re: Executive Order banning Big Wall Street from buying up single-family homes

Admittedly AI, but here are some key trends...I think many in here are both overestimating the volume of homes bought/held by institutional investors and in their thinking that these folks are somehow immune to the effects of the broader real estate market. If they truly could manipulate the market to their advantage, they would rarely, if ever, take losses.

quote:

---

Key Trends for Institutional Investors (2025–2026):

Reduced Activity: Institutional purchases have fallen faster than the overall market, as high costs and interest rates make it harder to justify acquisitions.

Localized Losses: In early 2026, some investors were forced to sell homes at a loss, particularly in over-exposed markets like Phoenix (30.7% of investor sales), Las Vegas (28%), and Jacksonville (20.9%).

Shift to Net Sellers: Major investors have pivoted from acquiring to selling to manage portfolio performance, with some firms seeing a 90% reduction in purchase activity since 2022.

Performance vs. Risk: While some portfolios struggle with high debt costs, others are holding assets in high-demand areas. However, for many, the "juice isn't worth the squeeze" due to maintenance costs, eviction risks, and low liquidity in a slow market.

The Shift to Smaller Investors:

While large institutional players (350+ homes) have slowed down, they still hold a significant, albeit reduced, share of the market (6.6% in 2024–2025). Smaller "mom-and-pop" investors, who own fewer than 10 homes, have expanded their presence, accounting for over 60% of all investor purchases, stepping into the market as institutional buying has retreated

---

Government intervention always leads to unintended consequences. It's been proven over and over and over. I'm not a realtor, economist, or institutional investor, but I would wager if we suddenly banned large investors from buying homes we'd tank the market pretty much overnight. If they cannot acquire "new to them" homes to manage their portfolio over time, they'll just bail.

I also think the original quote of "people live in houses, not corporations" was a bit of a miss too. I get the narrative he's trying for, but people live in houses even if they're owned by corporations.

More AI overview reinforcing what I said above, this specific to where I live.

quote:

---

As of early 2026, institutional investors (defined as owning 100+ homes) own a small portion of the Charleston, SC, market, with a roughly 1.6% to 3% share in local counties.

While some reports highlighted high overall investment in the Southeast, large institutional ownership remains low compared to total housing stock.

Key Data Points on Charleston Investor Activity:

Ownership Share: In the Charleston MSA, institutional investors own roughly 1.6% of single-family homes, with localized concentrations of 3.0% in Berkeley County and 2.1% in Dorchester County.

Investor Type: Small, local investors are far more prevalent, with many national reports highlighting that smaller, non-institutional investors (fewer than 11 homes) make up roughly 90% of all investor-owned homes.

Trends: As of 2026, institutional investors are increasingly focusing on building new rental communities rather than purchasing existing homes, often selling older inventory to individuals.

---

quote:

---

The opposite is happening, and has been for years. These institutional investors are taking HUGE losses on their RE investments, currently. RE and AI are busting the private credit bubble, too.

---

You are living in fantasy land.

Institutional investors, receive steady rental income over time. They concomitantly use the law (government manipulation) for tax advantage. At the same time, they do not have the risk of sudden life change (layoffs, family needs, etc.) driving forced sales. That, in and of itself, is a tremendous advantage.

Further, by squeezing market inventory, institutional investors drive prices up on individual properties. In the instance of a bubble, they have the resources to wait it out. If they do sell, they can register it at a capital loss to offset capital gains. Theirs is a different world compared with individual buyers.

Their actions, force, middle class buyers into rental situations, as opposed to the "American dream" of homeownership. As opposed to GenY which often elected to avoid homeownership, GenZ is not so inclined and are interested in homeownership, but affordability is now prohibitive.

I'm surprised, given your interest in the matter, you'd not be aware of those issues.

quote:

---

Boomers paying much lower property tax due to laws favoring them and outbidding young men and women for housing with cash offers, preventing them from starting families is a far bigger problem than what Wall Street is doing

---

Wtf does that word salad actually mean?

It's a bold claim, care to enlighten is on the area that have property tax laws that favor boomers?

FYI, I'm not a boomer but open to looking into moving if such a utopia actually existed.

quote:

---

I'm arguing for a more free (aka less government involvement) economy, which I have for 20 years. There is nothing contrary about my takes.

---

There actually is. Your take is either contrarian, or very naïve.

quote:

---

Congress has elected, of its own accord, to be completely feckless for three decades.

---

Blame the voters. Because this ruling by EO sucks.

quote:

---

“Homes are for people, not corporations.”

---

I agree with this statement and the order. However, it's range and practicality need to be discussed further.

So Who Are "The Big Guys"

If you added it all up, institutional investors (typically defined as those with 1,000+ homes, like Blackstone for example) own roughly 450,000–600,000 single-family homes nationwide — less than 1% of the total U.S. stock (~86–92 million homes) and only about 3% of the single-family rental segment, which is dominated by small “mom-and-pop” landlords.

Even if both the executive order and the bill take effect, the national impact could be modest. Large institutions hold only an estimated 1–3% of single-family rentals, so these steps alone likely won’t move prices much. Affordability still rises or falls on supply, zoning, and local permitting.

So, the actual impact is likely to be:

• Current portfolios stay intact—there’s no mandate to sell homes already owned.
• Smaller landlords and mom-and-pop buyers are mostly unaffected.
• Investors could still buy with cash or private financing—just without government-backed boosts.
• Enforcement would hinge on penalties, but purchases may be funneled through LLCs or affiliates.

Step in the right direction if fully implemented, but impact will be negligible to the average homeowner in terms of moving the pricing needle.

quote:

---

No.
I'll place blame exactly where it lies, as I always do by the way.

---

quote:

---

Here’s the paradox: despite this anger, U.S. congressional incumbents almost never lose. In the November 2024 general election, a year defined by anti-incumbent fervor, 95% of incumbents nationwide who ran for re-election won their races. For members of the U.S. Congress specifically, the rate was even higher, hovering between 95% and 98%.

---

quote:

---

Congress as a whole has hit a record-low approval rating of 10%, with 86% disapproving, according to the latest Gallup poll The Hill.

---

Voters are lazy, dont educate themselvs and are easily duped.

Liberals are so dumb. Capitalism has thousands of laws and constantly adding them.

Now every time a guide rail is added to the free market to prevent monopolies, liberals chirp in calling it communism. You have no idea how retarded you sound. Just complete fools.