Trump says U.S. to ban large investors from buying homes

Richard T · Thursday at 7:16 AM

Tuur said:
I used to work at this for summer jobs. Most house construction are by family owned businesses, and these usually build houses for individual owners. It's when you move up to the subdivision level that things change. Larger outfits built / build subdivisions full of houses to sell. Our first tip-off that the housing bubble way back was about to burst was unsold houses in subdivisions, or at least that was the case locally. That's the basis of my question.

I don't see this hurting individuals having someone build them a house on their own land, or those that build them. That's a different critter than building subdivisions full of homes for sale. I'm not sure that stepping in to prevent institutions from owning a number of homes would even hurt that, though it might. What it will affect are companies that buy foreclosed homes or homes that come up in tax sales, or just buy groups of homes outright and then rent them.

Is that a good thing or bad? I don't know. The premise seems to be buying up large number of homes to turn into rentals creates a monopoly and rising rent prices. I'm not convince about that, but here we're too rural to have such companies.

You have some good insights about who builds the new homes. Im looked up what homes large investors are buying, thinking most of the homes were pre existing, whicj is true but im reading some are built to rent. Still, shutting out investors is going to shift rentals to purchasing. Many of those renters though may not qualify. This would help some if there is new supply. Perhaps the bill will allow investors to build new homes for rentals? Plus of course there are mom and pop landlords. I read blackstone, one of the largest investors owns about 1 to 2 percent of the market but they have been selling 20% of their inventory. Could be people just blame them for high prices but the reality is labor, materials, and govt regulations are the real reasons for the price increases. With job losses coming prices could drop. At least Trump is trying to address the shortage.

wing2000 · Thursday at 7:46 AM

One data point from Q2, 2025

PHOENIX, Sept. 25, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Real estate investors purchased 33% of all single-family residential properties sold in the second quarter of 2025, the highest percentage of investor purchases in the last five years according to the Q2 2025 Investor Pulse™
...
"Interestingly, while the percentage of single-family homes purchased by investors rose to a five-year high, the actual number of homes purchased during the second quarter of 2025 was 16,000 fewer than a year ago," said BatchData Co-Founder and Chief Innovation Officer Ivo Draginov. "So the relatively high percentage of home purchases by investors is at least partly due to overall home sales being weaker in Q2 2025 than they were in Q2 2024."

Real Estate Investors Account For 33% of Q2 2025 Home Purchases According to Q2 2025 Investor Pulse™ Report From BatchData

/PRNewswire/ -- Real estate investors purchased 33% of all single-family residential properties sold in the second quarter of 2025, the highest percentage of...

www.prnewswire.com

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 7:49 AM

Hank77 said:
Mid-term elections... he needs Republicans elected to pass these sorts of promises, which everybody loves. Promises that may never...

Although, his EO to reschedule Marijuana actually got quite a bit of pushback among more traditional GOP types.

If I had to guess, moves like the rescheduling and the one from this thread are perhaps part of a new approach to get a different type of coalition.

With the talks of a "GOP fracturing", where he appears to be losing some of the Fuentes types, and some of the older republicans aging out, there's probably some recognition of the need to backfill with a different group.

The rescheduling and moves like this one would be ones that would appeal to the 18-35 centrist/independent bloc. (which is a rather juicy voter vein if one can tap into it)

NxNW · Thursday at 7:51 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
“It is for that reason, and much more, that I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it. People live in homes, not corporations,” he added.

Sounds anti-capitalist to me. Why is the government interfering with my right to sell my home to whoever I want?

If an investor makes me the best offer, I should be able to sell to them.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 8:25 AM

NxNW said:
Sounds anti-capitalist to me. Why is the government interfering with my right to sell my home to whoever I want?

If an investor makes me the best offer, I should be able to sell to them.

It's not anti-capitalist.

Anti-capitalist would be the government issuing you a home and maintaining ownership of it.

In this instance, it's merely placing guardrails on who can purchase something (which we have across a variety of other things).

The same way "This is my vineyard, and my wine, why can't I sell it to a 17 year old who wants to party with their friends, they're making me the best offer" being prevented isn't "anti-capitalist".

durangodawood · Thursday at 9:27 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
It's not anti-capitalist.

Anti-capitalist would be the government issuing you a home and maintaining ownership of it.

In this instance, it's merely placing guardrails on who can purchase something (which we have across a variety of other things).

The same way "This is my vineyard, and my wine, why can't I sell it to a 17 year old who wants to party with their friends, they're making me the best offer" being prevented isn't "anti-capitalist".

It is anti capitalist. Restrictions on buying and selling for the sole purpose of affecting markets.

Not at all the same as public safety, child protection, etc laws.

(On first look Im very receptive to this proposed regulation. Details matter of course, and I dont know them.)

Hank77 · Thursday at 11:44 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
Although, his EO to reschedule Marijuana actually got quite a bit of pushback among more traditional GOP types.

If I had to guess, moves like the rescheduling and the one from this thread are perhaps part of a new approach to get a different type of coalition.

With the talks of a "GOP fracturing", where he appears to be losing some of the Fuentes types, and some of the older republicans aging out, there's probably some recognition of the need to backfill with a different group.

The rescheduling and moves like this one would be ones that would appeal to the 18-35 centrist/independent bloc. (which is a rather juicy voter vein if one can tap into it)

The other day/night at a meeting between him and the Republican House members, he said that if they lost the House in the midterms, he would be impeached for the third time.

MarcusGregor · Thursday at 2:40 PM

I just think it's funny to see MAGA with confused looks on their faces as they clap and yell, "YEAH!" when Trump says this but continue to vote for Republicans who consistently vote against these proposals as "anti-business", "anti-capitalist" or government overreach when brought up by Democrats and progressives for the last few decades.

If this comes to fruition, that's great. But I have little hope that much progress toward this goal will actually be made in a meaningful way with this administration and this do-nothing congress.

It's also interesting that these more progressive ideas are what Trump is throwing out there to try and raise his poll numbers and support, lol.

Aryeh Jay · Thursday at 4:00 PM

Hank77 said:
The other day/night at a meeting between him and the Republican House members, he said that if they lost the House in the midterms, he would be impeached for the third time.

Well if that's not a good enough reason to vote republican, I don't know what is.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 8:28 PM

MarcusGregor said:
I just think it's funny to see MAGA with confused looks on their faces as they clap and yell, "YEAH!" when Trump says this but continue to vote for Republicans who consistently vote against these proposals as "anti-business", "anti-capitalist" or government overreach when brought up by Democrats and progressives for the last few decades.

If this comes to fruition, that's great. But I have little hope that much progress toward this goal will actually be made in a meaningful way with this administration and this do-nothing congress.

It's also interesting that these more progressive ideas are what Trump is throwing out there to try and raise his poll numbers and support, lol.

If I had to venture a guess, it's what those proposals are often bundled with that makes them vote against it when democrats pitch the ideas.

Objective polling (where specific names and parties are left out and the question is simply asked about the policy itself) show that some of the more progressive economic ideas are pretty popular. -- paid family leave would be a prime example.

But if people have to vote for a cornucopia of other aspects of progressivism in order to get it, they say "nah"

Hank77 · Saturday at 1:04 PM

ThatRobGuy said:
If I had to venture a guess, it's what those proposals are often bundled with that makes them vote against it when democrats pitch the ideas.

Objective polling (where specific names and parties are left out and the question is simply asked about the policy itself) show that some of the more progressive economic ideas are pretty popular. -- paid family leave would be a prime example.

But if people have to vote for a cornucopia of other aspects of progressivism in order to get it, they say "nah"

I agree, and I think it works the same way with conservative ideas.

FredG3 · Saturday at 1:16 PM

In my humble opinion, the idea to restrict large company ownership of large swaths of single family homes is a good idea. Especially when coupled with the proposed bond buyback to lower mortgage interest rates.

Even in my rural town, we are seeing homes being purchased by larger companies from the nearby cities. Rents have increased almost 40% over the past 6 years. Some of this can be blamed on the steady yearly increase in state minimum wage (in NY), but part of it is the fact that most single family homes are only on the market for a couple of days before being purchased at above asking price. The average middle class family doesn't have the extra cash to offer above asking, so they are at an immediate disadvantage.
The other side effect of changing so many single family homes into rentals is damage done to the communities. When someone rents, they have less invested in their local community and are less likely to participate in local government or organizations, they are less likely to volunteer in their community or help community improvement projects.

ThatRobGuy · Saturday at 6:23 PM

Hank77 said:
I agree, and I think it works the same way with conservative ideas.

It does, but to a lesser extent.

For example, some progressive ideas like
- Universal background checks
- Paid family leave
- Criminal justice reform
- Negotiated Rx drug prices
- Minimum wage increases

...all poll at 70%+ in most areas (meaning if democrats aren't getting 70% of the vote, they're potentially leaving votes on the table)

Whereas, certain conservative ideas have popularity that exceeds 50% (like strengthening border controls), and a narrow majority favors reigning certain forms of government spending, but you won't find many beyond that.

If a party is on the "correct side" of several 70/30 issues but find themselves losing half the time, and their opponents are outkicking their coverage and winning half the time, that's an indicator that there's some "poison pill" policies in the mix that are sabotaging their efforts. Obviously money spent and PR/propagandizing can explain some of it, but not all of it.

Pommer · Saturday at 9:58 PM

FredG3 said:
In my humble opinion, the idea to restrict large company ownership of large swaths of single family homes is a good idea. Especially when coupled with the proposed bond buyback to lower mortgage interest rates.

Even in my rural town, we are seeing homes being purchased by larger companies from the nearby cities. Rents have increased almost 40% over the past 6 years. Some of this can be blamed on the steady yearly increase in state minimum wage (in NY), but part of it is the fact that most single family homes are only on the market for a couple of days before being purchased at above asking price. The average middle class family doesn't have the extra cash to offer above asking, so they are at an immediate disadvantage.
The other side effect of changing so many single family homes into rentals is damage done to the communities. When someone rents, they have less invested in their local community and are less likely to participate in local government or organizations, they are less likely to volunteer in their community or help community improvement projects.

Regulating Capitalism is the very first step to communism, (or so we’ve been told for 40 years).

Bradskii · Saturday at 10:16 PM

Pommer said:
Regulating Capitalism is the very first step to communism, (or so we’ve been told for 40 years).

It's one of those tricky questions for some.

'Would you support a policy that prevented investors from purchasing homes?'
'Um...gee, I dunno. How can I tell without knowing if Trump supports it or condemns it first'.

durangodawood · Saturday at 11:14 PM

Bradskii said:
It's one of those tricky questions for some.

'Would you support a policy that prevented investors from purchasing homes?'
'Um...gee, I dunno. How can I tell without knowing if Trump supports it or condemns it first'.

....wait for instructions.

rjs330 · 2026-01-11T13:51:57-0600

On the face of this it appears ro be a good idea. It is anti-capitalist. But then we have a country that is filled with anti-capitalist regulations. This would just be another one to add to the list.

As a society we have to decide what ideas we support. I support this one.

I'm not sure exactly how much difference it will make. Certainly none at first. But maybe in the long run IF Congress codifies it. Its not going ro make much if any difference in the next 3 1/2 years.

Getting rid of all the illegals will help housing as well.

BasedLutheran · 2026-01-11T14:32:27-0600

Here's hoping he can get something like this into law. I sadly doubt he will be able to, Blackrock has its hands in too many pockets of Congress

ThatRobGuy · 2026-01-11T18:48:54-0600

rjs330 said:
On the face of this it appears ro be a good idea. It is anti-capitalist. But then we have a country that is filled with anti-capitalist regulations. This would just be another one to add to the list.

As a society we have to decide what ideas we support. I support this one.

I don't even see it as anti-capitalist.

The overarching question between "capitalism vs. socialism" comes down to the ability for an individual own property, and determining who owns the means of production.

In this instance, the regulation proposal isn't suggesting that individuals can't own a home/property, or that the government will own and distribute the homes.

It's simply restricting corporate entities from acquiring large portions of the available housing market.

MarcusGregor · 2026-01-12T08:00:01-0600

rjs330 said:
On the face of this it appears ro be a good idea. It is anti-capitalist. But then we have a country that is filled with anti-capitalist regulations. This would just be another one to add to the list.

As a society we have to decide what ideas we support. I support this one.

Do you support and vote for candidates that support and campaign on these kinds of ideas as well?

rjs330 said:
I'm not sure exactly how much difference it will make. Certainly none at first. But maybe in the long run IF Congress codifies it. Its not going ro make much if any difference in the next 3 1/2 years.

for certain.

rjs330 said:
Getting rid of all the illegals will help housing as well.

Based on this expressed view I'm going to predict the answer to my question above is "No.'

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Trump says U.S. to ban large investors from buying homes

Well-Known Member

E pluribus unum

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

New year, new you...

Stuck on a ship.

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Member

Part of the IT crowd

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Under the Southern Cross I stand...

re Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Part of the IT crowd

New year, new you...

Similar threads