There was recently a bill that would ban hedge funds from acquiring single family homes. It would also have required hedge funds to sell 10% of inventory a year for a decade until they no longer are in the single family homes at all a decade later. It never saw the floor.
EDIT: added which party the elected officials that introduced the bill are a part of. I was bored and asked Chatgpt so I'm just gonna leave this here: "Do you understand this?" (With screenshot) CGPT: "Yes, this is a screenshot of a RUclips comment thread under a video. It discusses a proposed bill aimed at limiting hedge funds from acquiring single-family homes and gradually removing their involvement in this market. One commenter mentions the bill never reached the floor for a vote. Another asks why, to which one user attributes it to "politicians" generally, and another user specifies it was Republicans who stopped it, emphasizing that the two political parties are not the same in their approach. It reflects a broader debate about housing affordability, corporate ownership, and political accountability. Let me know if you'd like a more detailed analysis!" "Yes, tell me about the actual bill that op is talking about and answer the commenters question about who or what stopped the bill from going through?" CGPT(with sources): "The bill in question is the "End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act," introduced in December 2023 by Senator Jeff Merkley [Democrat] and Representative Adam Smith [Democrat]. This legislation aims to prohibit hedge funds from purchasing single-family homes and mandates that they divest their existing holdings within a decade. The goal is to increase housing availability for individual buyers and address concerns about corporate influence in the housing market. As of November 2024, the bill has been referred to committee but has not progressed to a floor vote in either the House or the Senate. The lack of advancement can be attributed to several factors: Political Dynamics: The bill has garnered support primarily from Democratic lawmakers. In a divided Congress, with Republicans holding significant influence, legislation without bipartisan backing often faces challenges in moving forward. Opposition from Industry Groups: Trade organizations, such as the National Rental Home Council, have expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it could reduce housing availability and affordability. Such opposition can influence lawmakers and impede legislative progress. Legislative Prioritization: With numerous bills competing for attention, those lacking widespread support or facing significant opposition may not be prioritized for debate or voting. In summary, the bill's stagnation is due to a combination of partisan divisions, industry opposition, and legislative prioritization, preventing it from advancing to a vote." "'Trade organizations, such as the National Rental Home Council, have expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it could reduce housing availability and affordability' Thoughts? Is it true? Or false?" CGPT: "The claim made by trade organizations like the National Rental Home Council, that such legislation could reduce housing availability and affordability, is not entirely straightforward and requires context. Why They Might Say It: 1. Short-Term Market Impact: Hedge funds and large institutional investors own a significant number of single-family homes. Forcing them to divest over a decade could lead to a temporary market disruption. For example: If large volumes of homes are sold quickly, it could destabilize local real estate markets. These organizations often argue that they are providing rental housing options, which are necessary for individuals who cannot or do not want to buy homes. 2. Rental Housing: Hedge funds typically turn these homes into rental properties. Removing them from the market could, in theory, reduce rental housing supply in the short term, potentially driving up rents. --- Counterarguments (and why the claim is not entirely true): 1. Long-Term Homeownership Opportunities: Critics argue that hedge fund ownership inflates home prices, as institutional buyers outbid individual buyers. Limiting their participation could make homes more affordable for families over time. Returning homes to individual buyers likely increases stability in communities, as homeowners tend to stay in homes longer than renters. 2. Artificial Scarcity: Hedge funds often "hoard" properties, keeping some vacant or flipping them for profit, which reduces overall housing availability. Removing such practices could increase the housing stock available to middle-class buyers, balancing the market. 3. Focus on Profits: Institutional investors prioritize maximizing returns, sometimes through aggressive rent hikes or minimal property maintenance. Individual ownership often better aligns with affordability and quality-of-life concerns. --- Verdict: The claim is misleading. While there may be short-term disruptions, the long-term effect of such legislation is more likely to increase housing affordability and availability for individual buyers by curbing speculative practices. Research consistently shows that concentrated corporate ownership of homes contributes to rising prices and reduced accessibility for first-time buyers."
@zapotc thanks for posting. Another point I'm surprised wasn't mentioned is the acceleration of hedge funds purchasing single family homes. If trends continue without regulation, hedge funds will monopolize the market.
We have less illegal immigration than in the past so you see a downward decline, instead you only see rising prices, because corporate greed is the only thing to blame. @@marthvader14
@@marthvader14 1. How do they take jobs for lower wages? I thought a boss had to hire and negotiate pay. It sounds like our employers are searching to undercut workers wages, jobs are given not taken. 2. We do have migrants working for lower wages, though, but that begs the question, how are they able to buy the houses that can't be afforded by those with higher wages? I'm gonna guess there's also someone else with a 6 figure salary to blame
@@bc4065 1. By increasing the supply of workers and accepting to work for less pay. Yeah employers are searching to undercut workers wages, that was my point 2. They increase the demand for living room, thus increasing its price, especially for rents
@ That’s not nearly enough money for a downpayment where the jobs my spouse and I have. My problem isn’t that I can’t afford property at all, it’s that I can’t afford it where my life is.
The concept of homes being investment vehicles is the problem. 50 years ago everyone saw homes as a place to live. Nowadays there's too many people (and companies, and conglomerates) treating homes like a commodity to be traded.
It's the idea of a (completely) free market, that's actually absolutely sick. They sell it like it was a synonym of freedom, but not everything should be traded. It's not a new concept: you can't trade people anymore (well, they do trade in corpse and parts, though). Other limits must be imposed. Unfortunately they have already bought the legislators
@@RiccardoGabarriniKazeatarithe market is not "free" and never had been. There's insane amounts of regulations on building and that's what drives prices up
@@udttdujgx regulations don't drive up prices. If anything, they keep them down and ensure quality is kept up. Prices are high because those that build and can buy them are able to set whatever price they want. That's the nature of capitalism. When competition dries up or is bought out due to no government intervention, prices go up. Housing is a necessity that people will pay anything for. The idea that the free market will take care of everything is based on the ridiculous belief that sellers have a good heart and will lower prices for the sake of it. Wake up.
@@NoCluYT no, regulations are the cause, spend 5 seconds reading instead of listening to social media for all your opinions. Leftists literally talk about the cost being caused by regulations halting building more efficient housing
@@udttdujgx True, but that's not the whole story. There are real practical barriers to new housing that can't be addressed by deregulation or subsidies. Landlords, including dear-old small-time mom-and-pops, exploit these natural frictions by bidding-up housing with their capital and collateral, putting it out of reach of ordinary home buyers so that the majority are forced to rent, forking over ever-increasing sums of their hard-earned money when they could be building wealth. Landlords are no different from ticket scalpers or sneaker/game console resellers in this regard. Landlords are just as guilty of putting up barriers, both economic AND political, to new housing and non-profit housing. There should be a high tax on landlords, maybe as a land-value tax, to discourage their proliferation and put more of the units they hoard back into the primary market, i.e. back to reflecting their real value. Any leftover demand for rental properties after landlords in search of usurious profits leave the market should be fulfilled by non-profit entities.
I got a $180k offer on a 4 bedroom TRAILER I bought in 2008 when I got out of the Army for 80k. We are in trouble if they are going after modular homes. The last form of affordable housing.
The grim future where "Starter Home" means trailer park. The only "affordable" homes are derelict shacks in bad neighborhoods. But they'll be bought up, renovated, and gentrified eventually.
There are common sense laws LOCALLY that protect homes from outside investment, ironically the ultimate home of democrats California has no such laws. Boulder Colorado for example requires a license to rent a home and is very restrictive, laws like this should be LOCAL and may the best city win
No, we don’t. Investment firms aren’t buying up all of the single family homes. About 66% of homes are owner occupied (high by historical standards) and only about 1% of single family homes are owned by big companies.
Why talk about 2008 when Trump bailed out these landlords with free money, which was before COVID happened, and real estate prices jumped 28% in his term and businesses were closing shop even before COVID? Good times.
Check out Homewreckers book by Glantz and it’ll explain the bailouts… it’ll give an idea of what started back then…. I’m sure you can find the synopsis, but that may not give you all the info…. Good book and an eye opener
I grew up poor, now I have 3 properties now I went rest of the people suffer who can't get even 1 home 😂. This is what EVERY RICH PERSON IS DOING IN EVERY COUNTRY.
two affordable houses on our street just got bought up by a multi millionaire who tore them down, and put mcmansions on them that are twice the cost of the original houses.
The US is on fire 🔥 and congress is just watching it burn . Some candidates and representatives actually talk about addressing these issues but the voters are apathetic and willfully ignorant.
Only solutions are market driven. 1) build more housing units (medium density mixed use being best) 2) be flexible in your living location and go somewhere you can afford 3) stop renting the houses/crash the market
@@jessvagnar4957I'm pretty sure public housing would also be a solution. How are the market solutions working out exactly? I'm as YIMBY as they come but pretending like the market can solve every problem is not realistic.
@jessvagnar4957 an increase in supply imo is impossible as we would realistically have to build more apartment complexes than there is money in the world for prices to truly come down into sensible levels I admittedly haven't thought too much about how I would solve it but currently my mind is on tax incentives, tl;dr after your 3rd/4th home property taxes increase exponentially to the point it isn't profitable to run businesses based on rent alone (Maybe also add a thing on that scaling where people who only own a single home don't have to pay property taxes while we're at it cuz those are pure bs)
@jessvagnar4957 I'm personally a fan of higher density buildings but those would require competent city planners in the goverment and... yeah Personally I'd solve it with a simple change on the tax code, after each home taxes increase exponentially to the point owning more than 4-5 houses is not profitable Not really a fan of the supply idea because imo we would need to flood the market with more appartments than the entire free capital in the world can buy Maybe also eliminate property taxes for single homes while we're at it
Blackrock apologist like to point out how little homes they actually own when compared to the entirety of the housing market. What they neglect is that when paying 10k over asking for a home, they just adjusted the prices for the whole neighborhood (maybe even the ones they already own) now that single mother and first time buyer need to.pay an extra 10k. I can't believe we allow this. American dream hanging on by a thread...
Not only that but Blackrock is not gonna buy homes in the middle of nowhere. Their portfolio isn't evenly spread out across the country. They buy them in the high impact areas, i.e the places worst affected by the housing crisis.
Also doesn't matter what percentage of existing homes they own, it matters how much of the available supply they're taking. If private equity owns 10% of all US homes, but is buying 70% of all available supply, that's going to have a huge impact on the market.
Essentially they buy the homes because the appreciation on homes is insanely good. The appreciation is based on inflation so this problem will probably not end.
Appreciation is much better than inflation. Population is growing significantly faster than available inventory. And this is by design. Current homeowners WANT more demand and vote to limit housing. If we built enough housing, their investment would then definitely only appreciate based on inflation.
House next door to us "sold" a couple months ago and nobody has moved in. A car was there for a few days painting maybe and a couch was moved in and that is the only activity I'm guessing it's going to become a rental 😢
I’ve been getting calls, texts, and postcards from people asking about “the property at [my address]” despite me being on the DNC list. The first call I got, I assumed it must be my dr’s or dentist’s office. They immediately jumped to asking about me selling the house. I said “well, where am _I_ supposed to go? This isn’t a rental property; it’s my home. And I don’t make enough money to go anywhere else with market prices as they are now. He apologized, paused, and asked if I knew anybody else who might sell”. I continue to get more every week. I don’t answer the phone anymore unless the number’s in my contact list. These people are like a hoard of locusts.
@@MyPiez If nothing else, Good Work at least implies that he's much more critical of the tenets of American Capitalism than most of the guys I went to school with.
Do you know what the property taxes are? Because of that, if value increases, rent must. If you do become a home owner, you'll likely be shocked at how much it costs to effectively lease land from the government
Corp homebuying has had some impact a few hot metro areas (mainly sunbelt cities, e.g. Charlotte), but by far the greatest contributor to high prices across the country is lack of housing supply. Since GFC we have severely underbuilt compared to previous decades. Until we build more homes with some more density (esp “missing middle” housing like townhomes), prices will continue to climb quickly.
Please everyone, we need to deregulate zones to allow for higher density buildings wherever builders naturally predict it will make them money: they will build; let them build homes ! De-regulate zones by going to your local legislature.
Yeah, true. These regulations and zoning laws benefit corporate or other owners who are renting or selling. They will fight hard not to pass any deregulations.
There needs to be legislation that prevents any individual working for hedge funds, investment firms, and foreign investors from buying more than a certain number of houses in a five year period
@ -- well, even people who work for hedge funds have to live someplace. So if they are physically residing here in the USA, they should be able to buy their own home when they sell their previous home. But I agree they should have zero extra homes as an investment property situation.
The last time Wall Street tried to make a bunch of money on housing nothing went wrong. Right guys? I wonder why prices keep going up... nope, can't figure it out.
It's obvious they couldn't keep themselves in check, even if they wanted to (which the greediest don't, and won't unless future adequate regulations force them too). As everyone can tell, they need enforced "ESG", in their case with emphasis on the "S" (for "social", as in become inline with societal benevolence). Otherwise they're going to increasingly overreach and cause more frequent and more severe problems/corrections/crashes. I doubt 2008 was the last significant turmoil, nor wasn't milder than future ones.
There is a movement afoot among investors to buy up, and then overcharge for everything that humans absolutely must have, housing and food being at the top of that list. Ya say you wanna revolution?
I think a lot of people are better off renting a house. Some people dream of home ownership, but know nothing about maintenance or the risks of home equity loans later down the road.
In almost every circumstance, a residential house is the best % return on investment it is possible to own. Megacorps are buying up houses for exactly that reason. I don't know why people keep parroting this absurd myth. The only time this isn't true is when hyper local economic collapse tanks the value of homes in small towns - usually only applicable if you live in a community with only one major employer.
One SIN number is allowed up to 3 residencies owned. First at 0% tax, 2nd at 25%, 3rd at 60% tax rate. Property taxes on all residential units above 3 owned by an individual are an escalating punitive tax rate. Apt buildings can all convert to Co-ops if they want to avoid govt takeovers.
People walking away from homes when they had no equity was a large reason why the housing market crashed in 2008. There are still some loans with limited availability, under USDA, for 0% down.
@ I don’t think that’s going to happen anymore. Not with housing costs being what they are. But some other solution must be found. Maybe a fixed small, capped down payment. No more than 50 or 60 thousand dollars. Or something else. Housing cost is getting really ridiculous.
“Here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two squatting men apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other. Here is the anlage of the thing you fear. This is the zygote. For here 'I lost my land' is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate--'WE lost OUR land’” John Steinbeck The Grapes of Wrath Chapter 14
@ keep folks separated and you don’t learn anything. Like when Stalin oversold Ukrainian grain while implementing DeKulakization. Okies and Kulaks can teach us much about finding common cause in the 1930s.
@ keep folks separated and you don’t learn anything. Like when Stalin oversold Ukrainian grain while implementing DeKulakization. Okies and Kulaks can teach us much about finding common cause in the 1930s.
As of June 2022, institutional investors and hedge funds owned an estimated 574,000 single-family homes in the United States, which is about 3.8% of the country's single-unit rental properties.
The data is really bad. There isn't a good definition of "corporations" or the ownership structures. Someone who has an LLC or Trust ownership of their home, despite it being their primary residence, could still fall under a "corporate" ownership structure. So the folks who cite huge numbers often miss that many aren't some big Wall Street company, but someone who has structured their assets differently. By many estimates, the average number of properties a landlord has is 2. And that is after accounting for corporations that have hundreds of units. The vast majority of landlords are small and independent. You might even argue that makes housing MORE affordable, not less. Remember, ownership is only one part of housing. Long term lease and short term rental are also housing options. Everyone who wants to "ban the corporations" or "ban landlords" might actually make housing MORE expensive. Amsterdam tried this in 2022. While still early, initial results show that housing prices did not decrease by a significant amount, but with so much less rental stock, rents skyrocketed. This make it harder for people to afford to purchase and pushed people outside of key cities. The biggest issue making homes unaffordable is lack of inventory. There simply aren't enough homes at various price points for buyers. This is made worse by existing owners who consistently lobby and vote so their city / county elected leaders do not approve of more building or do not approve of lower price homes. Alternatively, they make building so expensive that only luxury homes can make money. This is all compounded by local budgets that relied on low interest municipal bonds to push costs into the future, forcing property taxes to rise - conveniently while using tools like homestead to cap raises on existing homeowners.
It might be useful to point out where exactly are the homes institutional investors purchasing. I'm sure Idaho has plenty of homes but there probably aren't a lot of people trying to move there.
@@terrie3957 The reality is that about 20-30% of single family homes are owned by investors. Of course, that is a loose term... Most single family homes that are rentals... are owned by whats known as "mom and pops". Basically, people that own a home and bought another one... and rend out the last or last few. Or very small investors with only a handful of rentals. I for example have 3 investment properties and own some other property that isnt for rent. That metric also includes homes sold to flippers, which are constantly buying low priced homes, doing a quick remodel and selling for market appraisal. That brings me to another point... Appraisals. Banks wont give you a loan for a home that is above what they appraise the house to be. So if someone buys a house to flip and they want to charge like 50,000$ more than market, they can only sell it to a cash buyer because banks dont want to be underwater like that. Which is why a lot of people during covid were getting declined, but covid is also why prices went up drastically. Covid was a weird time that wasnt even as logical as in 2008... which was highly illogical itself. lol
I legitimately cannot understand the appeal of owning a home being stuck in the same place for decades stuck with a mortgage. I know it's for a lot of people but it makes no sense to me
They're buying up long term care facilities too... while our "health insurance" refuses to cover the basic Healthcare that would allow us to live healthier and longer lives. Disturbing stuff
Government regulation is a major factor in why housing prices are skyrocketing. Building codes make it so that cheap home building methods from past decades are illegal. Zoning laws prevent unused land from having homes or apartments built on it. Permitting schemes and approval boards block new construction, claiming to fight gentrification. Add to that the lifestyle creep of our society, people insist their first home have features that didn't exist when they were born, and it's not surprising that we are in this situation. It's literally more cost effective to rent than own when you factor insurance (they'll make you pay replacement value) and maintenance. Unless you live in a dense urban area like where this was filmed. There are no cost effective options there.
Its worth noting that "feature creep" is often motivated by planning laws, zoning, and HOAs, instead of the buyer. Many plannings laws for example may require a specific number of bedrooms, bathrooms or separate laundries, making building small cheap houses impossible. Insurers may also play into these decisions by not insuring certain types of construction. Its not consumers demanding these things.
"have features that didn't exist when they were born" Like Chinese drywall. Oh, but the prohibition of that came as a result of a regulation....which are all bad, right? 🙄
@@None-ef6nf I didn't say all regulations are bad, but banning the cheapest option will drive up home prices. Requiring sprinkler systems and solar panels is expensive. And can you prove the that the literal textbooks of fire code we have actually save lives?
Funny how there’s one house for one family, but that same house is worth varying amounts of paper scraps. And some people care more about hoarding paper scraps. Resources have defined value. Paper scraps do not. You being rich in resources does not make others poor. You hoarding paper scraps makes you rich at the expense of everyone else. Break the illusion.
Red tape is a HUGE reason why there is a shortage of housing. There is so much red tape that it takes forever to even get started. Most cities do all they can to stop new housing Then add in all the fees and kickbacks required and you hike the price to these insane levels.
The system... I'm not kidding it's harsh & expensive out there I feel bad for this generation. I work with 20 something's & just car payment & insurance is like 25% of their take home
Hey Tim! I just thought I’d reach out after I saw that you also attended xyz university! I just started my freshman year there! Not sure if you have time this week, but I’d love to get on a call to learn more about the joys of controlling land! Best, Your loyal future analyst
So many properties on the market you flip through the images then near the end they’ve got an “image” of some slimy realtor and an estate weekly rental returns.
STOP GIVING TAX CREDIT FOR VACANCY!!! RICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO LOWER RENT OR STOP BUYING FAMILY HOMES WHEN EMTHRY ARE MAKING THE SAME MONEY BY GETTING TAX CREDIT
This song made me so happy, I just had to write the lyrics for it. Because the melody follows a similar rhythm in my culture's form of poetry, I used it to develop the lyrics in the same manner, careful to match the syllables to the melody, written in my local language.
US is an estimated 3 million units short of supply. A lot of builders and trades people left the industry followed the crash in 2008 and haven’t returned in the numbers needed to make up for the shortfall. The pandemic certainly didn’t help. A solution would be to build more multiunit housing with more density, and this has been effective at making housing more accessible in some local market. However in many parts of the country, the classic NIMBY (not in my back yard) opposition stops higher-density units from being built. Existing homeowners who don't want more traffic and more homes in their neighborhood keep what he says are outdated, exclusionary zoning rules in place. They also see greater supply as a threat to the value of their existing homes.
@@npjutrasI call that kind of NIMBY'ism "systemically enforced greed"... not as bad as"Wall Street"/Big Money greed, but still not pretty or desirable.
Why do you stay in US, I will never understand. My house with acre of land and 5 bedrooms cost $150,000. The land we bought with a small old house to build our dream house cost $50,000 on 2 hectares. My bayside property where i want to build a house eventually, it has a ruin on it, on 3000 m2, and by bayside i mean like i have a boat slip, with broadside sitting on the water, was $60,000. And i have a huge pasture across the way that blooms with wildflowers and has almond trees on the fence line. Why live in the city is beyond me.
Heaven forbid companies work at making their business better. Better than others in their field and customer loyalty. Because the shareholders need the monies too
You get self-worth from: 1) self-assurance that ur doing ur best for urself and other people, how u maintain urself - healthy lifestyle - working out - being consistent in routines - keeping the space safe, clean and good for u - staying away from substances that are bad for you - going to treatment or therapy - dressing nice, smelling nice 2) what you have been - who am I? What are my talents - what are my potentials - what talents do I have that otber people dont have - other than my looks, what are good traits I have? - what are some bad traits that did me and other people good? - a trait I wanna improve 3) me and society - do I partake interest in patriarchy, welfare and charity - do i pay my taxes - do i feed and take care of my kids, or see them often with joy - Am I a good person, am I a scammer - am I treating people right - can I admit to fault I couldn't sometimes and I'll always b responsible for that - what am I currently working on as a member of society - am i a good partner
Are you crazy? These same interests are buying up rental properties. San Diego has become almost unliveable for anyone not making $100K. Rents are crazy.
@erichodge567 Imagine how much worse they'd be if the supply were even smaller than it currently is. Lots and lots of people want to live in San Diego so that drives up rental prices. Up the supply the prices will go down a bit. Lower the supply and prices will go up. Same thing with demand. If you want more affordable rental prices in San Diego either convince everyone to leave, or allow more properties to become rental properties.
@DJLUMPAWAROO , the problem is that investment groups are loaded with enough cash to outbid almost all the individual buyers in the market. The strategy seems to be to turn everyone into a renter, because rents can be raised, and renters can be evicted. It's all about the money.
@@erichodge567 From the data I can find online it appears that upwards of 80-90% of homes purchased go to traditional buyers, not corporations. From a personal perspective none of my friends and family who have recently purchased homes have competed with or had to outbid a corporate buyer. In most expensive markets the problem lies squarely on supply. You just can't build more single family homes in the San Francisco area for example, yet people still want to live there and that raises prices. Additionally not all rental properties are owned by the *same* corporation. (And from data online it seems like most rental houses are owned by individual investors, i.e. a family owning one home to live in and another home the rent out) Different corporations will have to compete with each other for renters, and this balances prices. To bring it back, there are many issues with housing and it is a big and difficult problem, but supply is the largest lever to pull when it comes to pricing. Rental prices recently have come down in the Austin, Texas area because they built housing at a frankly incredible rate. Rent used to be really expensive there but it's quickly becoming more manageable, despite continued growth. Supply is meeting demand.
What corporate big shot that makes a ton of money wants to keep the profits from the company in cash when it will die of inflation? Some people are so rich they couldn't even buy enough gold, pink diamonds and and art to secure their wealth from it. Now they're just buying up all the land that they can. Nobody wants to see their own money they made die of inflation but hoarding commodities that the average person lives on, and renting them out for exorbitant prices is way too far.
There was recently a bill that would ban hedge funds from acquiring single family homes. It would also have required hedge funds to sell 10% of inventory a year for a decade until they no longer are in the single family homes at all a decade later.
It never saw the floor.
Who or what stopped that bill from going through?
@VN7799 politicians. Pretty much all of em.
@@eas2252No. it was the republicans. The two sides are not the same
EDIT: added which party the elected officials that introduced the bill are a part of.
I was bored and asked Chatgpt so I'm just gonna leave this here:
"Do you understand this?" (With screenshot)
CGPT: "Yes, this is a screenshot of a RUclips comment thread under a video. It discusses a proposed bill aimed at limiting hedge funds from acquiring single-family homes and gradually removing their involvement in this market. One commenter mentions the bill never reached the floor for a vote. Another asks why, to which one user attributes it to "politicians" generally, and another user specifies it was Republicans who stopped it, emphasizing that the two political parties are not the same in their approach.
It reflects a broader debate about housing affordability, corporate ownership, and political accountability. Let me know if you'd like a more detailed analysis!"
"Yes, tell me about the actual bill that op is talking about and answer the commenters question about who or what stopped the bill from going through?"
CGPT(with sources): "The bill in question is the "End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act," introduced in December 2023 by Senator Jeff Merkley [Democrat] and Representative Adam Smith [Democrat]. This legislation aims to prohibit hedge funds from purchasing single-family homes and mandates that they divest their existing holdings within a decade. The goal is to increase housing availability for individual buyers and address concerns about corporate influence in the housing market.
As of November 2024, the bill has been referred to committee but has not progressed to a floor vote in either the House or the Senate. The lack of advancement can be attributed to several factors:
Political Dynamics: The bill has garnered support primarily from Democratic lawmakers. In a divided Congress, with Republicans holding significant influence, legislation without bipartisan backing often faces challenges in moving forward.
Opposition from Industry Groups: Trade organizations, such as the National Rental Home Council, have expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it could reduce housing availability and affordability. Such opposition can influence lawmakers and impede legislative progress.
Legislative Prioritization: With numerous bills competing for attention, those lacking widespread support or facing significant opposition may not be prioritized for debate or voting.
In summary, the bill's stagnation is due to a combination of partisan divisions, industry opposition, and legislative prioritization, preventing it from advancing to a vote."
"'Trade organizations, such as the National Rental Home Council, have expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that it could reduce housing availability and affordability'
Thoughts? Is it true? Or false?"
CGPT: "The claim made by trade organizations like the National Rental Home Council, that such legislation could reduce housing availability and affordability, is not entirely straightforward and requires context.
Why They Might Say It:
1. Short-Term Market Impact: Hedge funds and large institutional investors own a significant number of single-family homes. Forcing them to divest over a decade could lead to a temporary market disruption. For example:
If large volumes of homes are sold quickly, it could destabilize local real estate markets.
These organizations often argue that they are providing rental housing options, which are necessary for individuals who cannot or do not want to buy homes.
2. Rental Housing: Hedge funds typically turn these homes into rental properties. Removing them from the market could, in theory, reduce rental housing supply in the short term, potentially driving up rents.
---
Counterarguments (and why the claim is not entirely true):
1. Long-Term Homeownership Opportunities:
Critics argue that hedge fund ownership inflates home prices, as institutional buyers outbid individual buyers. Limiting their participation could make homes more affordable for families over time.
Returning homes to individual buyers likely increases stability in communities, as homeowners tend to stay in homes longer than renters.
2. Artificial Scarcity:
Hedge funds often "hoard" properties, keeping some vacant or flipping them for profit, which reduces overall housing availability.
Removing such practices could increase the housing stock available to middle-class buyers, balancing the market.
3. Focus on Profits: Institutional investors prioritize maximizing returns, sometimes through aggressive rent hikes or minimal property maintenance. Individual ownership often better aligns with affordability and quality-of-life concerns.
---
Verdict:
The claim is misleading. While there may be short-term disruptions, the long-term effect of such legislation is more likely to increase housing affordability and availability for individual buyers by curbing speculative practices. Research consistently shows that concentrated corporate ownership of homes contributes to rising prices and reduced accessibility for first-time buyers."
@zapotc thanks for posting.
Another point I'm surprised wasn't mentioned is the acceleration of hedge funds purchasing single family homes. If trends continue without regulation, hedge funds will monopolize the market.
My new governor sits on the board of Blackstone. My slumlord was in her political ad. At this point you cannot out parody real life.
Can I know what state?
Drop the names 😅😅
He can't cause it didn't happen
It’s New Hampshire. Quick google search.
Drop a state or name... please. Why make this shxt up? For RUclips likes?
Timothy Goldman frequently tells his friends that “all these immigrants are making costs go up for the rest of us”. He does not see the irony.
He's right tho
They're also driving down wages, win-win for corporations
We have less illegal immigration than in the past so you see a downward decline, instead you only see rising prices, because corporate greed is the only thing to blame. @@marthvader14
@@marthvader14
1. How do they take jobs for lower wages? I thought a boss had to hire and negotiate pay. It sounds like our employers are searching to undercut workers wages, jobs are given not taken. 2. We do have migrants working for lower wages, though, but that begs the question, how are they able to buy the houses that can't be afforded by those with higher wages? I'm gonna guess there's also someone else with a 6 figure salary to blame
@@marthvader14ah, one of those “reason trump won” voters.
@@bc4065 1. By increasing the supply of workers and accepting to work for less pay. Yeah employers are searching to undercut workers wages, that was my point
2. They increase the demand for living room, thus increasing its price, especially for rents
I could skip vacations and eating out for 10+ years and not have enough for a downpayment. This undersells the problem.
You guys are getting vacations? Lol
Are you skipping them?
@ That’s not nearly enough money for a downpayment where the jobs my spouse and I have. My problem isn’t that I can’t afford property at all, it’s that I can’t afford it where my life is.
The concept of homes being investment vehicles is the problem.
50 years ago everyone saw homes as a place to live. Nowadays there's too many people (and companies, and conglomerates) treating homes like a commodity to be traded.
It's the idea of a (completely) free market, that's actually absolutely sick. They sell it like it was a synonym of freedom, but not everything should be traded. It's not a new concept: you can't trade people anymore (well, they do trade in corpse and parts, though). Other limits must be imposed. Unfortunately they have already bought the legislators
@@RiccardoGabarriniKazeatarithe market is not "free" and never had been. There's insane amounts of regulations on building and that's what drives prices up
@@udttdujgx regulations don't drive up prices. If anything, they keep them down and ensure quality is kept up. Prices are high because those that build and can buy them are able to set whatever price they want. That's the nature of capitalism. When competition dries up or is bought out due to no government intervention, prices go up. Housing is a necessity that people will pay anything for. The idea that the free market will take care of everything is based on the ridiculous belief that sellers have a good heart and will lower prices for the sake of it. Wake up.
@@NoCluYT no, regulations are the cause, spend 5 seconds reading instead of listening to social media for all your opinions. Leftists literally talk about the cost being caused by regulations halting building more efficient housing
@@udttdujgx True, but that's not the whole story. There are real practical barriers to new housing that can't be addressed by deregulation or subsidies. Landlords, including dear-old small-time mom-and-pops, exploit these natural frictions by bidding-up housing with their capital and collateral, putting it out of reach of ordinary home buyers so that the majority are forced to rent, forking over ever-increasing sums of their hard-earned money when they could be building wealth. Landlords are no different from ticket scalpers or sneaker/game console resellers in this regard. Landlords are just as guilty of putting up barriers, both economic AND political, to new housing and non-profit housing. There should be a high tax on landlords, maybe as a land-value tax, to discourage their proliferation and put more of the units they hoard back into the primary market, i.e. back to reflecting their real value. Any leftover demand for rental properties after landlords in search of usurious profits leave the market should be fulfilled by non-profit entities.
I got a $180k offer on a 4 bedroom TRAILER I bought in 2008 when I got out of the Army for 80k. We are in trouble if they are going after modular homes. The last form of affordable housing.
It's horrible. If you get the time, you should check out "more perfect union". They did a video on how P.E was taking over mobile homes
The grim future where "Starter Home" means trailer park. The only "affordable" homes are derelict shacks in bad neighborhoods. But they'll be bought up, renovated, and gentrified eventually.
Once you account for inflation, that's a 50% increase.
4 bedroom *TRAILER* ??
@ it’s a triple wide. 😂
We need to make it illegal for companies to buy up all the starter homes to rent them out.
With Trump, good luck with that 😂😂😂
That’s a global problem unfortunately. Probably much much worse in the US but it’s pretty hard to buy your own place in Europe too.
we need to make companies illegal
There are common sense laws LOCALLY that protect homes from outside investment, ironically the ultimate home of democrats California has no such laws. Boulder Colorado for example requires a license to rent a home and is very restrictive, laws like this should be LOCAL and may the best city win
No, we don’t. Investment firms aren’t buying up all of the single family homes. About 66% of homes are owner occupied (high by historical standards) and only about 1% of single family homes are owned by big companies.
Those 2008 bailouts are finally paying off.
For who? Not me or you….
Why talk about 2008 when Trump bailed out these landlords with free money, which was before COVID happened, and real estate prices jumped 28% in his term and businesses were closing shop even before COVID? Good times.
Check out Homewreckers book by Glantz and it’ll explain the bailouts… it’ll give an idea of what started back then…. I’m sure you can find the synopsis, but that may not give you all the info…. Good book and an eye opener
@@hobomike6935 you two are making the same point, no disrespect
Corporate buying family-homes should be outlawed!
And foriegn investment outside of new dense housing.
Housing should be a ubiquitous commodity, not an investment. It should be affordable and widely available.
@@DragonbhatImagine disagreeing with "people should be able to sleep in a dwelling" 😂😂😂
I grew up poor, now I have 3 properties now I went rest of the people suffer who can't get even 1 home 😂. This is what EVERY RICH PERSON IS DOING IN EVERY COUNTRY.
Same with banking. Should be a public utility like the post office.
NIMBYISM is a huge factor. People buy a house and think they should be able to keep the neighborhood exactly the same forever.
two affordable houses on our street just got bought up by a multi millionaire who tore them down, and put mcmansions on them that are twice the cost of the original houses.
What is your solution to that? Wealthy people shouldn’t be allowed to develop property?
Exactly.
But how long will it take them to turn a profit? Just make sure you don't have any REITs in your investments or you are part of the problem.
@@superdeluxesmell not if you want society to.. you know.. NOT collapse!?
@@superdeluxesmellthe solution is to allow more uses
The US is on fire 🔥 and congress is just watching it burn . Some candidates and representatives actually talk about addressing these issues but the voters are apathetic and willfully ignorant.
This!!!
Hot take, the fundamental concept and incentives of property being investments and not tools is the fundamental problem
Only solutions are market driven.
1) build more housing units (medium density mixed use being best)
2) be flexible in your living location and go somewhere you can afford
3) stop renting the houses/crash the market
@@jessvagnar4957I'm pretty sure public housing would also be a solution. How are the market solutions working out exactly? I'm as YIMBY as they come but pretending like the market can solve every problem is not realistic.
@@stuckupcurlyguy Yup, check out what Vienna does with housing, it's incredible.
@jessvagnar4957 an increase in supply imo is impossible as we would realistically have to build more apartment complexes than there is money in the world for prices to truly come down into sensible levels
I admittedly haven't thought too much about how I would solve it but currently my mind is on tax incentives, tl;dr after your 3rd/4th home property taxes increase exponentially to the point it isn't profitable to run businesses based on rent alone
(Maybe also add a thing on that scaling where people who only own a single home don't have to pay property taxes while we're at it cuz those are pure bs)
@jessvagnar4957 I'm personally a fan of higher density buildings but those would require competent city planners in the goverment and... yeah
Personally I'd solve it with a simple change on the tax code, after each home taxes increase exponentially to the point owning more than 4-5 houses is not profitable
Not really a fan of the supply idea because imo we would need to flood the market with more appartments than the entire free capital in the world can buy
Maybe also eliminate property taxes for single homes while we're at it
Blackrock apologist like to point out how little homes they actually own when compared to the entirety of the housing market. What they neglect is that when paying 10k over asking for a home, they just adjusted the prices for the whole neighborhood (maybe even the ones they already own) now that single mother and first time buyer need to.pay an extra 10k. I can't believe we allow this. American dream hanging on by a thread...
Still Blackstone
And that's how wall street works as well
We're renting the American nightmare
Not only that but Blackrock is not gonna buy homes in the middle of nowhere.
Their portfolio isn't evenly spread out across the country.
They buy them in the high impact areas, i.e the places worst affected by the housing crisis.
Also doesn't matter what percentage of existing homes they own, it matters how much of the available supply they're taking. If private equity owns 10% of all US homes, but is buying 70% of all available supply, that's going to have a huge impact on the market.
Essentially they buy the homes because the appreciation on homes is insanely good. The appreciation is based on inflation so this problem will probably not end.
Appreciation is much better than inflation.
Population is growing significantly faster than available inventory.
And this is by design.
Current homeowners WANT more demand and vote to limit housing. If we built enough housing, their investment would then definitely only appreciate based on inflation.
I've been taking pictures of all the for sale signs in my area to see if they for rent in a couple weeks.
Which area are you located in...?
House next door to us "sold" a couple months ago and nobody has moved in. A car was there for a few days painting maybe and a couch was moved in and that is the only activity I'm guessing it's going to become a rental 😢
I’ve been getting calls, texts, and postcards from people asking about “the property at [my address]” despite me being on the DNC list. The first call I got, I assumed it must be my dr’s or dentist’s office. They immediately jumped to asking about me selling the house. I said “well, where am _I_ supposed to go? This isn’t a rental property; it’s my home. And I don’t make enough money to go anywhere else with market prices as they are now. He apologized, paused, and asked if I knew anybody else who might sell”. I continue to get more every week. I don’t answer the phone anymore unless the number’s in my contact list. These people are like a hoard of locusts.
Yep. This is an epidemic in my city. Investment firms and the people that work for them are a scourge in the Earth.
A home is so basic to happiness.Its infuriating.
My wife and I found the home we wanted a few weeks ago. We put in an offer on its 4th day on the market it was bought cash.
Congrats!
@@caseywellington4761 I don’t think they were the ones that bought the house, lol
I love when Dan gets to play the corrupt capitalist
He's lowkey the best actor in the channel.
play?
@@MyPiez If nothing else, Good Work at least implies that he's much more critical of the tenets of American Capitalism than most of the guys I went to school with.
The phrase, corrupt capitalist is a tautology.
@@trumputin8235 I'd argue that *evil* capitalist is a tautology, but *corrupt* capitalist is more of a venn diagram with heavy overlap.
The collab we needed!
They work in the same office
I mean, they work for the same company lol
A multi million dollar company charging you $800 a month for less than 400sq/ of space is totally normal and cool what do you mean
Do you know what the property taxes are? Because of that, if value increases, rent must. If you do become a home owner, you'll likely be shocked at how much it costs to effectively lease land from the government
$800 a month is room rent. You're getting like 3 rooms for that.
Corp homebuying has had some impact a few hot metro areas (mainly sunbelt cities, e.g. Charlotte), but by far the greatest contributor to high prices across the country is lack of housing supply. Since GFC we have severely underbuilt compared to previous decades. Until we build more homes with some more density (esp “missing middle” housing like townhomes), prices will continue to climb quickly.
👏👏👏
Please everyone, we need to deregulate zones to allow for higher density buildings wherever builders naturally predict it will make them money: they will build; let them build homes ! De-regulate zones by going to your local legislature.
Yeah, true. These regulations and zoning laws benefit corporate or other owners who are renting or selling. They will fight hard not to pass any deregulations.
We let them do this. We could easily stop this tomorrow. More of us than them even with their overseers.
Housing and lives shouldn’t be an investment
I'm actually going to set aside some time and sctually read your newsletter from now on. THANK U FOR THIS!!!!
There needs to be legislation that prevents any individual working for hedge funds, investment firms, and foreign investors from buying more than a certain number of houses in a five year period
Zero. That number is Zero.
@ -- well, even people who work for hedge funds have to live someplace. So if they are physically residing here in the USA, they should be able to buy their own home when they sell their previous home. But I agree they should have zero extra homes as an investment property situation.
The last time Wall Street tried to make a bunch of money on housing nothing went wrong. Right guys? I wonder why prices keep going up... nope, can't figure it out.
It's obvious they couldn't keep themselves in check, even if they wanted to (which the greediest don't, and won't unless future adequate regulations force them too).
As everyone can tell, they need enforced "ESG", in their case with emphasis on the "S" (for "social", as in become inline with societal benevolence).
Otherwise they're going to increasingly overreach and cause more frequent and more severe problems/corrections/crashes. I doubt 2008 was the last significant turmoil, nor wasn't milder than future ones.
Pro tip: don't be a single mom
Luigi was right.
There is a movement afoot among investors to buy up, and then overcharge for everything that humans absolutely must have, housing and food being at the top of that list. Ya say you wanna revolution?
The irony is sad. Made me chuckle. But also makes me want to move to Costa Rica
So instead of living in a place messed up by capitalist corporations, you want to go live in a place messed up by a capitalist nation?
You think they aren't running their algorithms there too? Every nice plot of land in the world is already staked out by these vampires.
It needs to be illegal for corporations to buy single-family homes. You need to be writing and talking to your congressional representatives.
I do not know why but i read the title as Sesame Street instead of Wall Street and thought this was gonna be a wholesome story 😂
I think a lot of people are better off renting a house. Some people dream of home ownership, but know nothing about maintenance or the risks of home equity loans later down the road.
In almost every circumstance, a residential house is the best % return on investment it is possible to own. Megacorps are buying up houses for exactly that reason. I don't know why people keep parroting this absurd myth. The only time this isn't true is when hyper local economic collapse tanks the value of homes in small towns - usually only applicable if you live in a community with only one major employer.
These kind of actions is how revolutions start
Still waiting
@@JoseMartinez-rt4kx Oh I won't be involved. I am just speaking as someone who knows how things tend to have gone in the past.
This is such an easy legislative fix....but our corrupt legislatures won't do it
What is the easy fix?
Delete single family zoning
That and prohibit banks, financial institutions, and investment firms from buying properties
I hope that Wall Street guy finally wins...tired of them getting the short end of the stick...LoL
Don't get me started on disadvantaged bankers...LoL
Woah the ceo of bipinbop is here!
One SIN number is allowed up to 3 residencies owned. First at 0% tax, 2nd at 25%, 3rd at 60% tax rate. Property taxes on all residential units above 3 owned by an individual are an escalating punitive tax rate.
Apt buildings can all convert to Co-ops if they want to avoid govt takeovers.
Why aren't people having kids anymore? So confusing
Yeah... It's almost like unbridled greedy ultra-free and neoliberal/"libertarian"/Republican capitalism is self-destructive... 🤔
No down payment for first time buyers.
People walking away from homes when they had no equity was a large reason why the housing market crashed in 2008. There are still some loans with limited availability, under USDA, for 0% down.
@
I don’t think that’s going to happen anymore. Not with housing costs being what they are. But some other solution must be found. Maybe a fixed small, capped down payment. No more than 50 or 60 thousand dollars. Or something else. Housing cost is getting really ridiculous.
Also hurts us more when they are buying up so much space. But us Americans are too set in our ways to even consider midrise medium density housing
“Here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two squatting men apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other. Here is the anlage of the thing you fear. This is the zygote. For here 'I lost my land' is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate--'WE lost OUR land’” John Steinbeck The Grapes of Wrath Chapter 14
What are you even talking about Yap Yap Yap
@ keep folks separated and you don’t learn anything. Like when Stalin oversold Ukrainian grain while implementing DeKulakization. Okies and Kulaks can teach us much about finding common cause in the 1930s.
@ keep folks separated and you don’t learn anything. Like when Stalin oversold Ukrainian grain while implementing DeKulakization. Okies and Kulaks can teach us much about finding common cause in the 1930s.
@@Darksh0t009 read duh book
Hey maybe those French revolutionaries were onto something 🤔
This is not even satire
As of June 2022, institutional investors and hedge funds owned an estimated 574,000 single-family homes in the United States, which is about 3.8% of the country's single-unit rental properties.
That's not a lot. I'd complain if it went over 10%. Below that is just building incentive to keep contractors going
Why isn’t there more recent data available?
The data is really bad. There isn't a good definition of "corporations" or the ownership structures. Someone who has an LLC or Trust ownership of their home, despite it being their primary residence, could still fall under a "corporate" ownership structure. So the folks who cite huge numbers often miss that many aren't some big Wall Street company, but someone who has structured their assets differently.
By many estimates, the average number of properties a landlord has is 2. And that is after accounting for corporations that have hundreds of units. The vast majority of landlords are small and independent.
You might even argue that makes housing MORE affordable, not less. Remember, ownership is only one part of housing. Long term lease and short term rental are also housing options. Everyone who wants to "ban the corporations" or "ban landlords" might actually make housing MORE expensive. Amsterdam tried this in 2022. While still early, initial results show that housing prices did not decrease by a significant amount, but with so much less rental stock, rents skyrocketed. This make it harder for people to afford to purchase and pushed people outside of key cities.
The biggest issue making homes unaffordable is lack of inventory. There simply aren't enough homes at various price points for buyers. This is made worse by existing owners who consistently lobby and vote so their city / county elected leaders do not approve of more building or do not approve of lower price homes. Alternatively, they make building so expensive that only luxury homes can make money. This is all compounded by local budgets that relied on low interest municipal bonds to push costs into the future, forcing property taxes to rise - conveniently while using tools like homestead to cap raises on existing homeowners.
It might be useful to point out where exactly are the homes institutional investors purchasing. I'm sure Idaho has plenty of homes but there probably aren't a lot of people trying to move there.
@@terrie3957 The reality is that about 20-30% of single family homes are owned by investors. Of course, that is a loose term... Most single family homes that are rentals... are owned by whats known as "mom and pops". Basically, people that own a home and bought another one... and rend out the last or last few. Or very small investors with only a handful of rentals.
I for example have 3 investment properties and own some other property that isnt for rent.
That metric also includes homes sold to flippers, which are constantly buying low priced homes, doing a quick remodel and selling for market appraisal.
That brings me to another point... Appraisals. Banks wont give you a loan for a home that is above what they appraise the house to be. So if someone buys a house to flip and they want to charge like 50,000$ more than market, they can only sell it to a cash buyer because banks dont want to be underwater like that. Which is why a lot of people during covid were getting declined, but covid is also why prices went up drastically. Covid was a weird time that wasnt even as logical as in 2008... which was highly illogical itself. lol
The best part is the Wall St billions are either our own pension/savings fund money or the Fed giving them a much lower rate loan.
Idk just like heavily tax home ownership beyond the first one. It will discourage homes being used as an investment.
God I love me my Morning Brew.
Most of them are managing your pension funds
They started selling them all off because they didn't realize you can't just press buttons and make money you have to actually upkeep things
Corporations will be the reason for America's doom.
I legitimately cannot understand the appeal of owning a home being stuck in the same place for decades stuck with a mortgage. I know it's for a lot of people but it makes no sense to me
People used to have "cradle to grave" jobs with pensions. Now you have to switch jobs every two years just to keep up with inflation.
A one bedroom apartment in my town rents for double my combined mortgage, property tax and homeowners insurance payment.
@@ganggreen9012 What year did you buy?
Hey, Luigi. You wanna branch out a little when you get out?
I'm sure our new administration will take care of this problem right away!
Right... 😂
They're buying up long term care facilities too... while our "health insurance" refuses to cover the basic Healthcare that would allow us to live healthier and longer lives.
Disturbing stuff
Wall Street companies buy all the nice homes and overseas companies buy all the low income housing.
And this is why this single mom still lives at home. 😭
Government regulation is a major factor in why housing prices are skyrocketing. Building codes make it so that cheap home building methods from past decades are illegal. Zoning laws prevent unused land from having homes or apartments built on it. Permitting schemes and approval boards block new construction, claiming to fight gentrification.
Add to that the lifestyle creep of our society, people insist their first home have features that didn't exist when they were born, and it's not surprising that we are in this situation.
It's literally more cost effective to rent than own when you factor insurance (they'll make you pay replacement value) and maintenance. Unless you live in a dense urban area like where this was filmed. There are no cost effective options there.
Its worth noting that "feature creep" is often motivated by planning laws, zoning, and HOAs, instead of the buyer. Many plannings laws for example may require a specific number of bedrooms, bathrooms or separate laundries, making building small cheap houses impossible. Insurers may also play into these decisions by not insuring certain types of construction. Its not consumers demanding these things.
"have features that didn't exist when they were born"
Like Chinese drywall.
Oh, but the prohibition of that came as a result of a regulation....which are all bad, right?
🙄
@@None-ef6nf I didn't say all regulations are bad, but banning the cheapest option will drive up home prices. Requiring sprinkler systems and solar panels is expensive. And can you prove the that the literal textbooks of fire code we have actually save lives?
Funny how there’s one house for one family, but that same house is worth varying amounts of paper scraps. And some people care more about hoarding paper scraps. Resources have defined value. Paper scraps do not. You being rich in resources does not make others poor. You hoarding paper scraps makes you rich at the expense of everyone else. Break the illusion.
What do paper scrap holders possibly need a thousand houses for? Are they too big for any one of them?
this feels familiar… and not in a good way
Red tape is a HUGE reason why there is a shortage of housing. There is so much red tape that it takes forever to even get started. Most cities do all they can to stop new housing
Then add in all the fees and kickbacks required and you hike the price to these insane levels.
I subscribed to both these guys separately and now I'm finding out they work in the same building lol
He’s super good a playing a dbag. So funny.
who popped the single mom in the eye?
Pink Eye?
Her son
@@JenningsFilmsincthis made me laugh much more than it should’ve
The system... I'm not kidding it's harsh & expensive out there I feel bad for this generation. I work with 20 something's & just car payment & insurance is like 25% of their take home
You can surmise why she's now a single mom with full custody and alimony.
You all voted for this.
Those millennials and their avocado toast, amirite?
We could always relax the zoning and regulatory burdens to help increase housing supply. Seems like that fixes both problems.
Hey Tim!
I just thought I’d reach out after I saw that you also attended xyz university! I just started my freshman year there! Not sure if you have time this week, but I’d love to get on a call to learn more about the joys of controlling land!
Best,
Your loyal future analyst
I thought this was goodwork not the actual morning brew page
It's not so much a building for people to live in, as a machine to extract wealth from people.
So many properties on the market you flip through the images then near the end they’ve got an “image” of some slimy realtor and an estate weekly rental returns.
But how do we make it stop?
Imagine not knowing that non-primary home owners contribute more to the tax base, employ people, and give contractors jobs.
STOP GIVING TAX CREDIT FOR VACANCY!!! RICH HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO LOWER RENT OR STOP BUYING FAMILY HOMES WHEN EMTHRY ARE MAKING THE SAME MONEY BY GETTING TAX CREDIT
This song made me so happy, I just had to write the lyrics for it. Because the melody follows a similar rhythm in my culture's form of poetry, I used it to develop the lyrics in the same manner, careful to match the syllables to the melody, written in my local language.
Build more housing and limit corporate ownership of housing.
Problem solved
US is an estimated 3 million units short of supply. A lot of builders and trades people left the industry followed the crash in 2008 and haven’t returned in the numbers needed to make up for the shortfall. The pandemic certainly didn’t help.
A solution would be to build more multiunit housing with more density, and this has been effective at making housing more accessible in some local market. However in many parts of the country, the classic NIMBY (not in my back yard) opposition stops higher-density units from being built. Existing homeowners who don't want more traffic and more homes in their neighborhood keep what he says are outdated, exclusionary zoning rules in place. They also see greater supply as a threat to the value of their existing homes.
@@npjutrasI call that kind of NIMBY'ism "systemically enforced greed"... not as bad as"Wall Street"/Big Money greed, but still not pretty or desirable.
Giving the single mom a black eye is a brilliant touch
Love the collabs
I adore this turn that Morning Brew has taken
Brilliant content
Hey is that the guy from Good Work?!
You can look at the numbers, only like half a percent of homes are owned by large entities
Ladies and gentlemen: the free market!
Why do you stay in US, I will never understand. My house with acre of land and 5 bedrooms cost $150,000. The land we bought with a small old house to build our dream house cost $50,000 on 2 hectares. My bayside property where i want to build a house eventually, it has a ruin on it, on 3000 m2, and by bayside i mean like i have a boat slip, with broadside sitting on the water, was $60,000. And i have a huge pasture across the way that blooms with wildflowers and has almond trees on the fence line. Why live in the city is beyond me.
What country did you move to?
Don't let predatory Wall Street banksters/hedge funds/private equity find out which country You're in, or they'll bring their plague there too... ⚠️
We need a wallstreet Luigi
Heaven forbid companies work at making their business better. Better than others in their field and customer loyalty. Because the shareholders need the monies too
Good job all of you for voting him in
Thanks for getting some good microphones! Sounds great and I love the content.
You get self-worth from:
1) self-assurance that ur doing ur best for urself and other people, how u maintain urself
- healthy lifestyle
- working out
- being consistent in routines
- keeping the space safe, clean and good for u
- staying away from substances that are bad for you
- going to treatment or therapy
- dressing nice, smelling nice
2) what you have been
- who am I? What are my talents
- what are my potentials
- what talents do I have that otber people dont have
- other than my looks, what are good traits I have?
- what are some bad traits that did me and other people good?
- a trait I wanna improve
3) me and society
- do I partake interest in patriarchy, welfare and charity
- do i pay my taxes
- do i feed and take care of my kids, or see them often with joy
- Am I a good person, am I a scammer
- am I treating people right
- can I admit to fault I couldn't sometimes and I'll always b responsible for that
- what am I currently working on as a member of society
- am i a good partner
Dan comes and scopes out my house nearly every week
just get a tent lol, be glad you can wild-camp smh
That single mom def kept an eye on that home
That was dark
Hate landlords when rental vacancy rates are high.
No such thing as an architect anymore.
Makes the rental market better.
Are you crazy? These same interests are buying up rental properties. San Diego has become almost unliveable for anyone not making $100K. Rents are crazy.
@erichodge567 Imagine how much worse they'd be if the supply were even smaller than it currently is. Lots and lots of people want to live in San Diego so that drives up rental prices. Up the supply the prices will go down a bit. Lower the supply and prices will go up. Same thing with demand. If you want more affordable rental prices in San Diego either convince everyone to leave, or allow more properties to become rental properties.
@DJLUMPAWAROO , the problem is that investment groups are loaded with enough cash to outbid almost all the individual buyers in the market. The strategy seems to be to turn everyone into a renter, because rents can be raised, and renters can be evicted. It's all about the money.
@@erichodge567 From the data I can find online it appears that upwards of 80-90% of homes purchased go to traditional buyers, not corporations. From a personal perspective none of my friends and family who have recently purchased homes have competed with or had to outbid a corporate buyer. In most expensive markets the problem lies squarely on supply. You just can't build more single family homes in the San Francisco area for example, yet people still want to live there and that raises prices.
Additionally not all rental properties are owned by the *same* corporation. (And from data online it seems like most rental houses are owned by individual investors, i.e. a family owning one home to live in and another home the rent out) Different corporations will have to compete with each other for renters, and this balances prices.
To bring it back, there are many issues with housing and it is a big and difficult problem, but supply is the largest lever to pull when it comes to pricing. Rental prices recently have come down in the Austin, Texas area because they built housing at a frankly incredible rate. Rent used to be really expensive there but it's quickly becoming more manageable, despite continued growth. Supply is meeting demand.
"Bad vibe" Correct.
What corporate big shot that makes a ton of money wants to keep the profits from the company in cash when it will die of inflation? Some people are so rich they couldn't even buy enough gold, pink diamonds and and art to secure their wealth from it. Now they're just buying up all the land that they can. Nobody wants to see their own money they made die of inflation but hoarding commodities that the average person lives on, and renting them out for exorbitant prices is way too far.