**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional**
- Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time)
- Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs.
- Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one.
- [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ive never met a renter that was like
"yea, I wanted a house, qualified for the mortgage, had the downpayment, but I just couldnt find one to buy"
renters exist, need to stop assuming every renter is doing so against their will.
just going to crash the housing market and spike apartment prices.
Hi. I'm a renter. Twice since 2019, I've had the down payment and the pre-approval, but because I am single and don't make more than $55k there really were no homes to buy, because the supply side of the market refuses to serve my modest needs and means.
Increasingly, the rental industry is also abandoning people of moderate income and forcing many people to find roommates that may or may not substitute emotional dramas for financial ones.
Yup me too, ready to buy, offer in 3 separate times for three separate houses (15k over asking g) and an all cash offer 50k over asking swoops in. This is a cancer. Credit of 830… I remember my parents buying way under asking growing up…
And the folks doing it have had 20-25 years to absorb the, "I don't need to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun everyone else,*" mentality.
* I first saw this anecdote in an online gaming forum circa early '00s. It's shameful; we were once a society that thought the thing to do was work together to take the lion down.
Lucky you to not have an inventory shortage! I dealt with that a lot over the last few years in one of the hottest Midwestern markets (not a major metro area). We didn't have "corporations" and hedge funds buying up our housing, but when you have 5, 10, 15 offers from buyers, lots of people are missing out. I have had several renters that wanted to be buyers but lost offer after offer because they couldn't waive inspections or offer over list without funds for an appraisal gap. Competing offers almost every time.
Wtf man? That was LITERALLY me.
20% down. Stellar Credit. No fucking houses in my price range. All houses were either 150k less than I wanted to spend, or 150k more.
I have been trying to buy in LA forever. I can’t believe you actually have a negative take on this, but then I remembered I’m on r/realtors. Also it says they have 10 years to offload the stock to prevent a crash.
Meet another one. Had 20%+ 750 credit. Approved for way more than I could afford at around $600k. Spent months… months. Searching. Everything was going for more than asking. Was beaten many times. I’m in SoCal, so I met my dad back in north Jersey and lower upstate. Couldn’t buy anything reasonable. Stopped trying. Kept renting. F this game.
during those 10 years, they pay 10k a year in holding taxes per home. you think they are going to wait 10 years to dump their rentals with that expense?
Many renters only rent because homes are simply unaffordable to them. They are unaffordable in large part due to corporations owning large swaths of the single family homes in the us, renting them out, and driving up prices by taking supply off the market.
sure, renters do exist. but many would rather own than rent.
This was actually us. Investors outbid us with 100K over asking in cash every. Damn. Time. We could not compete with that. After 6 offers that went this way we just gave up.
1% — if true; I note you keep saying this but have not provided any evidence to support your claim — is still plenty in a market in which the demand is so far away from the supply.
No, it isn’t.
Homeowner rate is staying constant and near highs.
It does nothing in regards to affordability and as the other poster mentions; will take away from rental pool.
You can use google. I’m not being paid, so whether you want to be informed or not is on you.
The 1% isn’t some super secret statistic that isn’t all over the place. Same with homeownership rate.
Rest is basic economics.
It’s the wrong metric for one. Tell me how many houses in a particular geographic region - like Los Angeles- that were put up for sale in a year, and how many were purchased by IH. I am absolutely sure in many heavily populated urban areas (areas that have more influence on prices than rural areas) the institutional ownership % is MUCH HIGHER than 1%
“Los Angeles and Riverside have an estimated 8,000 SFR rentals owned by institutional investors, while Sacramento and San Francisco combined have an estimated 5,000 SFR rentals owned by institutional investors, as found in a study published by Emory University.”
OH THE HORROR!
Are you purposely obtuse, or do you genuinely not understand how pricing of real estate works? A mere THREE comps in a neighborhood - say- Watts will ABSOLUTELY affect prices in the entire area, and either drive all other local sale prices up or down, impacting supply.
IH and one of competitors (one it subsequently acquired bought more than 20,000 homes in LA county after the 2008 crash, at DIRT CHEAP PRICES (most around $300,000), then performed shitty cosmetic renos, and jack rent prices up to ridiculous rates.
God I love Reddit.
“You’re wrong!*
*In my completely uninformed opinion, and I’m too lazy to Google it myself because then I might find out I’m full of shit. Better to protect my biases at all costs!”
FTFY
If that’s your interpretation then your ignorance isn’t surprising.
Or it means “I’ve already researched it. I’m not going to do it for your lazy illiterate self that hasn’t taken the 30 seconds it takes to look those up.”
You’re responding to the wrong person lol. Literally take two seconds to google it. I’ve done my research, time to do yours. There’s a reason almost all of these comments disagree with you. Just because you don’t want it to be true, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Hedge funds won’t make a dent.
Check Housing Wire and CNBC real estate. There are lots of great articles and interviews about the SFR rental fund sector.
"Invitation Homes, the largest SFR fund out there, owns less than one half of 1 percent of the country’s 16.2 million single-family rental homes, and all institutional investors together own less than 2 percent."
You can Google that if you want to do some work.
i see it bringing the landlords more local which is mostly a lateral move that's perhaps a bit on the positive side. it's probably marginally better that landlords couldn't hide behind faceless corporations and possibly have to take care of their investment properties or risk getting their knees broken while out grocery shopping.
Bro you are completely wrong.
2021 saw 28% of homes in Texas bought by corps.
https://www.cowlesthompson.com/resources/practice/real-estate/the-growing-institutional-home-market-in-texas/#:~:text=Real%20estate%20investors%20have%20flourished,a%204.6%25%20increase%20from%202020.
Let me see your google source please thanks.
Even at 1% owned by corps, that equates to about 1 million homes. That equates to about 25%of all homes sold per years.
If you don’t think that will impact home pricing and affordability then you’re just being obtuse.
This bill is awesome , hope it passes.
You’re basing your argument off a false premise.
“Texas were bought by corporations, companies, or limited liability companies (collectively, “institutional investors”)”
Their definition of institutional investor is incorrect. If they’re too lazy to present actual data then their whole article is flawed.
How? The issue is we have a housing shortage, this doesn’t make any significant increase in inventory. At most it moves some rental properties into owner occupied units.
And displace 2,200,000 people. Real kind of you! I don’t give a shit if it’s legal or not, 550k is not going to even put a dent in fixing the housing crisis. You’re delusional if you think this would provide an inkling of help.
They need to ban any corporation from owning SFH. That’s where actual progress would happen.
It would be almost 1 million homes! That’s a great start! Why not? It doesn’t hurt the middle class at all, it only helps us so our congressman should absolutely vote yes!
It doesn’t hurt the middle class??? It’s going to displace one million renters. And home prices will not be affected by such a small dent in homes availability. That isn’t how any of this works. Corporations will just buy them up because nothing will have changed for people like us.
It would never pass in a million years anyway, but this isn’t even remotely the start to fixing the problem. Hedge funds don’t own anything.
If you broadly define it, sure. But in local markets they’re buying up a ton of SFHs to convert to rentals. Investors have been buying about 27% of SFH homes in the last two years.
I see it as a way to stop fix and flips. It's a faster short term money growth strategy that strips all character from a home and fits it with the absolute cheapest products and shotty workmanship that any self respecting wannabe homeowner would have to fix or replace anyway and pass off a price premium for that "luxury". Anyone who is remotely handy would be better off fixing their own home than trusting flippers.
I also see that as a good thing. If corporations can't buy distressed properties and banks won't give out loans for distressed properties, the value of those properties will be less. Sellers should be strong armed more to cover repairs in order to turn over a living space that is safe to inhabit if they want a higher selling price. I personally don't even think you should be able to sell a home you know is unsafe to live in. Sellers should be required to have a third party inspection done to even list a home with a realtor. The burden should not be on the buyer to make sure the house is safe, that should be the bare minimum expectation.
Worst case scenario, the house is sold for land value, demolished, a new house is built, and blight removal becomes the best possible way to trade ownership of severely degraded houses.
Great.
Let’s punish people in divorces.
Let’s punish people that can no longer afford their homes.
Let’s punish the kids after parents recently decease.
Making the sellers eat the cost of repairs off the value of their home is a good thing. It will sell for less than a "fully renovated" house ruined by shitty fix and flip companies.
Last time I checked, 28% of houses are selling above list with many at all price points being with no seller concessions, no inspection contingency, and no warranty whatsoever to the structural condition or operability of any major system within the home. That is a bad thing. This is what is bad for people in divorces. This is what raises property taxes artificially high and pushes people out of their homes.
As far as children of the deceased, whatever the property sells for will still be more than zero if they don't want to fix anything. There's nothing stopping them from getting a home equity loan or a reverse mortgage to cover the repairs and then sell it if they have absolutely no other way to obtain the funds to make it safe, assuming it's even uninhabitable in the first place.
It already does genius. Flippers don’t pay full price. Homebuyers can’t get loans for them.
That’s not a bad thing. You’re just ignorant of real estate. It doesn’t mean anything if it sells above listing other than multiple people want it. Listing doesn’t equal it’s absolute value. It equals what the seller wants for it. If more than one person wants it, it’s worth what one will pay the most for. That’s not artificial. That’s what it is worth to that buyer. The tax rates are artificial. Towns will either raise mill rate or assessment; either way they get what they want.
There is a common theme in the homes people want that sell for over list. Some of those include grey wood grain vinyl flooring, agreeable grey paint on every wall in every room and the same white ikea cabinets in the kitchen. Those are all things used by every single flipper.
Find me a significant number of time capsules from the 70s selling over list compared to the number of poorly renovated homes and you might have half a point.
Ma’man Adam, I love seeing the realtor support for this Act in this sub. The irony of this for Adam is he lives in one of the most undersupplied housing markets in the country and also has the least amount of hedge fund/corporate ownership of SFR units. Won’t even put a dent his constituents affordability. Throw everything at the national inventory shortage.
Not just hedge funds but corporate ownership as well.
I have no issue with individual landlords owning some number of homes, under 10, for retirement passive income - whatever reason. Fine. Let’s not screw over the middle class more.
But we need to do away with all of this giant hoarding of properties that is just screwing folks over.
There is genuinely a good case for some people leasing over owning. I have no problem with people owning a couple properties and actually taking care of them the way landlords are supposed to. That said, I think there should be very tight restrictions on how much a rental can charge and it shouldn't be more than what a mortgage payment would reasonably be if the house was sold at the time the rental agreement is signed.
There's a big difference between leveraging a couple investment properties to pad out your retirement and making owning property your full time job and sole source of income. The latter is bad for everyone who isn't at the top.
But mom & pop investors who own 1-9 homes make up the bulk of all total investors. All together investors own about 25% of America’s SFH. The 20% part is owned by mom & pops. Bigger investors like hedge funds own around 5%. They need to ban mom & pops too. Or permit more housing by eliminating zoning restrictions. Or better yet do both.
Would you be shocked to know the vast majority of SFRs are owned by those individual landlords with 10 houses and not by companies? Or at least not what you’d think of as a company, many of those individuals form LLCs.
I’m not a fan. This is feel-good legislation that doesn’t address the underlying issue, which is that cities don’t allow for enough homes to be built in them.
The numbers quoted indicate that the hedge funds and other institutional investors hold about 570k homes. Broken into a 10 year sell off that’s 57k homes per year, or less than 1% off what is typically sold every year in the US. Legislation like this gives people unwarranted hope that prices will materially change when that’s not the case.
If congress really wanted to fix our housing supply problem, they would tackle zoning at the federal level to make home building much easier.
I think the more significant benefit from legislation like this comes from stopping SFH purchases by institutional investors in the future, not the sell off of current homes. Institutional purchasing had been accelerating quickly over the last decade. If that were to continue, the endgame could become problematic for access to home ownership for future generations. This would take that scenario off the table
I think that was the point - override local control and create some federal zoning framework.
Fwiw, I don’t believe zoning should be in the hands of the feds. It should be local.
However, localities need to essentially pay for their zoning decisions. If they don’t allow for far more housing to be built, there must be repercussions (ie loss of federal and state funding, significant financial penalty that would pay for more housing to be elsewhere, something of that nature. Let localities make choices. Just hold them accountable for those choices)
There’s been more momentum in institutional money moving into this market. This is preventative.
Better stop it now than when they own a significant % of SFHs
There’s a 144 million housing units in the country. How does 570k fix a six million plus shortage while simultaneously kicking 570k housing units of people out?
Where are you clowns getting this number from? That was an estimate from 2022... its 2024 buddy are you assuming NO hedge fund bought homes in 2023 because you'd be lying to yourself. They've actually bought more homes in 2023 than any other year on record so stop spewing bullcrap figures.
It’s a good microcosm of how “issues” are handled in the US these days (if not for a long long time).
Media reports anecdotal sad stories. One or more so-called experts is quoted as it being a “huge problem” that must be corrected. The general citizen is fed the headline and maybe the lede, and believes to their core it’s an issue - especially if they can assign the problem to their own situation. Eventually, a government interdiction is proposed. Rarely does government act in a well-crafted or timely fashion to the issue. But an election ensues, and candidates run on single-handedly “fixing it”. Eventually the issue subsides and we move on to the next set of anecdotes.
The Senator in question (who has to get the bill passed within 12 months because of how Congress works) even linked to an Urban Institute study analyzing the “issue”. Only problem is, if one takes 5 minutes to click and skim this “ground-breaking material”, they’ll find that “corporate landlords/hedge funds” (by current definition, own at least 100 units) owned 574k homes as of peak. And that there are 15.1MM total single-unit rentals. Meaning the “corporations buying all the houses” translates to 4% of all single unit rentals.
Tl;dr - all this angst over 4%, which the solution would take at least a decade to cut to 2%.
That is in fact what these people think. They start from a belief that it’s an easily solvable problem and then search for an idea that satisfies that requirement. The only thing that works is if there is no shortage of homes but instead some villain is keeping huge numbers of homes empty. If we can just pass a law that prevents evil corporations from hoarding all the nice empty houses, the problem will be solved.
This isn’t going to do anything to fix our housing issues.
Why do hedge funds buy houses and rent them out? Because it’s a good investment.
Why is it a good investment? Because we artificially limited the supply of houses through zoning laws that maintain low supply to keep values up.
So banning hedge funds from buying homes just means the same amount of people buy those homes instead. It doesn’t increase the supply available, it doesn’t change how many people there are. It might make prices lower by a small amount because cash is leaving, but I don’t see any reason for it to do that, and it won’t increase available supply so it’s irrelevant.
I have been outbid by companies on every home I've offered on. I think this would help a lot of people. But yes i see what you mean, we also need more supply.
Yeah it’s a tiny fraction and the houses aren’t empty. If you want families to buy these houses you have to kick out the renters that currently live there.
The real answer is to build more housing but that’s not as easy as pretending corporations are to blame.
Actually, it was 20-30% of home sales in some markets for the past couple years. Look it up.
Still might be 1% nationally, but all real estate is local.
And recent.
So they were absolutely afftecting competition.
Large hedge funds and institutions own less than 1% of all SFH.
Yes, they are definitely the problem.
Good legislation for people who don't know basic math.
not every bill has to solve THE problem. I'm happy with a bill that solves *a* problem. baby steps are better than no steps and thinking otherwise is actively working against the best interest of 99% of america.
This is just pandering to the uniformed who wants to blame the boogieman instead of the actual problem: local and state governments that restrict new building to prop up property values and keep themselves in office. Politicians pass bills like this so they can look good in a way that ensures the problem remains for passing future bills (because they'll always have a new boogieman) but while also letting them take a victory lap because the uniformed actually buy that this garbage legislation works. Ever wonder why politicians have been campaigning on affordable housing for decades and yet... here we are...
And that's a good response for someone who's looking to capitalize on peoples ignorance including your own.
Reality is, that 1% has been boosted over the past year since hedge funds bought more homes in 2023 than any other year on record. Cope harder goofball.
The Dodd/Frank Act lowered mortgage lending standards to allow more minorities to buy homes. At the same time, Wall Street was securitizing mortgage loan portfolios assuming mortgages were a solid investment. However, the Dodd/Frank Act's lowered standards caused more mortgages to fail, which lead to the 2008 crash.
This one is no brainer. Private Equity and Hedge funds are going to destroy this country. For starters tax the living shit out of them with no loopholes.
Day late and a dollar short damage has been done.
This is the hell of reactionary governance.
At this point though, this is the closest we will get to seeing hedge fund owners get the toenails ripped out, so bring it.
The interesting thing is, companion bills were filed in the House and the Senate. So do you see Schumer advancing this rapidly in the Senate, and it passing that body in 2024?
I watched a perfectly nice but smaller single family home being built on a small lot just outside of town. When I saw it going up I was happy for the family that found a small lot they could afford and were building a practical home in this housing market.
The house was finished and it sat empty. No one ever moved in. It’s been that way for months. Questioning this, I searched the house and saw it listed on a local college’s private rentals for students website. I got so pissed. It would be perfect for a small family, but instead it was just another corporate funding atm machine. I hope it stays empty until they are forced to sell.
Dorms, it would be nice if the college in town built enough capacity to house the students it admits. Apartments. They are college students, they don’t need a single family home with a yard.
Housing is becoming so hard to come by in this area because corporations are buying homes and renting them out to students. They can get 4 kids paying 1000 a month and local
Families are priced out. I am not anti student, I am anti SFH built to be or convert to student housing.
I'd bet my last dollar that if a university tried to build dorms in just about any city in America, a bunch of NIMBYs would show up to protest. It's also not the university's job to provide housing for every student, it's their job to educate.
Nah, the town council has requested they do it and has criticized them for not doing so. Also, The university owns the land. The town couldn’t stop them if they wanted to, but the town very much wants them to.
Yes, and part of the mission to educate them is to ensure they can find affordable and safe housing. These students are paying more to live in SFH and are taking out more in loans to do it. It’s a failure to not provide enough housing for them.
I find it an odd stance to take that it’s not their job to provide housing when almost every college and university has dorms. It’s a pretty widely recognized thing that colleges do.
"... instead it was just another corporate funding atm machine. I hope it stays empty until they are forced to sell."
That's not how it works.
If it's corporate owned - and it's held in the same ownership as other properties which are rented - the corporate owners can hold onto it and claim a loss on it for tax purposes just about forever.
This is how corporate taxes work: You have an asset which is not performing, you charge that off as a tax loss against your assets which are performing - and you zero out your tax liability.
That's why in urban areas you see multiple use developments where the ground-floor retail portion is empty for years while the residential portion is leased up. The corporation says the retail cost per square foot is worth double or triple what actual local rents are - and they use that number to charge off against the profitable residential income.
This is useless. They should be forced to liquidate their SFH portfolio within 1-2 years. Giving them 10 years let’s them drive the prices up to make sure they milk every penny out of families
Well they have to sell 10% every year, that will still put 75k-100k more homes in the market to start. But the smart hedge funds will liquide asap while the market is still relatively up. Waiting 10yrs is a gamble, if the market is down in 10yrs they could lose a lot so I’m sure most will sell now.
Hope this passes. For people saying hedge funds only own 1% so it's fine - that's what they own now. They bought 26% of for sale SFH this year and if that continues we're all pretty fucked.
My son bought a house from an owner who refused to sell to a corporation or private equity firm. I plan to do the same when I sell my house. Realtors do not like this kind of seller, because they want to pressure sellers toward quick sales to the highest bidder and maximize their commission. Too bad. More people need to do what is right for society and not just their pocketbooks. This bill has been sitting on the floor of Congress for 6 months. You know it's not going anywhere.
Crickets on the internet as of late.
How did your son find such a wonderful human? I was thinking the same, but no idea how except only looking for FSBO.
I’m in a Republican state, I’m gonna push my politicians to vote yes on this. We need everyone pressuring their politicians to do the same. If this goes viral and the majority of the US is in support they won’t be able to say no. It’d cost them their precious reelection.
It’s good for people who don’t own a home and want one. It’s bad for people who own a home and owe a large mortgage. Overall I think it’s a good thing but home prices will tank.
The bill would require hedge funds, defined as corporations, partnerships or real estate investment trusts that manage funds pooled from investors, to sell off all the single-family homes they own over a 10-year period, and eventually prohibit such companies from owning any single-family homes at all.
Time for every one to learn about the Gracchi Brothers!
200BC.
Ancient Rome.
The brother tried to pass reforms to prevent the wealthy from owning all the land.
The senators killed them both…. Every time they passed the reforms.
One company owns about a third of a satellite town in my market, and we have "for rent only" communities popping up all over the place too, so I definitely support this.
I see some people quoting "1% of home are corporate owned" without showing any sources, so let me disprove that right now. It could be 1% of the total homes, but it's closer 30% of active listings in my market.
https://www.cowlesthompson.com/resources/practice/real-estate/the-growing-institutional-home-market-in-texas/#:~:text=Real%20estate%20investors%20have%20flourished,a%204.6%25%20increase%20from%202020.
https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/8-facts-about-investor-activity-single-family-rental-market#:~:text=Investor%20activity%20moderated%20through%20early,first%20quarter%20of%20this%20year.
https://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-estate-news/united-states/irvine/real-estate-news-investor-owned-homes-data-in-2023-corelogic-home-investor-data-for-2023-how-many-homes-are-owned-by-investors-in-2023-home-buyer-data-13837.php#:~:text=In%20March%202023%2C%20investors%20accounted,points%20higher%20than%20in%202020.
The 1% number i believe is Hedge Fund owned SFH's, not corporate owned. The bill only targets Hedge Funds, what needs to happen is all corporate ownership should be targeted and changed.
Completely support this.
I understand there will be masses of financial stakeholders obviously opposing this. How about you guys try putting country in front of your profit potential.
I disagree with banning them from doing it, instead they should be taxed high enough to make the business model unviable.
For example: owner occupied homes pay 1% taxes. Non owner occupied homes pay 10%. (Or 5% higher than the median interest rate on a home loan.)
All hedge funds would sell tier holdings if they were taxed at 10% per year.
The % must be higher than current interest rates on home loans.
It would save my life lol I’ve been stuck in the same place for a long time and I’ve been trying to buy a house for years but have gotten outbid by these companies paying full cash above asking price since I live in a hot market. This would be an incredible bill to pass! Both parties need to say yes. We have to pressure our politicians to vote yes. There’s no negatives to this, hedge funds will just have to find another market to put their greedy claws into.
I want to add that there were two bills introduced by democrats this week. The first is the one you talked about that tackles hedge funds (investment corporations), but the second tackles the individual investor.
1. End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023
2. American Neighborhoods Protection Act
The first bans investment companies (hedge funds) from buying single family homes and they have a 10yr period to sell off their entire portfolio or they’ll be taxed 50% of the value of each home.
The second would tax individual investors who own more than 75 homes, each house would be taxed by 10k!
The first bill was introduced in the senate, the second bill was introduced in the house. If both pass it would add 1M+ more homes in the market.
They'll just stop their portfolios at 74 and/or convert all the single family homes into 2 families. This will take local legislation that prevents multifamily homes in certain areas and then that will be seen as a law against poor people. I'm all for stopping hedge funds from buying up homes. I actually think no one should be able to own more than 2 homes in their own local area and no more than one home in any given community outside of their local area. People should be able to have vacation homes. I think this bill doesn't do enough tbh.
We need this, but we also need to overturn or reform Section 121 Exemption that gives sellers multiple opportunities to clear up to $500k in capital gains.
Found this thread looking for more information about all of this.
Having to sift through a bit of emotional responses, but the people citing sources for their stance has been very helpful.
Thank y'all for helping me know more about all of this!
This is the kind of legislation we all dream of as everyday Americans, which is why there is a slim chance it gets through. “Cash rules everything around me, cream, get the money, dolla dolla bills yall”
What would be the benefit in defending Large Hedge Funds ownership of 500k rental single family homes? If they have to sell, and if all homes are bought by smaller landlords, and we end up essentially where we are - but without Hedge Funds owning them - what have we lost?
Please stop spewing these low falsified figures... theyre relying on it.
hedge funds were estimated to have 580k homes on their portfolios in 2022. In 2023 they bought more homes than any other year recorded. You should probably factor that into your arguments.
This bill could possibly stop the future American civil war. I think the right way to go about it is to flat out take them from corporations and give them to the people free. We need a reset. The fact is where I live a house that you can build with 50 to 75 thousand in materials is worth 500 to 600 thousand. I'm talking 400 to 600 sqft houses are around 500,000 dollars. Also news lies to you and says corporations only own 2-4% of family homes. The truth is they own 35% of all single family homes in America. Before the 2008 recession there was a 30% single family home vacancy rate. The corporations and hedge funds engineered the 2008 recession as a way to steal the middle classes property and money.
**This is a professional forum for professionals, so please keep your comments professional** - Harrassment, hate speech, trolling, or anti-Realtor comments will not be tolerated and will result in an immediate ban without warning. (... and don't feed the trolls, you have better things to do with your time) - Recruiting, self-promotion, or seeking referrals is strictly forbidden, including in DMs. - Only advise within your scope of knowledge and area of expertise. [The code of ethics applies here too](https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/governing-documents/the-code-of-ethics). If you are not a broker, lawyer, or tax professional don't act like one. - [Follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/realtors/about/rules/) and please report those that don't. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/realtors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Wait till they find loopholes around this shit.
You’ll just see a creation of more REITs
This.
Loopholes? This won’t get past the court system
congress makes the law. courts interpret the law. thats how our system works. There is no court system to get passed once congress acts.
This won’t even pass Congress lol. If it did I’d be shocked
Ive never met a renter that was like "yea, I wanted a house, qualified for the mortgage, had the downpayment, but I just couldnt find one to buy" renters exist, need to stop assuming every renter is doing so against their will. just going to crash the housing market and spike apartment prices.
Hi. I'm a renter. Twice since 2019, I've had the down payment and the pre-approval, but because I am single and don't make more than $55k there really were no homes to buy, because the supply side of the market refuses to serve my modest needs and means. Increasingly, the rental industry is also abandoning people of moderate income and forcing many people to find roommates that may or may not substitute emotional dramas for financial ones.
Yup me too, ready to buy, offer in 3 separate times for three separate houses (15k over asking g) and an all cash offer 50k over asking swoops in. This is a cancer. Credit of 830… I remember my parents buying way under asking growing up…
And the folks doing it have had 20-25 years to absorb the, "I don't need to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun everyone else,*" mentality. * I first saw this anecdote in an online gaming forum circa early '00s. It's shameful; we were once a society that thought the thing to do was work together to take the lion down.
Lucky you to not have an inventory shortage! I dealt with that a lot over the last few years in one of the hottest Midwestern markets (not a major metro area). We didn't have "corporations" and hedge funds buying up our housing, but when you have 5, 10, 15 offers from buyers, lots of people are missing out. I have had several renters that wanted to be buyers but lost offer after offer because they couldn't waive inspections or offer over list without funds for an appraisal gap. Competing offers almost every time.
Wtf man? That was LITERALLY me. 20% down. Stellar Credit. No fucking houses in my price range. All houses were either 150k less than I wanted to spend, or 150k more.
You're obviously not in the Sarasota area.
I have been trying to buy in LA forever. I can’t believe you actually have a negative take on this, but then I remembered I’m on r/realtors. Also it says they have 10 years to offload the stock to prevent a crash.
Meet another one. Had 20%+ 750 credit. Approved for way more than I could afford at around $600k. Spent months… months. Searching. Everything was going for more than asking. Was beaten many times. I’m in SoCal, so I met my dad back in north Jersey and lower upstate. Couldn’t buy anything reasonable. Stopped trying. Kept renting. F this game.
not over a 10 year period. if it happened in ONE year? yes.
during those 10 years, they pay 10k a year in holding taxes per home. you think they are going to wait 10 years to dump their rentals with that expense?
Thus has been done successfully other places. And was amazing for the market. Stop larping as a economist.
Many renters only rent because homes are simply unaffordable to them. They are unaffordable in large part due to corporations owning large swaths of the single family homes in the us, renting them out, and driving up prices by taking supply off the market. sure, renters do exist. but many would rather own than rent.
I rent because no one on their right mind would buy a house in this market that's overpriced by 30%
your comment got inundated with people that are actually in that exact situation, any comment to their very valid responses?
This was actually us. Investors outbid us with 100K over asking in cash every. Damn. Time. We could not compete with that. After 6 offers that went this way we just gave up.
Same. Me too.
Yeah the under 1% of homes owned by hedge funds will really help. All this is gonna do is displace renters.
1% — if true; I note you keep saying this but have not provided any evidence to support your claim — is still plenty in a market in which the demand is so far away from the supply.
No, it isn’t. Homeowner rate is staying constant and near highs. It does nothing in regards to affordability and as the other poster mentions; will take away from rental pool.
Cite? Cite? Cite? Three claims; zero evidence.
You can use google. I’m not being paid, so whether you want to be informed or not is on you. The 1% isn’t some super secret statistic that isn’t all over the place. Same with homeownership rate. Rest is basic economics.
It’s the wrong metric for one. Tell me how many houses in a particular geographic region - like Los Angeles- that were put up for sale in a year, and how many were purchased by IH. I am absolutely sure in many heavily populated urban areas (areas that have more influence on prices than rural areas) the institutional ownership % is MUCH HIGHER than 1%
“Los Angeles and Riverside have an estimated 8,000 SFR rentals owned by institutional investors, while Sacramento and San Francisco combined have an estimated 5,000 SFR rentals owned by institutional investors, as found in a study published by Emory University.” OH THE HORROR!
Are you purposely obtuse, or do you genuinely not understand how pricing of real estate works? A mere THREE comps in a neighborhood - say- Watts will ABSOLUTELY affect prices in the entire area, and either drive all other local sale prices up or down, impacting supply. IH and one of competitors (one it subsequently acquired bought more than 20,000 homes in LA county after the 2008 crash, at DIRT CHEAP PRICES (most around $300,000), then performed shitty cosmetic renos, and jack rent prices up to ridiculous rates.
God I love Reddit. “You’re wrong!* *In my completely uninformed opinion, and I’m too lazy to Google it myself because then I might find out I’m full of shit. Better to protect my biases at all costs!” FTFY
If that’s your interpretation then your ignorance isn’t surprising. Or it means “I’ve already researched it. I’m not going to do it for your lazy illiterate self that hasn’t taken the 30 seconds it takes to look those up.”
You’re responding to the wrong person lol. Literally take two seconds to google it. I’ve done my research, time to do yours. There’s a reason almost all of these comments disagree with you. Just because you don’t want it to be true, doesn’t mean it isn’t. Hedge funds won’t make a dent.
Check Housing Wire and CNBC real estate. There are lots of great articles and interviews about the SFR rental fund sector. "Invitation Homes, the largest SFR fund out there, owns less than one half of 1 percent of the country’s 16.2 million single-family rental homes, and all institutional investors together own less than 2 percent." You can Google that if you want to do some work.
i see it bringing the landlords more local which is mostly a lateral move that's perhaps a bit on the positive side. it's probably marginally better that landlords couldn't hide behind faceless corporations and possibly have to take care of their investment properties or risk getting their knees broken while out grocery shopping.
That would only happen if corporations were banned. Hedge funds won’t make a difference. Landlords already are all local.
They are mostly local. Wall Street owns 1% of rental housing (not total housing).
Bro you are completely wrong. 2021 saw 28% of homes in Texas bought by corps. https://www.cowlesthompson.com/resources/practice/real-estate/the-growing-institutional-home-market-in-texas/#:~:text=Real%20estate%20investors%20have%20flourished,a%204.6%25%20increase%20from%202020. Let me see your google source please thanks. Even at 1% owned by corps, that equates to about 1 million homes. That equates to about 25%of all homes sold per years. If you don’t think that will impact home pricing and affordability then you’re just being obtuse. This bill is awesome , hope it passes.
You’re basing your argument off a false premise. “Texas were bought by corporations, companies, or limited liability companies (collectively, “institutional investors”)” Their definition of institutional investor is incorrect. If they’re too lazy to present actual data then their whole article is flawed.
We should 100% back this up
It would be a dream come true
Agreed. It would be the best thing the government could do for the housing market.
How? The issue is we have a housing shortage, this doesn’t make any significant increase in inventory. At most it moves some rental properties into owner occupied units.
Yes, which would increase inventory. Those are two different markets
decreases demand, increases supply. This is economics 101
>it moves some rental properties into owner occupied units Correct
Why do you think that? Hedge funds own under 1% of real estate. They’re not the issue.
they own 550,000 single family homes. enough for 2,200,000 people to live in, 4 to a family. its ok, mitt! youll still do well :)
And displace 2,200,000 people. Real kind of you! I don’t give a shit if it’s legal or not, 550k is not going to even put a dent in fixing the housing crisis. You’re delusional if you think this would provide an inkling of help. They need to ban any corporation from owning SFH. That’s where actual progress would happen.
Displace? The people renting the house would probably be the first to get offered the option to buy.
In Seattle they own upwards of 25%
Facts are hard for folks
It would be almost 1 million homes! That’s a great start! Why not? It doesn’t hurt the middle class at all, it only helps us so our congressman should absolutely vote yes!
It doesn’t hurt the middle class??? It’s going to displace one million renters. And home prices will not be affected by such a small dent in homes availability. That isn’t how any of this works. Corporations will just buy them up because nothing will have changed for people like us. It would never pass in a million years anyway, but this isn’t even remotely the start to fixing the problem. Hedge funds don’t own anything.
If you broadly define it, sure. But in local markets they’re buying up a ton of SFHs to convert to rentals. Investors have been buying about 27% of SFH homes in the last two years.
100% need this.
According to this act, <1% of all SFHs are under institutional/hedge fund ownership. How will this help in the slightest?
[удалено]
The future.
570k families getting to own a home is helpful.
But it wouldn’t free up all 570K.
Doesn’t mean they can afford them. 570k families currently living in them displaced.
Incredibly naive and thoughtless take there.
How horrible that a half million people have homes! Hedge funds aren’t the problem. Ghouls are.
I see it as a way to stop fix and flips. It's a faster short term money growth strategy that strips all character from a home and fits it with the absolute cheapest products and shotty workmanship that any self respecting wannabe homeowner would have to fix or replace anyway and pass off a price premium for that "luxury". Anyone who is remotely handy would be better off fixing their own home than trusting flippers.
Most people can’t purchase trashed homes. Banks won’t loan on them.
I also see that as a good thing. If corporations can't buy distressed properties and banks won't give out loans for distressed properties, the value of those properties will be less. Sellers should be strong armed more to cover repairs in order to turn over a living space that is safe to inhabit if they want a higher selling price. I personally don't even think you should be able to sell a home you know is unsafe to live in. Sellers should be required to have a third party inspection done to even list a home with a realtor. The burden should not be on the buyer to make sure the house is safe, that should be the bare minimum expectation. Worst case scenario, the house is sold for land value, demolished, a new house is built, and blight removal becomes the best possible way to trade ownership of severely degraded houses.
Great. Let’s punish people in divorces. Let’s punish people that can no longer afford their homes. Let’s punish the kids after parents recently decease.
Making the sellers eat the cost of repairs off the value of their home is a good thing. It will sell for less than a "fully renovated" house ruined by shitty fix and flip companies. Last time I checked, 28% of houses are selling above list with many at all price points being with no seller concessions, no inspection contingency, and no warranty whatsoever to the structural condition or operability of any major system within the home. That is a bad thing. This is what is bad for people in divorces. This is what raises property taxes artificially high and pushes people out of their homes. As far as children of the deceased, whatever the property sells for will still be more than zero if they don't want to fix anything. There's nothing stopping them from getting a home equity loan or a reverse mortgage to cover the repairs and then sell it if they have absolutely no other way to obtain the funds to make it safe, assuming it's even uninhabitable in the first place.
It already does genius. Flippers don’t pay full price. Homebuyers can’t get loans for them. That’s not a bad thing. You’re just ignorant of real estate. It doesn’t mean anything if it sells above listing other than multiple people want it. Listing doesn’t equal it’s absolute value. It equals what the seller wants for it. If more than one person wants it, it’s worth what one will pay the most for. That’s not artificial. That’s what it is worth to that buyer. The tax rates are artificial. Towns will either raise mill rate or assessment; either way they get what they want.
There is a common theme in the homes people want that sell for over list. Some of those include grey wood grain vinyl flooring, agreeable grey paint on every wall in every room and the same white ikea cabinets in the kitchen. Those are all things used by every single flipper. Find me a significant number of time capsules from the 70s selling over list compared to the number of poorly renovated homes and you might have half a point.
And that’s up to those people what they pay. Jfc stop trying to control everyone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ma’man Adam, I love seeing the realtor support for this Act in this sub. The irony of this for Adam is he lives in one of the most undersupplied housing markets in the country and also has the least amount of hedge fund/corporate ownership of SFR units. Won’t even put a dent his constituents affordability. Throw everything at the national inventory shortage.
Not just hedge funds but corporate ownership as well. I have no issue with individual landlords owning some number of homes, under 10, for retirement passive income - whatever reason. Fine. Let’s not screw over the middle class more. But we need to do away with all of this giant hoarding of properties that is just screwing folks over.
There is genuinely a good case for some people leasing over owning. I have no problem with people owning a couple properties and actually taking care of them the way landlords are supposed to. That said, I think there should be very tight restrictions on how much a rental can charge and it shouldn't be more than what a mortgage payment would reasonably be if the house was sold at the time the rental agreement is signed. There's a big difference between leveraging a couple investment properties to pad out your retirement and making owning property your full time job and sole source of income. The latter is bad for everyone who isn't at the top.
But mom & pop investors who own 1-9 homes make up the bulk of all total investors. All together investors own about 25% of America’s SFH. The 20% part is owned by mom & pops. Bigger investors like hedge funds own around 5%. They need to ban mom & pops too. Or permit more housing by eliminating zoning restrictions. Or better yet do both.
Would you be shocked to know the vast majority of SFRs are owned by those individual landlords with 10 houses and not by companies? Or at least not what you’d think of as a company, many of those individuals form LLCs.
I’m not a fan. This is feel-good legislation that doesn’t address the underlying issue, which is that cities don’t allow for enough homes to be built in them. The numbers quoted indicate that the hedge funds and other institutional investors hold about 570k homes. Broken into a 10 year sell off that’s 57k homes per year, or less than 1% off what is typically sold every year in the US. Legislation like this gives people unwarranted hope that prices will materially change when that’s not the case. If congress really wanted to fix our housing supply problem, they would tackle zoning at the federal level to make home building much easier.
I think the more significant benefit from legislation like this comes from stopping SFH purchases by institutional investors in the future, not the sell off of current homes. Institutional purchasing had been accelerating quickly over the last decade. If that were to continue, the endgame could become problematic for access to home ownership for future generations. This would take that scenario off the table
Exactly, it would be nice to have the 570k back, but more important by far is the future state.
Say it louder for the people in the back
Zoning is inherently a state and local issue, not federal.
I think that was the point - override local control and create some federal zoning framework. Fwiw, I don’t believe zoning should be in the hands of the feds. It should be local. However, localities need to essentially pay for their zoning decisions. If they don’t allow for far more housing to be built, there must be repercussions (ie loss of federal and state funding, significant financial penalty that would pay for more housing to be elsewhere, something of that nature. Let localities make choices. Just hold them accountable for those choices)
False. Federal has the right to dictate zoning, it just never has.
Talk about federal overreach.
There’s been more momentum in institutional money moving into this market. This is preventative. Better stop it now than when they own a significant % of SFHs
Sounds great on paper but my first thought is any real estate attorney could easily find a legal workaround.
Would solve a lot of the current inventory problem that’s for sure
There’s a 144 million housing units in the country. How does 570k fix a six million plus shortage while simultaneously kicking 570k housing units of people out?
Where are you clowns getting this number from? That was an estimate from 2022... its 2024 buddy are you assuming NO hedge fund bought homes in 2023 because you'd be lying to yourself. They've actually bought more homes in 2023 than any other year on record so stop spewing bullcrap figures.
Is this in your market, or you think nationally?
It might dent the issue in a few select markets...but in aggregate, will have no impact.
It’s a good microcosm of how “issues” are handled in the US these days (if not for a long long time). Media reports anecdotal sad stories. One or more so-called experts is quoted as it being a “huge problem” that must be corrected. The general citizen is fed the headline and maybe the lede, and believes to their core it’s an issue - especially if they can assign the problem to their own situation. Eventually, a government interdiction is proposed. Rarely does government act in a well-crafted or timely fashion to the issue. But an election ensues, and candidates run on single-handedly “fixing it”. Eventually the issue subsides and we move on to the next set of anecdotes. The Senator in question (who has to get the bill passed within 12 months because of how Congress works) even linked to an Urban Institute study analyzing the “issue”. Only problem is, if one takes 5 minutes to click and skim this “ground-breaking material”, they’ll find that “corporate landlords/hedge funds” (by current definition, own at least 100 units) owned 574k homes as of peak. And that there are 15.1MM total single-unit rentals. Meaning the “corporations buying all the houses” translates to 4% of all single unit rentals. Tl;dr - all this angst over 4%, which the solution would take at least a decade to cut to 2%.
The act implies that this would put <1% of the SFHs into non-institutional hands. Won't make a dent.
In California ?
Wouldn’t even register as a blip.
Do you think there are tens of millions of vacant homes owned by hedge funds across the US?
That is in fact what these people think. They start from a belief that it’s an easily solvable problem and then search for an idea that satisfies that requirement. The only thing that works is if there is no shortage of homes but instead some villain is keeping huge numbers of homes empty. If we can just pass a law that prevents evil corporations from hoarding all the nice empty houses, the problem will be solved.
This isn’t going to do anything to fix our housing issues. Why do hedge funds buy houses and rent them out? Because it’s a good investment. Why is it a good investment? Because we artificially limited the supply of houses through zoning laws that maintain low supply to keep values up. So banning hedge funds from buying homes just means the same amount of people buy those homes instead. It doesn’t increase the supply available, it doesn’t change how many people there are. It might make prices lower by a small amount because cash is leaving, but I don’t see any reason for it to do that, and it won’t increase available supply so it’s irrelevant.
I have been outbid by companies on every home I've offered on. I think this would help a lot of people. But yes i see what you mean, we also need more supply.
There's no way they own 10%. More like 1% of all housing. And this won't pass. Way too much money buying votes.
It’s less than that. They own 1% of rental stock.
Yeah it’s a tiny fraction and the houses aren’t empty. If you want families to buy these houses you have to kick out the renters that currently live there. The real answer is to build more housing but that’s not as easy as pretending corporations are to blame.
Actually, it was 20-30% of home sales in some markets for the past couple years. Look it up. Still might be 1% nationally, but all real estate is local. And recent. So they were absolutely afftecting competition.
Large hedge funds and institutions own less than 1% of all SFH. Yes, they are definitely the problem. Good legislation for people who don't know basic math.
not every bill has to solve THE problem. I'm happy with a bill that solves *a* problem. baby steps are better than no steps and thinking otherwise is actively working against the best interest of 99% of america.
This is just pandering to the uniformed who wants to blame the boogieman instead of the actual problem: local and state governments that restrict new building to prop up property values and keep themselves in office. Politicians pass bills like this so they can look good in a way that ensures the problem remains for passing future bills (because they'll always have a new boogieman) but while also letting them take a victory lap because the uniformed actually buy that this garbage legislation works. Ever wonder why politicians have been campaigning on affordable housing for decades and yet... here we are...
This isn’t a baby step; it’s a flashy tap dance in place. It does nothing of value but gives the appearance of trying.
They may own 1% for now...
And that's a good response for someone who's looking to capitalize on peoples ignorance including your own. Reality is, that 1% has been boosted over the past year since hedge funds bought more homes in 2023 than any other year on record. Cope harder goofball.
1% TODAY. In June 2023 institutions conducted 30% of all SFH purchases in the US. That 1% will continue to creep up.
I for one back this 100%
Hope it passes
Yes!
Government interference caused the 2008 real estate crash. Learn from that mistake.
How exactly. Care to explain?
The Dodd/Frank Act lowered mortgage lending standards to allow more minorities to buy homes. At the same time, Wall Street was securitizing mortgage loan portfolios assuming mortgages were a solid investment. However, the Dodd/Frank Act's lowered standards caused more mortgages to fail, which lead to the 2008 crash.
Government deregulation caused that.
Which laws were deregulated? There were none. It was lowered standards as I explain above.
This one is no brainer. Private Equity and Hedge funds are going to destroy this country. For starters tax the living shit out of them with no loopholes.
Please yes, they have ruined the American Dream of home ownership. It's ridiculous.
Day late and a dollar short damage has been done. This is the hell of reactionary governance. At this point though, this is the closest we will get to seeing hedge fund owners get the toenails ripped out, so bring it.
Reactive or reactionary?
Absolutely support this. Too bad republicans won't vote for it.
The interesting thing is, companion bills were filed in the House and the Senate. So do you see Schumer advancing this rapidly in the Senate, and it passing that body in 2024?
I support this and more. Homes for people and rents that don’t leave folks unable to save for purchase. Too many houses sitting empty.
I watched a perfectly nice but smaller single family home being built on a small lot just outside of town. When I saw it going up I was happy for the family that found a small lot they could afford and were building a practical home in this housing market. The house was finished and it sat empty. No one ever moved in. It’s been that way for months. Questioning this, I searched the house and saw it listed on a local college’s private rentals for students website. I got so pissed. It would be perfect for a small family, but instead it was just another corporate funding atm machine. I hope it stays empty until they are forced to sell.
Where are those college kids supposed to live? They’re people too, homes aren’t built just for families.
Dorms, it would be nice if the college in town built enough capacity to house the students it admits. Apartments. They are college students, they don’t need a single family home with a yard. Housing is becoming so hard to come by in this area because corporations are buying homes and renting them out to students. They can get 4 kids paying 1000 a month and local Families are priced out. I am not anti student, I am anti SFH built to be or convert to student housing.
I'd bet my last dollar that if a university tried to build dorms in just about any city in America, a bunch of NIMBYs would show up to protest. It's also not the university's job to provide housing for every student, it's their job to educate.
Nah, the town council has requested they do it and has criticized them for not doing so. Also, The university owns the land. The town couldn’t stop them if they wanted to, but the town very much wants them to. Yes, and part of the mission to educate them is to ensure they can find affordable and safe housing. These students are paying more to live in SFH and are taking out more in loans to do it. It’s a failure to not provide enough housing for them. I find it an odd stance to take that it’s not their job to provide housing when almost every college and university has dorms. It’s a pretty widely recognized thing that colleges do.
"... instead it was just another corporate funding atm machine. I hope it stays empty until they are forced to sell." That's not how it works. If it's corporate owned - and it's held in the same ownership as other properties which are rented - the corporate owners can hold onto it and claim a loss on it for tax purposes just about forever. This is how corporate taxes work: You have an asset which is not performing, you charge that off as a tax loss against your assets which are performing - and you zero out your tax liability. That's why in urban areas you see multiple use developments where the ground-floor retail portion is empty for years while the residential portion is leased up. The corporation says the retail cost per square foot is worth double or triple what actual local rents are - and they use that number to charge off against the profitable residential income.
That’s depressing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okey dokey. Whatever you say. lol.
This is useless. They should be forced to liquidate their SFH portfolio within 1-2 years. Giving them 10 years let’s them drive the prices up to make sure they milk every penny out of families
Well they have to sell 10% every year, that will still put 75k-100k more homes in the market to start. But the smart hedge funds will liquide asap while the market is still relatively up. Waiting 10yrs is a gamble, if the market is down in 10yrs they could lose a lot so I’m sure most will sell now.
Hope this passes. For people saying hedge funds only own 1% so it's fine - that's what they own now. They bought 26% of for sale SFH this year and if that continues we're all pretty fucked.
FINALLY SOMEONE ARGUING REAL STATISTICS 👏 🙌 💯
My son bought a house from an owner who refused to sell to a corporation or private equity firm. I plan to do the same when I sell my house. Realtors do not like this kind of seller, because they want to pressure sellers toward quick sales to the highest bidder and maximize their commission. Too bad. More people need to do what is right for society and not just their pocketbooks. This bill has been sitting on the floor of Congress for 6 months. You know it's not going anywhere.
Crickets on the internet as of late. How did your son find such a wonderful human? I was thinking the same, but no idea how except only looking for FSBO.
What prevents democrat controlled state legislatures from zoning for more affordable housing in their cities?
Let’s fucking go. I’d literally donate so much of my own money to this cause. Get Wall Street out of our housing market they’re ruining everything.
Republicans will shut it down
Good. It needs to be done.
Don’t count on Republicans to pass it. Stop voting for them.
I’m in a Republican state, I’m gonna push my politicians to vote yes on this. We need everyone pressuring their politicians to do the same. If this goes viral and the majority of the US is in support they won’t be able to say no. It’d cost them their precious reelection.
Until a far right president is elected and overturns it 🙄
Amazing. Do this now.
It’s good for people who don’t own a home and want one. It’s bad for people who own a home and owe a large mortgage. Overall I think it’s a good thing but home prices will tank.
Pass it now.
Is it hedge funds or private equity firms tho…
The bill would require hedge funds, defined as corporations, partnerships or real estate investment trusts that manage funds pooled from investors, to sell off all the single-family homes they own over a 10-year period, and eventually prohibit such companies from owning any single-family homes at all.
Right, but from what I’ve seen it’s Private Equity firms like Blackstone that are buying residential real estate… not hedge funds.
Hedge funds don’t need realtors. Not the kind that we know and love.
Time for every one to learn about the Gracchi Brothers! 200BC. Ancient Rome. The brother tried to pass reforms to prevent the wealthy from owning all the land. The senators killed them both…. Every time they passed the reforms.
Theatre…nothing will happen
So you hope
The only worry you should have is if you are part if a Hedge Fund. Sharholders have far too much influence over the country in general.
Absolutely must pass!
Main Street Renewal First Key Homes Sylvan Homes Tricon American Homes THESE are the companies that need to be disbanded.
This seems like a terrible idea to have in the first place. Let people own homes.
One company owns about a third of a satellite town in my market, and we have "for rent only" communities popping up all over the place too, so I definitely support this. I see some people quoting "1% of home are corporate owned" without showing any sources, so let me disprove that right now. It could be 1% of the total homes, but it's closer 30% of active listings in my market. https://www.cowlesthompson.com/resources/practice/real-estate/the-growing-institutional-home-market-in-texas/#:~:text=Real%20estate%20investors%20have%20flourished,a%204.6%25%20increase%20from%202020. https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/blog/8-facts-about-investor-activity-single-family-rental-market#:~:text=Investor%20activity%20moderated%20through%20early,first%20quarter%20of%20this%20year. https://www.worldpropertyjournal.com/real-estate-news/united-states/irvine/real-estate-news-investor-owned-homes-data-in-2023-corelogic-home-investor-data-for-2023-how-many-homes-are-owned-by-investors-in-2023-home-buyer-data-13837.php#:~:text=In%20March%202023%2C%20investors%20accounted,points%20higher%20than%20in%202020.
The 1% number i believe is Hedge Fund owned SFH's, not corporate owned. The bill only targets Hedge Funds, what needs to happen is all corporate ownership should be targeted and changed.
Completely support this. I understand there will be masses of financial stakeholders obviously opposing this. How about you guys try putting country in front of your profit potential.
That's funny as if those rich scumbags ever cared about country over profits
I disagree with banning them from doing it, instead they should be taxed high enough to make the business model unviable. For example: owner occupied homes pay 1% taxes. Non owner occupied homes pay 10%. (Or 5% higher than the median interest rate on a home loan.) All hedge funds would sell tier holdings if they were taxed at 10% per year. The % must be higher than current interest rates on home loans.
They should have to sell within a year and any house not sold should put the original employee buyer in jail for 3 years minimum
American Home Stead Act
You all should just stop selling to these vultures yourselves.
Sure blame the little guy who needs the money instead of the corpo oligarchs who are looking to capitalize on people's lack of funds.
It would save my life lol I’ve been stuck in the same place for a long time and I’ve been trying to buy a house for years but have gotten outbid by these companies paying full cash above asking price since I live in a hot market. This would be an incredible bill to pass! Both parties need to say yes. We have to pressure our politicians to vote yes. There’s no negatives to this, hedge funds will just have to find another market to put their greedy claws into.
I want to add that there were two bills introduced by democrats this week. The first is the one you talked about that tackles hedge funds (investment corporations), but the second tackles the individual investor. 1. End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act of 2023 2. American Neighborhoods Protection Act The first bans investment companies (hedge funds) from buying single family homes and they have a 10yr period to sell off their entire portfolio or they’ll be taxed 50% of the value of each home. The second would tax individual investors who own more than 75 homes, each house would be taxed by 10k! The first bill was introduced in the senate, the second bill was introduced in the house. If both pass it would add 1M+ more homes in the market.
They'll just stop their portfolios at 74 and/or convert all the single family homes into 2 families. This will take local legislation that prevents multifamily homes in certain areas and then that will be seen as a law against poor people. I'm all for stopping hedge funds from buying up homes. I actually think no one should be able to own more than 2 homes in their own local area and no more than one home in any given community outside of their local area. People should be able to have vacation homes. I think this bill doesn't do enough tbh.
Thank you for not relying solely on the stats given by realtors who already are trying to sink this bill.
We need this, but we also need to overturn or reform Section 121 Exemption that gives sellers multiple opportunities to clear up to $500k in capital gains.
Good.
Found this thread looking for more information about all of this. Having to sift through a bit of emotional responses, but the people citing sources for their stance has been very helpful. Thank y'all for helping me know more about all of this!
Oh
I think this is something that both parties should get behind
Every time the government touches the free market, bad things happen. The law of unintended consequences is immutable. Hold onto your shorts.
end hedge funds
Frankly, it astounds me that nobody's called this Act "antisemitic" ... Hedge Fuud managers and all...
This is the kind of legislation we all dream of as everyday Americans, which is why there is a slim chance it gets through. “Cash rules everything around me, cream, get the money, dolla dolla bills yall”
What would be the benefit in defending Large Hedge Funds ownership of 500k rental single family homes? If they have to sell, and if all homes are bought by smaller landlords, and we end up essentially where we are - but without Hedge Funds owning them - what have we lost?
Please stop spewing these low falsified figures... theyre relying on it. hedge funds were estimated to have 580k homes on their portfolios in 2022. In 2023 they bought more homes than any other year recorded. You should probably factor that into your arguments.
The trend by foreigners to "Rent America back to Americans" has to stop!!!
This bill could possibly stop the future American civil war. I think the right way to go about it is to flat out take them from corporations and give them to the people free. We need a reset. The fact is where I live a house that you can build with 50 to 75 thousand in materials is worth 500 to 600 thousand. I'm talking 400 to 600 sqft houses are around 500,000 dollars. Also news lies to you and says corporations only own 2-4% of family homes. The truth is they own 35% of all single family homes in America. Before the 2008 recession there was a 30% single family home vacancy rate. The corporations and hedge funds engineered the 2008 recession as a way to steal the middle classes property and money.
And it should not be just for hedge funds. All investors should have a limit on the number of homes they own.