Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/10/2026 7:35:23 PM PST by SeekAndFind
For millions of Americans, buying a home no longer feels like a goal. It feels like a gamble they are destined to lose. Prices rise faster than savings. Mortgage payments outpace wages. Each rejected offer chips away at confidence.
Donald Trump says that cycle must stop.
His plan to ban large institutional investors from buying houses has struck a nerve across the US. It speaks directly to people who believe the housing market no longer serves them.
The message is blunt. Homes are for people, not corporations.
For many, housing affordability defines their daily lives. Their circumstances have changed; many young couples have delayed starting families, and many older adults continue living in their parents' homes. Instead of allowing people to build wealth, rent often becomes a significant drain on income.
Trump's proposal comes at a time when many feel angry and fatigued. He is positioning himself as a challenger to a system that many believe is rigged against the average homebuyer by targeting large investors.
Rather than being a technical policy laden with detailed data, Trump's proposal is very much an emotional appeal. It aims to resonate with voters by framing the issue as a fight for ordinary Americans.
Numerous buyers now find themselves competing against anonymous corporate investors rather than fellow residents. These investment companies often present cash offers, bypass inspections, and close transactions quickly. As a result, families and individual buyers cannot compete on equal footing.
Trump has capitalised on this animosity by stating that banning corporate investors would reduce competition and enable first-time buyers to re-enter the market. This idea seems fair and necessary, especially after years of declining affordability and increasing corporate ownership of residential properties.
Housing is a vital part of daily life, yet a significant portion of the market is owned and financed by large institutional companies. Currently, about 1% of single-family homes are sold to institutional investors nationwide.
The extent of their activity varies by city. In markets such as Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston, there is some concentration within specific neighbourhoods and price ranges. When multiple properties on the same street are purchased by one investor, it can have an immediate, unsettling impact on the community.
However, legislation that outright bans institutional investors will not instantly change market dynamics. The real crisis runs deeper.
The core issue lies in supply. America has a chronic shortage of new homebuilding. Years of restrictions imposed by local zoning laws, combined with slow approval processes at the state and local levels, have limited new residential development. Rising construction costs have only worsened the problem.
To stabilise prices, millions more housing units need to be built. Until this supply shortfall is addressed, property prices are likely to continue rising, regardless of buyer eligibility.
The post-pandemic environment has also worsened affordability. Accelerated global inflation led to a sharp increase in mortgage interest rates, making monthly payments unaffordable for many households. As rates rose faster than incomes, many potential buyers found themselves unable to qualify for a mortgage.
Trump openly acknowledges the contradiction at the heart of housing policy: build more homes, and prices may fall, helping buyers but potentially hurting existing homeowners whose wealth is tied to property values. Protect prices, and younger generations remain locked out.
The proposed investor ban attempts to strike a balance. It signals action without flooding the market with new homes. It aims to prevent a sudden drop in property values while showing solidarity with frustrated buyers.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Our law says Corporations ARE People. Thank the Supreme Court for that nonsense.
Only a tiny number of single-family houses are owned by corporations. Not allowing corporations to own single-family houses would cut into the rental market, and make it more difficult to rent a house.
Removing illegal aliens will help income and availability.
While 1% is small for the whole country, between this amount being concentrated in some areas that also have housing pressure from illegal immigrants, the entry level housing in some areas has become very hard for young adults to afford. This move by Trump along with more deportations and hopefully lower interest rates hopefully we’ll see housing market corrections.
Is there a compelling non-socialist reason I should be told who I can sell my house to?
But why stop at big evil corporations? How about we ban cash buyers? Maybe selling prices can indexed.
It's that people dont want to give up stupid spending habits, if they did give up stupid spending habits, and they bought a house they could afford instead of a house they want.
And people are too self absorbed to work overtime, nights weekends or a job they requires dedication, hardwork, loyalty, education. And doesnt let you sit home all day in front of a computer.
Property ownership = conservatism. A nation of renters is under the thumb of either fascism or communism.
Here’s my personal take:
President Trump’s pledge this week to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes jolted markets, briefly sending REITS like Invitation Homes and Blackstone tumbling as much as 10%.
The catch is that corporate landlords own less than 1% of America’s single-family housing stock, so forcing them out won’t meaningfully move prices.
The real culprit is the web of zoning restrictions, land-use regulations, and construction bottlenecks that have left the country short 3M to 4M homes.
So, Trump is scapegoating the wrong villain.
The proposed ban would prevent large institutional players from acquiring additional properties — but institutional purchases have already plunged since mid-2022, as rising interest rates drove up the cost of owning these properties.
The top 24 owners of single-family rentals combined hold just over 520K homes — equal to roughly 3.5% of the 15M rental homes in the US and only a fraction of the total single-family housing stock.
Institutional buyers served as buyers of last resort in late 2022, stepping in as individual demand dried up after the Federal Reserve’s rate hikes.
Homebuilders face higher risk with fewer buyers, while Blackstone has been a net seller for years, cutting its housing portfolio by over 20%.
The real crisis is — SUPPLY!
America’s affordability crisis traces back to a long failure to build enough homes. Median mortgage payments now eat up more than 30% of buyer income, up from under 20% pre-pandemic, while rent-to-income ratios are at their highest since 1980. Vacancy rates for both rentals and for-sale homes sit below pre-2008 levels, leaving inventory tight.
According to Goldman Sachs Research, restoring 1990s-era affordability would require up to 4M extra homes beyond normal construction — about 2.6% of today’s housing stock. And regulations have become the biggest roadblock.
Just look at some of these regulations ...
Height restrictions limit construction to two or three stories on ~60% of residential land in the 240 largest metro areas, with buildings allowed to rise five stories or higher on just 7% of land.
Local government regulations now add $93.9K to the price of a new single-family home — a 45% increase over the past decade that gets passed directly to buyers.
So, now we have forever renters.
The median age of a first-time homebuyer hit 40 years old for the first time on record, with new buyers making up only 21% of purchases — another sign of how badly affordability has slipped. Compared to first-time buyers in 2007, the decade-long delay in buying a typical first home can mean losing more than $150K in potential equity growth.
Yet instead of tackling zoning laws, construction labor shortages, and regulatory costs that actually constrain supply, policymakers are targeting a convenient scapegoat that controls less market share than rounding errors.
Folks, The affordability crisis is fundamentally a supply problem. Large corporate ownership is a red herring in the broader supply debate.
“Only a tiny number of single-family houses are owned by corporations.”
True.
But in a few cities it’s much higher.
Let’s build some affordable housing, say 100 units.
Who will give me the going rate [say $200,000] for these fine new units?
Step right up!
$198,000
sold
$195,000
try a bit higher
$197,000
You’ve got a deal.
....
Let’s build some more affordable housing, say 80 units.
Who will give me the going rate [say $195,000] for these fine new units?
Step right up!
$193,000
sold
$188,000
try a bit higher
$190,000
Well, you’ve got a deal.
....
Let’s build even more affordable housing, say 100 units.
Who will give me the going rate [say $190,000] for these fine new units?
$185,000
try a bit higher
That’s a firm price, you’re running out of affluent buyers
Well, you’ve got a deal.
$182,000, and that’s my final offer Mister!
sold
....
Let’s build even more affordable housing, say 60 units.
Who will give me the going rate [say $180,000] for these fine new units?
Come on!
$175,000?
$170,000?
Everybody that has bought your units is a loser. The only guys that make money when zoning is trashed are developers.
Sell your accursed units to Blackrock for whatever they’ll pay.
....
That won’t cover the loans.
Let us see your financials.
Let us talk to your lenders.
OK, we can do a deal for $136,000/unit. We’ll close next Friday, 9am.
Amen! “ Homes are for people, not corporations”
Our law says Corporations ARE People. Thank the Supreme Court for that nonsense.>>> And they have rights. How is that possible? SCOTUS is and forever will be a bunch of political hacks.
While 1% is small for the whole country, between this amount being concentrated in some areas that also have housing pressure from illegal immigrants, the entry level housing in some areas has become very hard for young adults to afford. This move by Trump along with more deportations and hopefully lower interest rates hopefully we’ll see housing market corrections.>>> Maybe but it still is a supply problem and that is only addressed by more houses being built.
Congratulations, Mr., & Mrs. $150,000 Per Year!
What about us? We make $60,000/year.
....
They got what we got for 40% of the price! We want our mortgage written down by $90,000!
Sorry!
We’re migrants, try harder!
Getting rid of Powell at the Fed should help.
Corporate buyers = any entity buying Mortgage Backed Securities. Whoever owns the loan owns the house; the people who were dumb enough to ‘buy’ it are now merely the feudal peasants attached to the property who must maintain it for the moneyed masters.
The only way to get real price discovery in real estate is to make any home loan the complete and total risk of the issuer.
The ‘liquidity’ freaks will freak about this, but this is how we got here. ‘Liquidity’ is the bad excuse for making piss-poor investments and expecting .GOV-daddy to bail you out.
It’s the entitlement mentality.
These young buyers seem to think they should start out where their parents are now after 40 or so years of homeownership.
Whatever happened to “Fixer-Uppers”?
I don’t know.
Our first one was.
The second one needed work, but not as much. We did do a full kitchen reno OURSELVES, and I do mean full, electrical, plumbing, and right down to the studs and repairing rotted parts of the subfloor.
Thirty-five years later, in our 60’s, we could finally afford one that wasn’t.
Also, young people generally, are a lazy lot. Try to get them to do any of the work themselves. They don’t have the interest in learning fixer-upper skills. Or much of any skills any more.
Heck, some of them can’t even cook without using a microwave. Clothes that get holes in them or lose a button are tossed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.