- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:04 pm to The Egg
I called for this policy as soon as it was known that large institutional investors were driving up values buy creating a housing shortage for owner occupied buyers. They should be prosecuted for market manipulations.
It's has been a law for ages that banks cannot own real estate because of the conflict of interest with individual buyers/owners, as well as the ability to manipulate housing markets. Institutional investors should be added to that same law AND they should have to liquidate the properties they own.
If institutional investors want to invest in real estate it should be through mortgages and business investment channels, not direct ownership that unfairly competes against the consumer public that also depends on their investment services.
It's has been a law for ages that banks cannot own real estate because of the conflict of interest with individual buyers/owners, as well as the ability to manipulate housing markets. Institutional investors should be added to that same law AND they should have to liquidate the properties they own.
If institutional investors want to invest in real estate it should be through mortgages and business investment channels, not direct ownership that unfairly competes against the consumer public that also depends on their investment services.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:05 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Why ban what?
Private property rights? The thing you said was the "bedrock of America"
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:06 pm to The Egg
Trump must have watched "It's a Wonderful Life" over the holidays.
It's a good idea that will help new homeowners and small time landlords buy more competitively. Small downside is it may lower some folks home equity.
I wonder where they draw the line on the types of owner ship and sizes of buyers.
It's a good idea that will help new homeowners and small time landlords buy more competitively. Small downside is it may lower some folks home equity.
I wonder where they draw the line on the types of owner ship and sizes of buyers.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:07 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
So then why ban?
You agree with corporate entities, buying up housing stock which in turn drive up housing prices?
Weird
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:08 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Dumb. Will result in lower rental stock.
Zero proof of that.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:08 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
As you should now, the entire point of corporations is they are treated as "legal persons" before the law
Ruling was stupid then and now.
quote:
I can tell you after the financial crisis, investment firms buying properties in mass, fixing them up and them renting them out greatly improved the net utility of the country.
The investment crisis was caused by corporations and investment firms (corporations) benefited from it. See the pattern?
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:08 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
You agree with corporate entities, buying up housing stock which in turn drive up housing prices?
Weird
He was responding to this post
quote:
I am. Private property is the bedrock of America.
Corporations have private property rights, too.
People arguing otherwise sound like leftists bitching about Citizens United, or classic hippies and "the corporations, man"
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:11 pm to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Ruling was stupid then and now.
Arguing legal entities shouldn't be able to own property is literally one of the most socialist arguments I've ever seen on here.
I'd wager more than 90% of people who own rental properties on here don't directly own them, and own some juridical entity that owns the property.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
He was responding to this post
I know
quote:
Corporations have private property rights, too.
It is not a right. It is an ability to do so through a loophole.
quote:
People arguing otherwise sound like leftists bitching about Citizens United, or classic hippies and "the corporations, man"
Or maybe, just maybe, someone who isn't a blithering idiot.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:15 pm to MrLSU
100% correct but Trump has to do something on "affordability". The clip of him saying that we don't want to build to many homes because that drives down the value of existing homes is all you need to know about Trumps housing agenda. He is clueless on how to make this more affordable.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:16 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
It is not a right.
...why?
quote:
It is an ability to do so through a loophole.
Only leftists call it a "loophole"
quote:
Or maybe, just maybe, someone who isn't a blithering idiot.
No by default arguing for socialism makes you an idiot
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:17 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
100% correct but Trump has to do something on "affordability". The clip of him saying that we don't want to build to many homes because that drives down the value of existing homes is all you need to know about Trumps housing agenda. He is clueless on how to make this more affordable.
He doesn't know how to do it....without pissing off boomers and old Gen X, which is a huge portion of his base.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:19 pm to The Egg
This is the exact type of policy that will win in the midterms. Because it actually helps Americans.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:23 pm to UtahCajun
Are you seriously arguing against corporate ownership of property categorically? That is what your post implies.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:24 pm to The Egg
Is there going to be some sort of concrete definition on this that excludes BlackRock from buying up 500 homes but would still allow me to purchase a home or two under RaginCajun03, LLC as a rental properties?
I know the post says “large” institutions, so hopefully that means something like 100 homes or more to define large.
I know the post says “large” institutions, so hopefully that means something like 100 homes or more to define large.
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:27 pm to CAD703X
quote:I know that housing is much, much higher than in 1997 in all major American cities - particularly those like Nashville which have become very popular this century.
you might want to do some research on whats been going on in the nashville housing market the last 8 years or so before pretending you know something.
Also, just to be clear - it's the land that has appreciated, not the house. If you are in a good area, proximal to highly-sought-after Nashville adjacency, then you can only expect it to go up. This happens with or without Blackstone buying a couple of thousand beaters.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:27 pm to The Egg
quote:define "institution" first.
Trump looking to ban institutional buying of single-family homes
Are we talking about retirees with 2-10 rent houses or are we talking about Blackrock?
Is the definition going to be based on the financing used to make the purchase?
Sounds good, not great. But that depends on those definitions.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:29 pm to UtahCajun
quote:I agree with there is a nationwide shortage of housing units (anywhere from 1.5- 4 million, depending on how you look at it) and no amount of anything - other than building a shite ton more supply - is going to change the upward pressure of that dynamic.
You agree with corporate entities, buying up housing stock which in turn drive up housing prices?
Weird
The total amount of homes owned by this supposedly evil PE firms is a tiny TINY drop in the bucket of overall housing stock.
Posted on 1/7/26 at 1:30 pm to NOLALGD
quote:
Don't large most homebuilders own the house till they sell it. Also, a large NYC high-rise is full of single family residences. Does he mean single-family detached residents. How do you define that, devil is in the details. So Trump says any corporation can't own more than 100 single-family homes. Democrat president gets elected and changes the limit to 5 or 10, I know there are people here who own multiple rental properties. Slippy slope, when does it stop?
You could restrict total acquisitions over time periods, and not count new-builds in the same manner or at all. Probably with a caveat that property bought for reconstruction (aka the buildings will come down) not being counted the same. Not to say that regulations are my favorite.
The overall problem isn’t the incremental acquisition of properties, but the massive increase in acquisition over a set of time, typically in certain localized areas.
If I buy and restrict the homes in one city, I can balloon the prices of houses there if I can ride out the market until I’m ready to liquidate. This is market manipulation to lots people, which is why we point fingers at the large equity firms like black rock.
This post was edited on 1/7/26 at 1:40 pm
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News