Trump bans institutional home buying

[Frozenbeernuts 2,532]

I wonder why democrats, who are supposed to be the party for the people, never did this. Weird and winning.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/trump-i-am-immediately-taking-steps-to-ban-large-institutional-investors-from-buying-more-single-fa-ce7e59dcde8af724

[Hardcore troubadour 16,163]

8 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

I wonder why democrats, who are supposed to be the party for the people, never did this. Weird and winning.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/trump-i-am-immediately-taking-steps-to-ban-large-institutional-investors-from-buying-more-single-fa-ce7e59dcde8af724

The people’s president 

[Ron_Artest 2,667]

13 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

I wonder why democrats, who are supposed to be the party for the people, never did this. Weird and winning.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/trump-i-am-immediately-taking-steps-to-ban-large-institutional-investors-from-buying-more-single-fa-ce7e59dcde8af724

The actually did

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2224

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1745

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4352

All D sponsored bills blocked by Republicans.

If Donpedo is actually trying to do something here great, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[MDC 8,201]

Great move and hope it holds.  

[Frozenbeernuts 2,532]

2 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

The actually did

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/2224

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1745

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4352

All D sponsored bills blocked by Republicans.

If Donpedo is actually trying to do something here great, but I'll believe it when I see it.

The uniparty. Why I don't assume republicans are on my side.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,532]

What a winning start to 2026. Thanks Trump.

[Grace Under Pressure 254]

Those bills only appear to remove tax deductions and depreciation treatment for those owning 50 or more houses. That doesn't seem to go as far as actually banning corporations from owning them though.

Trump knows real estate. The details on this policy is what matters, it's easy to agree that corporations owning single family residences is BS. 

 

[MTSkiBum 1,629]

There should be a limit on how many homes you can own.  Maybe set the limit somewhere around ~50 single family homes or ~10-25 apartment complexes?

We also probably need to subsidize home builders. We have built the least amount of houses per capita in last decade in a long time. We need to build more homes. 

[Sean Mooney 2,079]

He hasn't banned it. He did what he always does on stuff he doesn't really want to do... he threw it on Congress so they can take the hit

[Hardcore troubadour 16,163]

“People live in homes, not corporations “ DJT- POTUS. 

[5-Points 3,856]

7 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

There should be a limit on how many homes you can own.  Maybe set the limit somewhere around ~50 single family homes or ~10-25 apartment complexes?

We also probably need to subsidize home builders. We have built the least amount of houses per capita in last decade in a long time. We need to build more homes. 

Sure, let's build them in Montany. I'm tired of new construction around here. It stifles appreciation in existing homes. 

[dogcows 1,389]

10 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

I wonder why democrats, who are supposed to be the party for the people, never did this. Weird and winning.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/trump-i-am-immediately-taking-steps-to-ban-large-institutional-investors-from-buying-more-single-fa-ce7e59dcde8af724

Yet another Trump promise with no details. He’ll forget about it tomorrow. Fool me once….

[Hardcore troubadour 16,163]

13 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yet another Trump promise with no details. He’ll forget about it tomorrow. Fool me once….

[Frozenbeernuts 2,532]

5 hours ago, dogcows said:

Yet another Trump promise with no details. He’ll forget about it tomorrow. Fool me once….

Taco

[MTSkiBum 1,629]

10 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Sure, let's build them in Montany. I'm tired of new construction around here. It stifles appreciation in existing homes. 

 

We want to limit home appreciation. It sounds good on paper, your home goes up in price. However, once you sell your home you need another home, and that home also appreciated in price. So it is a wash. 

The below stat is even worse than it initially looks.  In 1960's there was roughly half the population then there is today and yet even though we had half the population we still built 50% more houses. 

Corporate ownership and lack of houses being built are making home ownership way too expensive. Hopefully Trump addresses the former, but we still need the latter addressed. 

 

The 2010s was by far the lowest decade of single-family production in the last 60 years. During this 10-year period, single-family home construction totaled just 6.8 million units. By comparison, single-family starts ranged from 9.3 million units in the 1960s to 12.3 million in the 2000s.

 

https://www.nahb.org/blog/2020/01/A-Decade-of-Home-Building-The-Long-Recovery-of-the-2010s

[Frozenbeernuts 2,532]

18 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

There should be a limit on how many homes you can own.  Maybe set the limit somewhere around ~50 single family homes or ~10-25 apartment complexes?

We also probably need to subsidize home builders. We have built the least amount of houses per capita in last decade in a long time. We need to build more homes. 

Wut? Subsidize home builders? Have you learned nothing about what subsidizing does to markets?

[Frozenbeernuts 2,532]

11 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Sure, let's build them in Montany. I'm tired of new construction around here. It stifles appreciation in existing homes. 

Homes shouldn't be a store of value. It screws everything up. It's something that degrades over time, especially the sht boxes they build now.

Making homes a store of value was a ploy to screw over most people.

[MTSkiBum 1,629]

3 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Wut? Subsidize home builders? Have you learned nothing about what subsidizing does to markets?

 

Typically when an industry is subsidized it causes an increase in production and a decrease in cost for the end consumer. This is because when an industry is subsidized it encourages more companies to enter the market and for existing companies to increase production. 

Subsidies are typically tax breaks, but can also include grants and low cost loans. Grants would be more for research, like the government subsidizing new computer chip development or new battery technology.  But for existing industries it would probably be tax breaks. 

Subsidies can cause an increase in pricing of raw materials for competing industries if that is not taken into account. For example if home builders were subsidized heavily then the demand for lumber would increase. If the supply of lumber is also not increased, either through subsidies or naturally then the price of the raw material will rise which negatively effects competing industries, ie furniture builders. 

But all of this can be taken into account by the people who are working on putting the bill together to actually subsidize an industry. 

 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,532]

1 minute ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

Typically when an industry is subsidized it causes an increase in production and a decrease in cost for the end consumer. This is because when an industry is subsidized it encourages more companies to enter the market and for existing companies to increase production. 

Subsidies are typically tax breaks, but can also include grants and low cost loans. Grants would be more for research, like the government subsidizing new computer chip development or new battery technology.  But for existing industries it would probably be tax breaks. 

Subsidies can cause an increase in pricing of raw materials for competing industries if that is not taken into account. For example if home builders were subsidized heavily then the demand for lumber would increase. If the supply of lumber is also not increased, either through subsidies or naturally then the price of the raw material will rise which negatively effects competing industries, ie furniture builders. 

But all of this can be taken into account by the people who are working on putting the bill together to actually subsidize an industry. 

 

College tuition, electric cars, health care, home buying tax credits. The list goes on. It does not bring prices down.

[MTSkiBum 1,629]

46 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

College tuition, electric cars, health care, home buying tax credits. The list goes on. It does not bring prices down.

I understand where the confusion lies now. 

When subsidizing something, you can subsidize either the producers or the consumers. For example our steel, aluminum, and concrete industries all receive subsidies somewhere of about 1-3% of their revenue. This is an example of a producer subsidy.

Subsidizing homeowners or college tuition is an example of a consumer subsidy. 

When you subsidize the consumer, it creates artificial demand and that artificial demand can drive the price back up to the original cost.

However, when you subsidize the producer, it does not have that effect. This is why i stated that homebuilders should be subsidized, not homebuyers. I also explicitly layed out this risk in my previous post. If you go back and re-read it, the home building industry is both producer and a consumer.  The largest products it consumes would be lumber and concrete. Specific care would have to be taken so that your concern would not happen. We would not want the cost of lumber to skyrocket because homebuilders were subsidized. 

[Hardcore troubadour 16,163]

Old people clinging to their 3-4 bed room homes isn’t helping either. 

[WhiteWonder 3,035]

5 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

We want to limit home appreciation. It sounds good on paper, your home goes up in price. However, once you sell your home you need another home, and that home also appreciated in price. So it is a wash. 

The below stat is even worse than it initially looks.  In 1960's there was roughly half the population then there is today and yet even though we had half the population we still built 50% more houses. 

Corporate ownership and lack of houses being built are making home ownership way too expensive. Hopefully Trump addresses the former, but we still need the latter addressed. 

 

 

 

home/apartment complex building is no issue in my area. Even with proximity to NYC, the amount of new complexes going up (and still vacant units in these complexes) is crazy right now. 

In regards to home prices going up only sounding good on paper, your example makes sense, but there are a lot of people who buy vacation homes with the intention to eventually live in them full time after retirement and in the meantime, they rent them out. By the time they are ready to retire, that appreciation on their main home is actually quite beneficial. They make a bag on selling their large home and downsize, often to a state with lower property taxes. Meanwhile the vacation home was paying for itself via rentals.   (yes this scenario requires an investors mindset)

[WhiteWonder 3,035]

5 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Wut? Subsidize home builders? Have you learned nothing about what subsidizing does to markets?

your x/tik tok education has failed you

[Horseman 2,812]

5 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

home/apartment complex building is no issue in my area. Even with proximity to NYC, the amount of new complexes going up (and still vacant units in these complexes) is crazy right now. 

In regards to home prices going up only sounding good on paper, your example makes sense, but there are a lot of people who buy vacation homes with the intention to eventually live in them full time after retirement and in the meantime, they rent them out. By the time they are ready to retire, that appreciation on their main home is actually quite beneficial. They make a bag on selling their large home and downsize, often to a state with lower property taxes. Meanwhile the vacation home was paying for itself via rentals.   (yes this scenario requires an investors mindset)

This is the way.  

[MTSkiBum 1,629]

15 minutes ago, WhiteWonder said:

home/apartment complex building is no issue in my area. Even with proximity to NYC, the amount of new complexes going up (and still vacant units in these complexes) is crazy right now. 

In regards to home prices going up only sounding good on paper, your example makes sense, but there are a lot of people who buy vacation homes with the intention to eventually live in them full time after retirement and in the meantime, they rent them out. By the time they are ready to retire, that appreciation on their main home is actually quite beneficial. They make a bag on selling their large home and downsize, often to a state with lower property taxes. Meanwhile the vacation home was paying for itself via rentals.   (yes this scenario requires an investors mindset)

About 5% of families own a 2nd home, and I do hope to be one of them in about ~5 years or so. But home building policies shouldn't be based around families that can afford 2 homes. 

Going back to my first post, there were 6.8 million homes built in last decade when population was ~320 million people and in 1960's there were 9.3 million homes built when population was 200 million people. 

That is 1 house per every 47 people in last decade, but 1 house for every 21 people in 1960's. If we don't build enough houses, then the cost of housing will be much higher. This is why housing costs have greatly outstripped inflation. 

Maybe subsidies aren't the perfect answer, maybe there is a better solution. I do like trump's plan to limit corporate home ownership, but we also need to figure out a way to get more houses being built if young people are going to be able to afford housing in the future. 

 

https://www.builderonline.com/data-analysis/nahb-second-home-areas-gain-market-share_c

The count for second homes across the country stands at 6.5 million, or 4.6% of the total housing stock, with 17.5% of single-family construction activity allocated to second homes, according to the NAHB.

[WhiteWonder 3,035]

26 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

About 5% of families own a 2nd home, and I do hope to be one of them in about ~5 years or so. But home building policies shouldn't be based around families that can afford 2 homes. 

Going back to my first post, there were 6.8 million homes built in last decade when population was ~320 million people and in 1960's there were 9.3 million homes built when population was 200 million people. 

That is 1 house per every 47 people in last decade, but 1 house for every 21 people in 1960's. If we don't build enough houses, then the cost of housing will be much higher. This is why housing costs have greatly outstripped inflation. 

Maybe subsidies aren't the perfect answer, maybe there is a better solution. I do like trump's plan to limit corporate home ownership, but we also need to figure out a way to get more houses being built if young people are going to be able to afford housing in the future. 

 

https://www.builderonline.com/data-analysis/nahb-second-home-areas-gain-market-share_c

 

 

i'm not disputing your numbers, I was just offering a example of home appreciation really living up to it's on paper billing.  I think you can also disregard the multiple home ownership aspect and simply point to all the retirees who downsize, which very often comes with relocating to areas with lower property taxes.  Sq foot for Sq foot, when they downsize, there may be little difference in what their home has appreciated to vs what they will be spending, but the overall savings for someone moving from a 4 bedroom home in, let's say NJ, and retiring to a 2 bedroom condo in North Carolina and then being able to invest that difference...