Trump urges House to pass corporate home buying ban

8,940 Views | 138 Replies | Last: 25 days ago by flown-the-coop
MidlandOil$
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hopefully this gets across the finish line and something gets passed. This is a smaller problem now but could definitely get out of control.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/trump-urges-house-to-pass-corporate-homebuying-ban/gm-GM2E00B97E?gemSnapshotKey=GM2E00B97E-snapshot-56&uxmode=ruby
Over_ed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It may be small, but anything to drop housing prices and/or education prices is likely a win for younger adults and their families.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.
SCHTICK00
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There's a reason anti trust laws exist. This is a slippery slope that leads to "you'll own nothing and you'll love it".
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not sure how this helps outside of removing a very small opportunity for localized market manipulation.
John Fisher Pessimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good Trump. This a pretty localized problem, but has real effects in some bigger housing markets. Seems like a no brainer to fix.

Boomers bought their home for 5 cents and have seen astronomical appreciation (orders of magnitude more than wage growth). Good for them I guess.

They also now control these corporations which artificially put upward pressure on prices for first time buyers. It's not crazy to think that pressure should be relieved especially when we have such a shortage of housing supply in the US.

Newer generations being effectively locked out of home buying is a bad thing for a society.

ETA: The biggest opponents of this will be homeowners whose homes have already appreciated at historic numbers and did not have to compete with corporate buyers for their SFR when they bought their homes (i.e. their free market was different in kind). This isn't as simple as they want to make it.
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Many will clap for big government.

This will just make the crash all the worse.
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.


100%. Just limiting private property rights and buying votes.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FWTXAg said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.


100%. Just limiting private property rights and buying votes.


Yep conservatives used to value private property rights above all others until Trump told them it was bad.
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is about 5 years late anyway. Corporations buying up housing stock in the suburbs is all but over. They're already sitting on billions, maybe trillions in negative equity. Especially here in Texas and Florida.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Over_ed said:

It may be small, but anything to drop housing prices and/or education prices is likely a win for younger adults and their families.


If that's the case, why not just place a cap on selling prices for homeowners?

I mean, anything that helps lower prices is good right?
javajaws
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
javajaws said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.


You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FWTXAg said:

This is about 5 years late anyway. Corporations buying up housing stock in the suburbs is all but over. They're already sitting on billions, maybe trillions in negative equity. Especially here in Texas and Florida.

Source?
HTownAg98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FWTXAg said:

This is about 5 years late anyway. Corporations buying up housing stock in the suburbs is all but over. They're already sitting on billions, maybe trillions in negative equity. Especially here in Texas and Florida.

Yep. This is a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists. Institutional investors figured out that buying SFR property doesn't make any money when the market is flat.
Hopefully that stupid provision that makes institutional investors buying rentals to require to sell them after seven years got stripped out. When Elizabeth Warren agrees with you on this, that should tell you that it's an incredibly dumb idea.
AgGrad99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

FWTXAg said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.


100%. Just limiting private property rights and buying votes.


Yep conservatives used to value private property rights above all others until Trump told them it was bad.

I haven't decided where I fall, on this particular issue.

If private/family ownership is getting priced out of private/family homes, and slowly eliminated from the market...I think we can agree an issue exists.

But conservatism and free markets don't mean anarchy and no regulation. The litmus test is whether that regulation protects or hinders the free market.

Simply saying 'no government' to every issue is conservatism. Conservative government still requires government to protect freedoms for individuals.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From the linked article:
Quote:


Proponents say banning large investors resonates with the public's belief that housing should serve families first, not corporate portfolios. However, analysts note large institutional investors own less than 3% of investment properties, with most held by small landlords, limiting the ban's potential impact. Housing economist Lee Ohanian warned such measures may only appear to help without addressing deeper supply shortages and structural market issues.



Housing inventory remains drastically short and has been so since the 2008/2009 housing bubble burst and decimated home builders from big to small.

If Americans truly want to solve housing affordability, they need to consider moving to rural communities or live in higher density housing. Those are the most impactful solutions.

This legislation likely does nothing impactful which is why it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
But in this case government is literally taking a significant chunk of your private equity and giving it to others. Just be honest about what it is and the pandora's box it opens.

AgGrad99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not being dishonest. Like I said, I haven't decided where I fall on the move. I'm absolutely concerned about the slippery slope it perpetuates.
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Good Lord, this is dumb.

"Let's give the government more power to F things up!" - said no conservative, ever.

Where is this outlined as an enumerated power in the Constitution?
AGHouston11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FWTXAg said:

This is about 5 years late anyway. Corporations buying up housing stock in the suburbs is all but over. They're already sitting on billions, maybe trillions in negative equity. Especially here in Texas and Florida.


Was going to say the same thing. It's like changing the rules when the game is already basically over.

What's next? More 50 year mortgage talk!
reineraggie09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.


Yes this is the same argument I have against people arguing their neighbors shouldn't be allowed to sell their property to solar farms or data centers.

I think large corporate ownership of homes is bad but this is a slippery slope
BigRobSA
How long do you want to ignore this user?
reineraggie09 said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.


Yes this is the same argument I have against people arguing their neighbors shouldn't be allowed to sell their property to solar farms or data centers.

I think large corporate ownership of homes is bad but this is a slippery slope

Yes, "slippery" like a slope covered in WD-40 ice.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FWTXAg said:

Many will clap for big government.

This will just make the crash all the worse.


Clap for any big government and you'll end up helping create the monster that got out of control.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Im Gipper
How long do you want to ignore this user?
reineraggie09 said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.


Yes this is the same argument I have against people arguing their neighbors shouldn't be allowed to sell their property to solar farms or data centers.

I think large corporate ownership of homes is bad but this is a slippery slope

Who has argued this?

People have argued about where data centers or solar farms can be located.

I'm Gipper
Red Pear Realty
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sponsor
AG
I own a lot of houses and consider myself a pretty "free markets" type of voter. The problem with our current situation is that corporations have access to cheaper capital than the average person, which gives the corporations an unfair advantage over the average home buyer. If that continues unchecked, your children and grandchildren will truly own nothing and like it.
Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty
AggieVictor10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
good trump
Dirt 05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Eight of the ten largest publicly traded firms in the real estate sector are paying dividends in excess of their earnings per share - (WELL, PLD, EQIX, AMT, DLR, O, PSA, VTR). That means these firms are dipping into reserves or financing the payment of dividends to investors.

The big push on "back to office" is driven by the FED attempting to find a means to shore up real estate loans that are coming up for refinancing in the post covid world with lower occupancies and higher interest rates. The problem is greatly exacerbated by the massive federal debt and budget deficit which has taken aware their ability to drive rates lower because buyers don't want low yield US Treasuries.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Dirt 05 said:

Eight of the ten largest publicly traded firms in the real estate sector are paying dividends in excess of their earnings per share - (WELL, PLD, EQIX, AMT, DLR, O, PSA, VTR). That means these firms are dipping into reserves or financing the payment of dividends to investors.

The big push on "back to office" is driven by the FED attempting to find a means to shore up real estate loans that are coming up for refinancing in the post covid world with lower occupancies and higher interest rates. The problem is greatly exacerbated by the massive federal debt and budget deficit which has taken aware their ability to drive rates lower because buyers don't want low yield US Treasuries.
These firms are buying up single-family housing stock? You shacking up in medical offices, storage building and data centers?

WELL Welltower Inc. -A leading healthcare REIT focused on senior housing, medical offices, and post-acute care facilities.

PLD Prologis, Inc. - The world's largest industrial REIT, specializing in logistics warehouses, distribution centers, and e-commerce facilities.

EQIX Equinix, Inc. - A global digital infrastructure REIT that owns and operates data centers, providing colocation, interconnection, and connectivity services.

AMT American Tower Corporation - A major global REIT owning and operating wireless communications towers and related infrastructure.

DLR Digital Realty Trust, Inc. - A leading data center REIT focused on owning, acquiring, and operating data centers for cloud, tech, and enterprise customers.

O Realty Income Corporation ("The Monthly Dividend Company") - A retail and commercial REIT known for single-tenant, triple-net leased properties (e.g., retail stores, restaurants) and consistent monthly dividends.

PSA Public Storage - The largest self-storage REIT in the U.S., owning and operating self-storage facilities.

VTR Ventas, Inc. - A healthcare REIT with a portfolio including senior housing, medical offices, hospitals, and life sciences properties.
mike0305
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But when the tables turn and you are trying to buy again, you won't be having to bid against PE which are driving your price up.

Overall it drains the amount of capital in housing which will make it more affordable. We really need some wins in this area for the midterms…
cecil77
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

javajaws said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.


You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".


Not that simple. If you're buying another house, that extra $100K is just going to the PE firm that owns you next house. Free markets are only free if they're 100% free, housing is far from that.
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cecil77 said:

Teslag said:

javajaws said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.

As a free market supporter I normally would agree with you - but allowing PE to continue to buy residential homes is the quickest way to make it where most Americans can only afford to rent a home their entire lives. Individual buyers just can't compete with investment buying in the grand scheme of things.


You are making an emotional argument without giving thought to what you are really saying. That's what liberals do.

If I list my home for $500k and a young first time buying couple offer $505k plus need closing assistance and a corporate buyer offers $600k in cash that's an extra $100k for me. You would effectively use the power of government to institute a tax on me for $100k and then redistribute that to "less fortunate" to provide a "public good". You need to admit that's what it is and that you are okay with it. And then remember to be consistent the next time a liberal proposes they do the same with any other investment asset you have. Because at that point you've set the precedent that other people are entitled to a share of your investment assets because it's "good for society".


Not that simple. If you're buying another house, that extra $100K is just going to the PE firm that owns you next house. Free markets are only free if they're 100% free, housing is far from that.


Correct. Which is why we should be making them more free rather than less so. Like these stupid Big Government laws and regulations do.
Yesterday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Red Pear Realty said:

I own a lot of houses and consider myself a pretty "free markets" type of voter. The problem with our current situation is that corporations have access to cheaper capital than the average person, which gives the corporations an unfair advantage over the average home buyer. If that continues unchecked, your children and grandchildren will truly own nothing and like it.

If you allow government to cap the buyers and specifically tell you who you can sell your house to then you own nothing. And for the record, none of us own anything in Texas. We simply rent it from the state. Advocating for more government control over your property is not the freedom anyone is looking for. Let the free market work. When PE is burned for billions during the next crash the market will reset. That's how it works.
BuddysBud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
reineraggie09 said:

Teslag said:

As a homeowner I should be able to sell my house to whoever I want to in order to get the highest price for my personal property.

Bad Trump.


Yes this is the same argument I have against people arguing their neighbors shouldn't be allowed to sell their property to solar farms or data centers or computer chip manufacturers

I think large corporate ownership of homes is bad but this is a slippery slope
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BigRobSA said:

Good Lord, this is dumb.

"Let's give the government more power to F things up!" - said no conservative, ever.

Where is this outlined as an enumerated power in the Constitution?


Yep. Big government liberal trump doing big government liberal things.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.