Teslag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly

---

What does this mean and how does it work?

---

Apparently when an entity (in this case institutional investors) owns 1 to 3% of the market it is a "monopoly".

---

I mean, Senator Warren, Merrick Garland, and Pete Buttigieg seem to agree, especially when discussing airlines like Spirit.

Quote:

---

The government already tells you how much taxes you have to pay...even after paying off the loan.
The local HOA can limit how you use your house (in-home business, short term rentals, etc)

---

Difference here is that with property taxes and the HOA you knew those costs and takings prior to buying the property. You voluntarily accepted to those hinderances. With this proposal you are not just capping the value of my asset, you are stealing the capital gains to benefit another individual. It is a defacto wealth tax.

StandUpforAmerica 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.

---

The government already tells you how much taxes you have to pay...even after paying off the loan.
The local HOA can limit how you use your house (in-home business, short term rentals, etc)

There are already some limits to our personal property. We as a society just have to determine where the line is we don't want to cross.

---

Yep. Blackstone's Theory of Property as "sole and despotic dominion" (sounds like some posters here) is fun to shout about, but has never been reality.

Property, in American reality, is a bundle of rights that is not absolute and is subject to society's interests, even if owners wish it were otherwise. Acknowledging that is a good start.

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

corporations are effectively acting as a monopoly

---

What does this mean and how does it work?

---

Apparently when an entity (in this case institutional investors) owns 1 to 3% of the market it is a "monopoly".

---

While I agree that 1 to 3% isn't a monopoly, institutional investors are still able to have an effect on local rental prices in certain metro areas.

---

Mega Landlords. Do they Mega Maids?




Lots of apartments have been built in many metro areas because young people want to live in cities and not in rural areas. Thus lots of landlords. I would argue more building is good for housing prices

Teslag said:

---

The percentage of rental units/homes owned is irrelevant to this discussion, one being about 1st time buyers needing to be able to buy a home, not rent one. If institutional investors owned 1% of single family homes, and those accounted for 100% of the single family rentals it wouldn't affect a 1st time buyer at all.

---

It absolutely applies here. Nationally, 1-3% of SFH's are owned by Institutional investors. However, locally, that number can climb in metro areas where the institutional investors are buying up homes to rent and that increase will have local effects on first time home buyers. Both as first time home buyers that are currently paying the profit margin for the institution they are renting from, and then again when they are trying to purchase a house against a corporation with cheaper capital.

Even if you believe there are better or more effective ways to help first time home buyers, I think not allowing corporations to own single family housing will be nothing but a benefit overtime. If institutions want to buy multi-family and rent, then have at it. But single family housing is meant for single families.

Finally, if your entire argument has been "Institutions don't own enough of this market for it to influence house prices" then one could reason that barring them from ownership wouldn't have any influence on house prices either.

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

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.

---

How about home owners that have seen their home values not keep up with inflation. Prices may be up but home values are down when compared to everything else. The problem is in wages not keeping with the broader market.

You want a real boogeyman, people need to compare 5 year stock market gains to 5 year wage increases. Money is being siphoned out of the middle class at record speeds. And it's not happening in single family homes.

My friend, I think you are confusing single-family homes and single-owner rental units.
Even more than that, institutional investor-owned housing is different than family business-owned housing.

CS78 said:

---

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

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.

---

How about home owners that have seen their home values not keep up with inflation. Prices may be up but home values are down when compared to everything else. The problem is in wages not keeping with the broader market.

You want a real boogeyman, people need to compare 5 year stock market gains to 5 year wage increases. Money is being siphoned out of the middle class at record speeds. And it's not happening in single family homes.

---

I'm going to copy/paste a post i made a couple of months ago that addressed some of these wage-related concerns

Quote:

---

And mortgage rates were 13%+ in 1984 and around 6% today. Stop worrying about the notional amount and consider the monthly payment:

At ~13%, the monthly payment for your $80k home in 1984 was about $750 per month, which represents about 36% of your monthly take-home pay.

At ~6% , the monthly payment for your $420k home in 2025 was about $2150 per month, which represents about 33% of your monthly take-home pay.

Tell me which is better? Plus, lending standards are looser and down payments are smaller today than they were in 1984.

---

Quote:

---

Nationally, 1-3% of SFH's are owned by Institutional investors. However, locally, that number can climb in metro areas

---

Except you failed to show us what this was and purely relied on rentals.

Quote:

---

Finally, if your entire argument has been "Institutions don't own enough of this market for it to influence house prices" then one could reason that barring them from ownership wouldn't have any influence on house prices either.

---

I don't care about the overall market, or the overall influence. I care about being able to sell my home to whoever the **** is offering the most money.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Nationally, 1-3% of SFH's are owned by Institutional investors. However, locally, that number can climb in metro areas

---

Except you failed to show us what this was and purely relied on rentals.

Quote:

---

Finally, if your entire argument has been "Institutions don't own enough of this market for it to influence house prices" then one could reason that barring them from ownership wouldn't have any influence on house prices either.

---

I don't care about the overall market, or the overall influence. I care about being able to sell my home to whoever the **** is offering the most money.

---

On part 1, If they own 20% of the SFH that are used for rentals in an area, that doesn't have an impact on home prices (reduced inventory available for sale to people who want to own a home)?

On part 2, I don't understand why you feel the need to drop f bombs to get your point across. I understand very clearly that you are only worried about yourself, it's extremely endearing. However, you do realize that the increase in money you make from the sale of your home to an institutional investor would also be taken from you when you purchase your next home in order to beat an institutional investor for it. You have to put yourself in both shoes because you will be the one fighting instiutional investors after you sell.

On the data center thread. People arguing there should be laws against who their neighbors can sell to.

Is this considering that the 80K house in the 80's and the 400K house now are the same exact house?

Everyone is talking about whether the government should do this within a small/big government, anti/pro homeowner frame and not within the frame of whether it actually addresses the problem of housing affordability.

Outside of localized hotspots of high corporate home ownership, this move wouldn't move the needle much nationally. Housing affordability is predominantly a supply side problem driven by local land use regulation. It's the kind of "solution" a populist would use to give the appearance of solving the problem without actually solving it.

Quote:

---

However, you do realize that the increase in money you make from the sale of your home to an institutional investor would also be taken from you when you purchase your next home in order to beat an institutional investor for it.

---

With 1 to 3% of homes owned by institutional investors the cost of my subsequent home will in no way be impacted.

cef88 said:

---

Is this considering that the 80K house in the 80's and the 400K house now are the same exact house?

---

Does it matter? My house was built in 1959. The insulation stinks, the bedrooms are smaller than current standards, and any updates would require substantial electrical rewiring.

Homes are 20-40% larger today, and yet families are smaller. Occupancy was about 2.8 people per home in the 1980, and it has dropped to about 2.5 people per home today. Bigger homes with fewer occupants


eta: iirc, you can perform the same monthly take-home pay calculations, adjusting for square footage and occupancy levels and you'll see similar results

Octo Pie said:

---

Everyone is talking about whether the government should do this within a small/big government, anti/pro homeowner frame and not within the frame of whether it actually addresses the problem of housing affordability.

Outside of localized hotspots of high corporate home ownership, this move wouldn't move the needle much nationally. Housing affordability is predominantly a supply side problem driven by local land use regulation. It's the kind of "solution" a populist would use to give the appearance of solving the problem without actually solving it.

---

Exactly. If the federal government is going to get involved (they shouldn't), then it should be to limit state and local regulations in order to make it cheaper and faster to build new housing. But Trump has never seen a problem that he doesn't think big government is the solution for.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

However, you do realize that the increase in money you make from the sale of your home to an institutional investor would also be taken from you when you purchase your next home in order to beat an institutional investor for it.

---

With 1 to 3% of homes owned by institutional investors the cost of my subsequent home will in no way be impacted.

---

By that logic, they won't be offering on your home in the first place! So since it won't impact you directly and that's all you care about, then join the side that is against corporations owning homes!

cef88 said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

However, you do realize that the increase in money you make from the sale of your home to an institutional investor would also be taken from you when you purchase your next home in order to beat an institutional investor for it.

---

With 1 to 3% of homes owned by institutional investors the cost of my subsequent home will in no way be impacted.

---

By that logic, they won't be offering on your home in the first place! So since it won't impact you directly and that's all you care about, then join the side that is against corporations owning homes!

---

Statistically the chances of them offering is extremely low, but on the chance they do I shouldn't be told I can't sell to them so that you can steal my assets to support your charity cases.

I would like to know where all these institutional investors are getting cheap capital at the moment, because I'd like to get my hands on some. Thanks and gig 'em.
I'd also like to know where all these institutional investors are buying houses to let them sit vacant. That seems like a really ****ty return on capital.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Octo Pie said:

---

Everyone is talking about whether the government should do this within a small/big government, anti/pro homeowner frame and not within the frame of whether it actually addresses the problem of housing affordability.

Outside of localized hotspots of high corporate home ownership, this move wouldn't move the needle much nationally. Housing affordability is predominantly a supply side problem driven by local land use regulation. It's the kind of "solution" a populist would use to give the appearance of solving the problem without actually solving it.

---

Exactly. If the federal government is going to get involved (they shouldn't), then it should be to limit state and local regulations in order to make it cheaper and faster to build new housing. But Trump has never seen a problem that he doesn't think big government is the solution for.

---

The federal government is not powerless when it comes to housing affordability, but it largely is with what you've suggested. State governments pre-empting local zoning (like what California and Montana have started in recent years) are the highest leverage reforms happening now.

Ask yourself these two questions then think about whether or not you should support this Bill:

1. Did Senator Ted Cruz support this Bill?

2. Did Senator Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren support this Bill?

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Are you completely opposed to eminent domain and city zoning restrictions?

---

I'm okay with eminent domain as long as the seller is made whole. Which is what makes this different. You are outright advocating the theft of asset, with no return, in order to gift it to another buyer.

I don't mind zoning laws as long as existing owners are exempt. New buyers know what they are getting once they are established.

---

You can't make the landowner whole in eminent domain. If you could, the condemnor would just give the property back. What you can do, and what most statutes call for, is to compensate the owner for what they've lost.

Zoning laws run with the land; they typically don't change when the property sells. A property can retain its existing status under some kind of non-conforming or grandfathered statutes until someone decides to materially change the use of the property. Then they have to be brought into compliance with the local zoning ordinance.

Two (or more) things can be true at once.

Government getting involved in markets usually, and especially over time, leads to overreach, corruption, and poorer outcomes.

Without any moral fiber many groups are entering and distorting markets in ways that are significantly harmful for those markets and society as a whole.

Failure to enact minimal restrictions or limitations on markets in bad actors are active can or will lead to even worse outcomes after a problem/disaster/crash.

Sarbanes-Oxley is a great example. Poor/missing regulatory oversight led to bad actors creating a massive problem. Government responds after the fact with a huge and incredibly onnerous set of restrictions after the fact.

I'm not generally in favor of large scale market interventions. However limiting single family home ownership to... single families with a carve out for individuals under a very specific business type (new) that has some liability protections and is limited to a certain number of properties seems reasonable.

Shell companies and massive corporations owning hundreds of thousands of homes and keeping inventory off the market forcing people into a rental market while preventing natural market forces from adjusting home prices seems counterproductive to the health of the whole society.

aezmvp said:

---

Two (or more) things can be true at once.

Government getting involved in markets usually, and especially over time, leads to overreach, corruption, and poorer outcomes.

Without any moral fiber many groups are entering and distorting markets in ways that are significantly harmful for those markets and society as a whole.

Failure to enact minimal restrictions or limitations on markets in bad actors are active can or will lead to even worse outcomes after a problem/disaster/crash.

Sarbanes-Oxley is a great example. Poor/missing regulatory oversight led to bad actors creating a massive problem. Government responds after the fact with a huge and incredibly onnerous set of restrictions after the fact.

I'm not generally in favor of large scale market interventions. However limiting single family home ownership to... single families with a carve out for individuals under a very specific business type (new) that has some liability protections and is limited to a certain number of properties seems reasonable.

Shell companies and massive corporations owning hundreds of thousands of homes and keeping inventory off the market forcing people into a rental market while preventing natural market forces from adjusting home prices seems counterproductive to the health of the whole society.

---

What do you mean by "distorting markets in ways that are significantly harmful"?
Is there widespread evidence of participants "forcing people into a rental market while preventing natural market forces from adjusting home price"?

I seriously believe that since the Obama era presidency, the average person has become dumber about economics. Maybe it's just that Boomers and Dems are all over social media saying stupid ****, and that's what algos bubble up, but man, there are some dumb economic takes out there.

You lose your freedom a little bit at a time.

We used to have at least one party who gave lip service to preserving it.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

However, you do realize that the increase in money you make from the sale of your home to an institutional investor would also be taken from you when you purchase your next home in order to beat an institutional investor for it.

---

With 1 to 3% of homes owned by institutional investors the cost of my subsequent home will in no way be impacted.

---

Which means the sale of your home wouldn't be impacted either. You just defeated your own argument.

Bad Trump.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

However, you do realize that the increase in money you make from the sale of your home to an institutional investor would also be taken from you when you purchase your next home in order to beat an institutional investor for it.

---

With 1 to 3% of homes owned by institutional investors the cost of my subsequent home will in no way be impacted.

---

Which means the sale of your home wouldn't be impacted either. You just defeated your own argument.

---

Already addressed in my 4:30 post.The statistical likelihood of an institutional investor purchasing our homes is unlikely. However, should that unlikely event happen you should have the right to sell your asset for whatever amount you wish.

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.

---

Ding ding ding. Cost and access to capital is the actual problem.

Also Trump has never been a conservative. This has been discussed ad nauseum. Look at his spending track record.

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.

---

I get the liberty angle but these companies are mucking with the housing market and driving up prices.

ts5641 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.

---

I get the liberty angle but these companies are mucking with the housing market and driving up prices.

---

His point is that he doesn't care about artificial price inflation by companies with cheap capital buying single family homes in already saturated markets to not use as long as he gets more money for his.

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

ts5641 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.

---

I get the liberty angle but these companies are mucking with the housing market and driving up prices.

---

His point is that he doesn't care about artificial price inflation by companies with cheap capital buying single family homes in already saturated markets to not use as long as he gets more money for his.

---

1. I think we already made it clear that I am in fact not a socialist

and

2. We already made it clear that 1 to 3% of market penetration is in no way creating artificial price inflation.

Teslag said:

---

John Fisher Pessimist said:

---

ts5641 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.

---

I get the liberty angle but these companies are mucking with the housing market and driving up prices.

---

His point is that he doesn't care about artificial price inflation by companies with cheap capital buying single family homes in already saturated markets to not use as long as he gets more money for his.

---

1. I think we already made it clear that I am in fact not a socialist

and

2. We already made it clear that 1 to 3% of market penetration is in no way creating artificial price inflation.

---

I won't speak to part one, but for part two people need to understand those percentages and quit trying to make boogeyman out of big bad corporate dollars.

Also, many a purpose built BTR community (I understand the redundancy, but I am speaking of an entire project not just a individual unit / home) are not platted to allow for the homes to be sold individually down the road.

In order to drive density and returns and to get around setbacks and impact fees and similar, many are platted as a single property with many single family homes on that single property. Projects like these simply would not be built otherwise, so they actually help the housing stock without impacting sale prices.

But people like to blame others for their poor financial choices.