Not surprising a real estate developer Wins the presidency and his appointees write tax cut legislation and
Voila. & Abra-Cadabra

Real estate becomes a more lucrative thing to invest in and the big money hedges get in the game

Better yet would be to ban wholesale subsidies by govt entities. It is way out of control and skewing the market. Do this and hedge funds won't buy them.

I support it. These huge single family home rental companies are scoundrels.

I signed a lease with one recently and turns out the home has a bunch of issues and I'm terminating the lease. They delay action until I sent them my termination notice for their failure to maintain the property to required legal standard and magically they seem to be able to schedule immediate work.

But looking for alternatives is an eye opener, this corporation seems to own and manage about 70% of the open listings in the area!

It's a terrible situation for renters.

I think something needs to be (foreign ownership as well), but I'm not so sure this is it. Especially that last bullet which sounds like people can't own more than one home at once - that's a big no from me for various reasons.

I also have little faith that Congress can craft legislation that actually works without causing more problems they themselves create in the process.

Pure BS. When you see overtly political statements like this woven into an article, you know it's garbage.

"Predatory" hedge funds "target" black families and "vulnerable" single parents.

Quote:

---

Predatory hedge funds disproportionately target Black families and vulnerable single parents, as revealed in a recent House Financial Services Committee report.

The report found these investors focus on neighborhoods with larger Black populations and approximately 30% more single mothers than the national average.

---

These funds are buying assets they think will appreciate, no different than individual investors who do the same. They will rent them out because they want the cash flow, or sell them if the price is right. Same thing as acquiring stocks, bonds, land, collectibles, etc. The only problem I see here is the attempt by the author to interfere with the free market.

You want a home to own or rent? Then work hard, stay out of trouble, and make choices that allow you to get in that position. Just like everybody else who had to work their way into a home. So much entitlement these days... gimme my free college, health care, and housing.

It always comes down to $. Politicians aren't incentivized to advocate for the middle class when lobbyists are sliding them checks.

Why hasn't Texas banned foreign land ownership? Why was the recent "tax relief" a homestead expansion vs a systemic resolution against appraisal-based tax increases? Why are sportsmen heavily restricted in Red Snapper limits while commercial fishermen are allowed to take large hauls?

Politicians do the things which benefit them.

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

The conservatives on this board constantly talk about how the WEF and Klaus Schwab are bad, and how they don't want to "own nothing and be happy". But when it finally comes time to take action against these people, they cower away because they're afraid of any kind of regulation.

While yall are busy arguing over hedge fund rights, these hedge funds are actively working on destroying the future financial security of your children.

---

You think that it is private hedge funds that are driving the move towards eliminating home ownership that Schwab and the WEF support? No, it's government. Private entities owning rental properties is not what the Schwab, et al, have in mind. They envision homes being owned by the government. The same presentation that contained the "You will own nothing" slide talked about how we would all be eating less meat, and other parts of the progressive fantasy where government reorganizes our lives in a fashion that the elites deem more suitable.

If we want to discourage speculative hoarding of real estate, maybe implement some kind of reverse property tax. That is, if you own a vacant lot or unoccupied building in an otherwise high-value area, you pay MORE than if there's a home or business there.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

If we want to discourage speculative hoarding of real estate, maybe implement some kind of reverse property tax. That is, if you own a vacant lot or unoccupied building in an otherwise high-value area, you pay MORE than if there's a home or business there.

---

We sort of already do that in Texas with the homestead exemption, its just that we give homeowners a break rather than penalizing non-homeowners.

I have equal amounts of distrust for control by our government and big finance. They are both pretty much the same thing in America anyway.

Im a smaller corporate landlord that owns mostly MFH, but I also have SFH in my portfolio. I only say that because it helps to understand I have bias here.

I think the main point of this act is one that cant readily be ignored, too much housing inventory goes to investor ownership rather than owner occupants. I think theres a very reasonable argument to make that owner occupancy is good for the spiritual well-being of a community. homeownership is a source of wealth generation and pride of having made it. Increased demand for housing raises prices (we still believe in economics, right?), and raised prices limit owner occupancy. Then theres civic engagement. Owner occupants care far more about local issues than landlords because they actually live there. I somewhat care about Decatur, AL and Eden, NC, but living in CA theres no possible way I care more than local residents. And if you're a megacorp like a hedge fund, its just a data tape.

The fine print on this act is ill considered and dumb. For one, all of those predators targetting vulnerable populations also made the exact same populations wealthier by being the highest bidder. For two, theres all sorts of easy entity structuring that will always make it possible for corporate ownership to not appear to be that big. The lawyers on the hedge fund side will be ten steps ahead of the regulators. A far better approach to making ownership of housing more geared towards owner occupants is to raise property taxes on non-owner occupants to a level where it doesnt make financial sense to be a landlord. This should only be done at a state and local level based on the specific needs of the community.

Saltwater Assassin said:

---

Beat40 said:

---

Saltwater Assassin said:

---

The answer is absolutely, positively, unequivocally NEVER more government regulation.

---

I disagree. Monopolies are not a good thing, so regulation against monopolies are good.

All games have rules, so even a market should have some rules.

I'm not saying regulation against hedge funds in relation to housing is needed right now, but corporations owning homes and land is something to watch for the middle class.

Home and land ownership should be in the hands of the people. It's a wealth builder.

---

I could not agree more with the bolded part. That's how I make my living (custom homes). Home ownership is a fantastic blessing

That said I simply do not trust the government to make anything better; it's a case where the cure is likely worse than the disease.

Just my opinion.

---

I do not disagree that 90% of the time government getting involved makes things much worse.

All I was pointing out is that regulation around monopolies actually has helped the consumer out.

I don't think the hedge fund issue is a huge deal right now, but I do think as the gap between the wealthy and poor keeps widening, and the middle class continues to bear the most of the brunt, this will become a big issue, and some regulation may be needed at that time.

The real answer is cut spending drastically and pay down our debt. Life will get better for everyone if the stupid people running our country would do those two things.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

---

Hey now! This is completely unfair! BlackRock doesn't own real estate.

They just help provide the working capital to the hedge groups to BUY the real estate.

I think I read that ibuyers own > 50% of the homes in Dallas

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Pure BS. When you see overtly political statements like this woven into an article, you know it's garbage.

"Predatory" hedge funds "target" black families and "vulnerable" single parents.

Quote:

---

Predatory hedge funds disproportionately target Black families and vulnerable single parents, as revealed in a recent House Financial Services Committee report.

The report found these investors focus on neighborhoods with larger Black populations and approximately 30% more single mothers than the national average.

---

These funds are buying assets they think will appreciate, no different than individual investors who do the same. They will rent them out because they want the cash flow, or sell them if the price is right. Same thing as acquiring stocks, bonds, land, collectibles, etc. The only problem I see here is the attempt by the author to interfere with the free market.

You want a home to own or rent? Then work hard, stay out of trouble, and make choices that allow you to get in that position. Just like everybody else who had to work their way into a home. So much entitlement these days... gimme my free college, health care, and housing.

---

this take is so unbelievably tone deaf as to not be taken seriously, 2007 says Hi.

The Griftopia is alive and well

crony capitalism is the scourge of this once great nation

I do have a question, did you actually type with a straight face that the hedge funds are playing by the same rules as individual investor / home owner?

These hedge funds rule the world (literally) they have lined the pockets of every congressman and control both DC and Wall St.

ridiculous take is ridiculous

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

---

Quote:

---

Predatory hedge funds disproportionately target Black families

---

Life f'ing clockwork.

"Disproportionately [verb here] Blacks" is the most overused and abused phrase in the English language. It's used in almost every single example of something going wrong in this country.

Most helpless race on the planet are American blacks according to Democrats. Can't do anything on their own without their Democrat owner's direction.

Bag said:

---

this take is so unbelievably tone deaf as to not be taken seriously, 2007 says Hi.

The Griftopia is alive and well

crony capitalism is the scourge of this once great nation

I do have a question, did you actually type with a straight face that the hedge funds are playing by the same rules as individual investor / home owner?

These hedge funds rule the world (literally) they have lined the pockets of every congressman and control both DC and Wall St.

ridiculous take is ridiculous

---

Lol, gotta have a boogie man to blame things on, I get it. It's convenient and helps drive the justification for more government control of the private sector. Once they scalp the hedge funds, then it will be a complaint that wealthier people own too many of the homes and that's why folks can't buy one. In fact we've already seen proposals in some areas to prohibit people from owning a second home that only use it occasionally because someone else "needs" it more.

Our nation is great because of capitalism, not in spite of it. The increasing shift to socialism will be its demise.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Bag said:

---

this take is so unbelievably tone deaf as to not be taken seriously, 2007 says Hi.

The Griftopia is alive and well

crony capitalism is the scourge of this once great nation

I do have a question, did you actually type with a straight face that the hedge funds are playing by the same rules as individual investor / home owner?

These hedge funds rule the world (literally) they have lined the pockets of every congressman and control both DC and Wall St.

ridiculous take is ridiculous

---

Lol, gotta have a boogie man to blame things on, I get it. It's convenient and helps drive the justification for more government control of the private sector. Once they scalp the hedge funds, then it will be a complaint that wealthier people own too many of the homes and that's why folks can't buy one. In fact we've already seen proposals in some areas to prohibit people from owning a second home that only use it occasionally because someone else "needs" it more.

Our nation is great because of capitalism, not in spite of it. The increasing shift to socialism will be its demise.

---

This.

People can't afford to buy homes because no one is building affordable homes anymore. Why is that? Largely because: (1) the regulatory environment heaps so many costs on to building something that it doesn't pay to build starter homes anymore; and, (2) cheap money and low interest rates have encouraged people to buy bigger and fancier homes, thus feeding the developer's desire to pursue the larger, more profitable homes. If government got out of the way, we'd have more affordable homes and fewer renters.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Bag said:

---

this take is so unbelievably tone deaf as to not be taken seriously, 2007 says Hi.

The Griftopia is alive and well

crony capitalism is the scourge of this once great nation

I do have a question, did you actually type with a straight face that the hedge funds are playing by the same rules as individual investor / home owner?

These hedge funds rule the world (literally) they have lined the pockets of every congressman and control both DC and Wall St.

ridiculous take is ridiculous

---

Lol, gotta have a boogie man to blame things on, I get it. It's convenient and helps drive the justification for more government control of the private sector. Once they scalp the hedge funds, then it will be a complaint that wealthier people own too many of the homes and that's why folks can't buy one. In fact we've already seen proposals in some areas to prohibit people from owning a second home that only use it occasionally because someone else "needs" it more.

Our nation is great because of capitalism, not in spite of it. The increasing shift to socialism will be its demise.

---

Correction, Main st capitalism is what made this country great, Wall st capitalism, aka crony capitalism is what has this country listing and taking on water from all sides.


The iBuyers are a real problem, esp for the younger generation trying to get ahead.

If your eyes glazed over my longer post, home ownership is a source of spiritual and civic wealth. The local community, state, and nation are better off with more individual homeowners living as owner occupants than for profit landlords. Single family housing as an economic commodity to maximize corporate (small mom and pop or megacorp) wealth is counterproductive to a healthy economy where the median earner feels they can succeed. But Id rather local governments figure this out for their communities and impose higher property taxes on SFH rentals, a federal approach makes no sense.

FWIW, Im exiting SFH as a landlord and where possible helping my existing tenants buy the home from me at FMV, usually with a similiar monthly cost to own as their rent.