Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#161

Post by antonymoose »

kleton wrote: post #63

They will continue trading the ones they have as LLC holding companies.

This guy wholesales ;)

I recently worked on an MVP for a Zillow-for-wholesale startup. As a curveball, our state passed a law restricting where and how these contract-to-buy sellers operate. So their workaround, after consulting lots of lawyers, was to provide a standardized LLC / Contract flow such that you’re no longer marketing a house for sale. You’re marketing a stake in an LLC, only that LLC has a sole purpose (a contract to option out a specific house).

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#162

Post by roywiggins »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #149
roadside_picnic wrote: post #48

The key word here is "Wall Street". And this statement is playing off a popular misconception around corporate investors buying up American houses. There has been a bit of a panic around "Investors buying up all the property!!!" With people often citing Black Rock and Blackstone as the main culprits. But most of the "investors" buying up property are individuals purchasing investment properties. Here's an article on…

Yes, It should be expanded that no company can own residential property, and more importantly, each person can only own one property. People should go find something else to invest their savings in.

Would that not make rental properties entirely illegal? That seems... complicated

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#163

Post by Alex2037 »

Aurornis wrote: post #42

Even if this goes through without a mountain of loopholes and exceptions, I doubt it will have a significant impact. "Wall Street Investors" implies they're targeting large institutional ownership, which is only around 0.5% of housing ownership as cited in the article. That number is also flat-ish or maybe decreasing depending on the chart you look at, from what I recall. Outside of a few metro areas where institutio…

they don't even have affordable housing in the country all those tarriffed materials and equipment come from.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#164

Post by usefulcat »

nerdjon wrote: post #21
codyb wrote: post #7

Seems reasonable to me, a very anti Trump individual. Now deliver. And which of his buddies does this benefit? I'm trying to think if there will be ramifications to this... - Obviously forced divestment of all Wall St owned single family homes could impact housing prices which is both the point, but of course... also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth - I guess that crash could potentially have people…

I am also trying to think of what else could actually be fueling this, since it sounds very... not republican. Quite literally the opposite. Like you said that also assumes it actually happens and isn't another incoherent ramble that is conveniently forgotten about or claimed he never said. I mean if its legit I will cheer it on... but I remain skeptical.

The R party has changed so radically that it's hardly recognizable any more. As a result, "not republican" is no longer a very meaningful description.

I think the most likely explanation is pretty simple. Whenever people are unhappy with their economic situation, at the ballot box they take it out on whoever is currently in power, logic be damned. Politicians know this.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#165

Post by rgmerk »

It will make very little difference in the end.

Australia's land tax system makes it effectively impossible for large corporations to own large chunks of residential property, but our real estate is amongst the world's most expensive and landlords are still awful - it's just that the landlords are hundreds of thousands of dentists and, yes, software engineers rather than corporate entities.

If you want housing to be cheaper and renters to be better treated, increase supply. Everything else is window-dressing.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#166

Post by tbrownaw »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #100
anonymars wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> also hurts many families borrowing power and net worth This is part of the crux, isn't it? It's a backbone of families' wealth and positioned as an investment. So there seems to be no winning: either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old See also: Bitcoin and the like (wild value fluctuations are the hallmark of a good currency) Related article of interest: https://archinect.com/news/ar…

> either choke off the young trying to buy or crack the nest egg of the old The simple fact is, housing can either be affordable xor an investment[0]. Affordable means the prices are flat relative to inflation, which makes it a terrible investment. If it's a good investment, that means the price is going up faster than inflation, which quickly makes it unaffordable. [0] I want to be clear that I'm referring to housin…

Sure it can be an investment even with no capital gains, there's still income from charging rent.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#167

Post by roywiggins »

xadhominemx wrote: post #101
seydor wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they cannot be resold to other speculators their price can go waaay down

Nonsense. Do you think these landlords intentionally overpaid for the properties? They are sophisticated entities who like to pay at or below fair value.

It happens

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/03/1051941654/zillow-will-stop-b...

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#168

Post by newtonsmethod »

Aurornis wrote: post #80
stocksinsmocks wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. I think the most important factor is that housing prices, in the United States at least, are governed by how much a bank will lend. Very small but affordable houses will never be built because a bank will not finance a $10,000 loan over 30 years. In the same vein,…

> The tariffs are a bit of a new phenomenon so I think that may be motivated reasoning. Construction productivity has also been stagnant for about 60 years. If construction was stagnant for 60 years, adding 10-50% tariffs on lumber and building materials would only make it worse. Not motivated reasoning, just basic economics. The new tariffs went into effect January 1st, by the way. If you thought things were bad now…

The claim they went into effect January 1 simply does not seem true.

The finished products tariff was delayed: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/01/business/trump-furniture-... For unfinished lumber, I don't think there was any tariff going into effect January 1.

Sure, these tariffs may further increase the house of prices (e.g. be relevant to 15% of the cost of the house, with tariffs ranging from 20% to 50% and sources of materials adjusting to these tariffs), but the say 4% future effect of these tariffs is likely less than the effect of zoning laws, other development restrictions, and rent freezing.

Re: US will ban Wall Street investors from buying single-family homes

#170

Post by londons_explore »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #122
londons_explore wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making it hard for cities to deny all permission to build new housing through impossible zoning laws should also be on the cards.

Yeah, all the politicians talking housing— the actual net governmental effect on housing is to massively constrain supply (quantity) in service of rather arbitrary qualitative standards. I’m all for “the building shouldn’t spontaneously collapse” standards, but … two acre lots? Restrictions on casting shadows? Accessory dwelling units? Nah. If the government wants to make a difference it should ban Euclidian zoning a…

"We expect all states to expand housing supply by 2% per year. States which fail to meet this standard will pay $1000 per unbuilt house per year, as a subtraction from other federal funding. States may trade house building with other states to achieve this.".
Post reply on HN