They want to stop allowing Hedge Funds buy SFH
Most Popular Reply
Investor 路 Greenville, SC 路 Member since 2016 路 5k+ posts 路 13k+ votes
2yThe government is the problem, not the solution. And we plan to vote in the same problems.
22 Replies
- 2yKonstantin GinzburgPro MemberMember since 2021 路 376 posts 路 242 votes
@Mary Jay
I don't view this as a realistic law that will pass for several reasons. The first problem is that is represents severe government over reach since this would force private entities to sell off their private assets. This is not a power that government is granted. The second problem is enforceability. This would be very difficult for this law to be enforced since all it would take is the formation of subsidiaries with unique entity names to be created and these smaller entities would be able to take over ownership of real estate from the original parent company, leading to no actual shift in inventory. While home affordability is currently a problem in the US, this attempt at solving the issue appears less as a realistic proposal put forth that is meant to solve the problem in a reasonable way and more as a method of obtaining political pandering points from their voter base since as they had stated in the article: they do not believe this measure will actually pass. This means this is a cheap way of getting some publicity without taking on any actual risk.
I also find it personally disheartening that this is the measure they are proposing without taking accountability for the part they played in causing this situation to begin with. While many factors played into the previous high inflationary environment, supply chain interrupts due to lock-ins and large amounts of stimulus spending was a noticeable contributing factor; as was the rapid rise in interest rates. I do not think that the entity that contributed to the current problem is suited to be the primary source of a solution. A solution that has a higher probability to fix the issue is more likely to come from private businesses. At its root, the affordability problem is a case of limited housing supply far outpacing housing demand. In order to help alleviate affordability, additional housing supply should be encouraged. While the government can assist in this through actions such as lowering borrowing rates, providing construction incentives, or streamlining the permitting process for builders; I can't see a realistic law that can be passed that would provide a real solution to the problem and wouldn't revolve substantial over reaches of power. - Investor 路 VA 路 Member since 2015 路 21k+ posts 路 19k+ votes2y
@Mary Jay
Never gonna pass so nothing more to see here
7e investments53 Reviews - Investor 路 Greenville, SC 路 Member since 2016 路 5k+ posts 路 13k+ votes2y
The government is the problem, not the solution. And we plan to vote in the same problems.
- Rental Property Investor 路 New Braunfels, TX 路 Member since 2022 路 409 posts 路 408 votes2y
Quote from @Mike Dymski:
The government is the problem, not the solution. And we plan to vote in the same problems.
Don鈥檛 get me started馃槵
- Rental Property Investor 路 Member since 2020 路 1k+ posts 路 1k+ votes2y
That's some nice virtue signaling but as already mentioned it is not going to happen. If it did though I would have to assume that rents would skyrocket like never before as inventory is drastically lowered. Not all of these renters are going to magically become buyers by either choice or underwriting. If anything this may make the homeless situation even worse by kicking renters out of their homes due to a forced sale. Actions have consequences and while this may sound great on paper to certain people as in anything there would be winners and losers. I see this as more politicking and trying to pander to their base than realistically trying to pass a bill.
Who funds these politicians? Always check how the money flows.
This is just propaganda to let the lower & middle income get some feelings in them. Maybe they elevate this in q2 to get some more momentum, but this has less legs than a snail.
- Member since 2019 路 7k+ posts 路 4k+ votes2y
Quote from @Mary Jay:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-want-kick-hedge-funds-022306318.html#:~:text=In%20the%20Senate%2C%20the%20End,any%20single%2Dfamily%20homes%20entirely.
What do you guys think?
1. Is insititution like Vinebrook is on the same category as hedge fund ?
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1755755/000143774923...2. in my market, hedge fund is the true hoarder of single family, they just buy house in cash, do nothing,and sell after three years.
so i vote YES to this bill LOL LOL
- Member since 2019 路 7k+ posts 路 4k+ votes2y
Quote from @Mike Dymski:
The government is the problem, not the solution. And we plan to vote in the same problems.
and for government, people is the problem (but they don't mention it publicly), that's why they import new population to work in the country lol
- Investor 路 Hillsboro, OR 路 Member since 2016 路 310 posts 路 153 votes2y
Most Americans have generational wealth transfer via sale or transfer of a single family residence. Blackrock and other hedge funds are dangerous to American families when they buy significant amounts of SFR. If hedge funds are buying SFR then families are not. When the hedgefund sells a property they get the profit, obviously. But, in this scenario they are preventing a family of regular Americans to purchase and profit. Millions of Americans have used the sale of the family home to pay for expenses in their old age. Who will pay these expenses if they can't use the proceeds from the sale of their home? Blackrock?
- Member since 2019 路 7k+ posts 路 4k+ votes2y
Quote from @Christie Gahan:
Most Americans have generational wealth transfer via sale or transfer of a single family residence. Blackrock and other hedge funds are dangerous to American families when they buy significant amounts of SFR. If hedge funds are buying SFR then families are not. When the hedgefund sells a property they get the profit, obviously. But, in this scenario they are preventing a family of regular Americans to purchase and profit. Millions of Americans have used the sale of the family home to pay for expenses in their old age. Who will pay these expenses if they can't use the proceeds from the sale of their home? Blackrock?
this is exactly what Senator Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said.
I guess he said is true. Blackrock is now literally the end purchaser of any CRE/SFRs deals in the whole country. - Investor 路 Hillsboro, OR 路 Member since 2016 路 310 posts 路 153 votes2y
Quote from @Julie Garner:
Unnecessary. "
BlackRock is an active investor in the U.S. real estate market, but we are not among the institutional investors buying single-family homes."
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/insights/buying-hous...
Then what are they? How are they defining "institutional investor"? Semantics.
- Member since 2023 路 69 posts 路 44 votes2y
According to their news release, they're investing in NEW housing construction, multifamily properties and apartments.
Combined, I think I read their total is about 4% of the housing market. The proposed law is, as a poster stated above, government overreach. We need fewer laws, not more.
- Real Estate Broker 路 Reno, NV 路 Member since 2023 路 267 posts 路 297 votes2y
Just to clarify here. Invitation Homes (Blackstone), Progress Residential, and American Homes 4 Rent are the big three institutional SFR investors.
- Member since 2019 路 7k+ posts 路 4k+ votes2y
Quote from @Henry T.:
First the Dems go for the big guys, little guys will be next. Government overreach has already happened in Seattle, in the form of over regulation and fees. It happened with ease. Landlords are an untapped money source, they're coming.
most gov. narrative now is trying to find entity that causes home price to be expensive : landlord, hedge fund/institution, realtor, flipper.
i would not surprise if there're more limiting factor regulation to landlord/non owner occupant buyer. - Real Estate Broker 路 Minneapolis, MN 路 Member since 2011 路 5k+ posts 路 6k+ votes2y
I find many of the replies interesting because if one actually read's the provided link, it appears many are replying off ASSUMPTIONS of what's linked, not actually reading it, and posting on what it ACTUALLY says.
ACTUALLY reading it one finds very fast (a) it has NOTHING to do with hedge fund's, or any fund for that matter, other than a "catchy" name to the BS, which is political training 101, right, make a bill to invade somewhere and call it "saving ___", masters of spin.
So let's pop-on our decoder ring's and see what it actually says:
The "catchy" slogan is; The "End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act" of 2023. Right off that bat you should know it's BS, because when they use psychology, hyperbolic labeling to make your brain ASSUME a fact, that's when ya know you gotta read the details.
"The housing in our neighborhoods should be homes for people, not profit centers for Wall Street," co-author of the bill, Senator Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said
Take note of what's being said. "Homes should be for people, NOT for profit"..... What does that infer? Think on that. Let's dig deeper to see if this is there direction.
"....corporations are buying up housing and driving up both rents and home prices. It's time for Congress to.... ensure all families have a fair chance to buy or rent a decent home in their community at a price they can afford."
Oh hell, there it is and rather crystal clear. They are CLEARLY talking about ANY and ALL housing access, be it buying OR RENTING. And notice there fundamental factors (a) BIG Government taking control (b) people can buy or rent a "decent" home, which is code for what they want it to be NOT what they can afford (c) "at a price they can afford" BOOM there it is. Now disconnecting the price form the actual COSTS of it. Who cares that the costs are $320k to build it, no, people WANT it at $200k so MAKE IT $200k "or else".......
House proposed a bill that would discourage Wall Street's involvement in the housing market by charging investors who own more than 75 homes an annual fee of $10,000 per home. The money would be pooled into a housing trust fund to be used to support families with down payments.
LMAO! Ok, so now we see the ACTUAL target, ANYONE with 75+ properties, lol. So now is ANYONE with 75+ properties a hedge fund? And notice, it's ANOTHER "get the evil "rich" people" slogan. Invent some INSANE tax on em, that will be handed away to anyone who DOESNT or HASNT put in the work to achieve that financial success level. Yet ANOTHER Communist policy action, take from those who have and give it away to those who have-not. Yup, there from the Government and here to "help" you.......
While the Senate bill has hedge fund in the title, it appears to be targeting any large investor. The language defines "hedge fund taxpayer" as any applicable entity with $50,000,000 or more in net value or assets under management.
Lol, OMG this is just getting hilarious as we get to who there ACTUALLY targeting, starting slogan as "Hedge Fund's" and than as we define "Hedge Fund" it's "oh, a hedge fund, aaahh yeah, it's ANY landlord with $50m in real estate". Uhm.... ok, so that most investors in CA with 50 SFR, or less. Or WA, or or or. OR how many hit this mark with 1 MFH? Fifty million sounds like a lot, it ISNT. Notice it's total Real Estate value NOT actual capital invested. Lol, so CONGRATULATIONS something like 87% of ALL Landlords will magically be considered big bad Hedge Fund's overnight and demanded they be destroyed, and give away most everything to get SMALL enough to be under government's thumb.But there is more.......
Small mom-and-pop landlords in previous years have been the major money behind the investor home-buying spree.
Yup, so while there defining the big-bad-evil Hedge Fund is those with about 40+ unit's, it's noted YOU, the SMALL Mom&Pop, your ALSO just as evil so, maybe gotta come for you too next.......This is nothing more than a certain political party in the U.S. showing how EXTREMLY Communist they now run, how desperate they want to take CONTROL of things is, that THEY dictate who can make what, and that they don't have to actually do anything, including admit that BLATANTLY obvious that they fostered rampant inflation, no no no, just blame it on someone. Hey, where is the get McDonalds bill, why is food cost's what it is? Where is the get GM bill for blaming auto cost's?
So that's the thing, NO inflation, doesn't exist, never happened, it's just those "evil" business's profiteering, so grab your torch and pitchfork, were gonna "get-em" and take all there stuff and give it away too..... Yup, those good sheeple who don't ever try too hard, don't question things, just play there role of good lil consumers.
This SHOULD be called what it is, OPEN-WAR on the middle class and of ANY of aspirations. How dare you for having achieved $50m in total real estate holdings or more..... how dare you. Big Gov. is gonna come like Robinhood to take from the almost poor, and give to the perpetually poor.
This-IS-Communism-people, WAKE UP!!!!
I have a good friend from Poland, Soviet Communist Poland. He said he and whole family are working to leave U.S. and go back to Poland now, said I should do the same, I asked why. He said with a sad chuckle
"for same reasons we came here, to escape communism".
- Real Estate Broker 路 Minneapolis, MN 路 Member since 2011 路 5k+ posts 路 6k+ votes2y
Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:
Quote from @Henry T.:
First the Dems go for the big guys, little guys will be next. Government overreach has already happened in Seattle, in the form of over regulation and fees. It happened with ease. Landlords are an untapped money source, they're coming.
most gov. narrative now is trying to find entity that causes home price to be expensive : landlord, hedge fund/institution, realtor, flipper.
i would not surprise if there're more limiting factor regulation to landlord/non owner occupant buyer.Read the article, they use catchy words to think it's targeting "big guys" but read the details, it targets probably 85%+ of ALL landlords.
- Member since 2019 路 7k+ posts 路 4k+ votes2y
Quote from @James Hamling:
Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:
Quote from @Henry T.:
First the Dems go for the big guys, little guys will be next. Government overreach has already happened in Seattle, in the form of over regulation and fees. It happened with ease. Landlords are an untapped money source, they're coming.
most gov. narrative now is trying to find entity that causes home price to be expensive : landlord, hedge fund/institution, realtor, flipper.
i would not surprise if there're more limiting factor regulation to landlord/non owner occupant buyer.Read the article, they use catchy words to think it's targeting "big guys" but read the details, it targets probably 85%+ of ALL landlords.
Precisely
- Real Estate Broker 路 Minneapolis, MN 路 Member since 2011 路 5k+ posts 路 6k+ votes2y
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.