spend your time and effort building a house that earns you $50k when for the same time and effort you could build a house that earns you $150k?
You'd only do the first if the second wasn't available.
Small investor ownership in single-family homes (for both short- and long-term rentals) have been devastating to communities. What is the right number of single-family homes to permit individuals/trusts to own and how do you disincentivize small empires?
Wall Street investor monopoly ownership of dense housing in urban areas remains a major cause of rents outstripping income (see Blackrock's 2020-2025 market takeover and subsequent market manipulation of apartment rental rates in San Diego). Simple policy solution: trust-bust apartment ownership. Harder, more effective policy solution: municipality ownership of apartment blocks a la European cities.
If regulators allow the same behaviors with water, you can expect a similar set of harms.
Anyhow, I argue that investors are positive for the the house market. They shouldn't be banned. Investors provide enough liquidity to the market so that the building companies have enough certainty to invest in large housing projects, because they know that their properties will be sold quickly. If investors would be banned they would sell their houses eventually as well but it would take much longer.
Similarly, investors improve mobility and throughput. An individual putting his house for sale will find a buyer much faster when investors are in the buying market, who are willing to buy up a house when nobody else takes it and sell it for a better price later. So: sellers sell faster, so they can move out and buy a new home faster as well: mobility in the house market increases.
In IT terms: investors function as a buffer.
Housing continues to be the biggest problem in modern world and yet it is a problem not resolved.
But by how much? ~3-4% of housing has to be sold, some amount of it will still be bought for renting (as many people still want to rent). Surely this can’t have a very big effect on house price
Why would the institution turn away free money but individuals owning the houses wouldn’t?
Many families have the majority of their wealth tied up in their home, and another significant portion of it (knowingly or not) in the SFH MBS market via their retirement investments. If prices fall quickly enough to impact the MBS market, a large number of households could suddenly see big dips their two biggest sources of wealth.
A gradual drop may be fine, but the financialization of housing at the national is a big mess. Sadly it makes the market dynamics of giving people places to live way more complex than it should be.
The end game for capitalism is for everyone to rent everything: healthcare, cars, software, music, physical items, roads, etc.
Two areas I'm particularly curious about are a) the financing of new construction, and b) the sale prices of SFHs.
They don't want to admit that their abhorrent policies are hitting the pocket books of their supporters, so they latch onto popular sentiment instead of solving the problem. Typical of this administration.
I built a house in 2018 for $350k. To build the same house again today would be $650k (and it would probably take twice as long). Surprisingly, the cost of land is not much more than it was 8 years ago. All of that cost increase is in materials and labor.
The problem is, the market value of my house is $550k, at the most. Meaning it's not profitable to build new houses as the market can't sustain them. And who is going to sell their house at less than they can get another one for? Only people who are forced to move, which is probably why the there is such low inventory in the historically cheaper markets.
ceejayoz•1d ago
Trump, notoriously, says all sorts of things.
I'm sure this'll come right after he finishes his healthcare plans in "two weeks".
frogperson•1d ago
xp84•1d ago