I keep wondering if there’d be any unintended consequences—like would prices actually drop, or would inventory just dry up because fewer people want to sell?
That’s my worry too. If you ban corporate buyers, sure, maybe regular folks get less competition, but what if sellers just hold off because they can’t get those crazy cash offers? I haven’t seen solid data from anywhere that’s tried this at scale. It feels like one of those things that sounds good on paper but could backfire. I’d rather see more focus on credit access and first-time buyer programs—at least then you’re helping people compete without messing with the whole market dynamic.
I get where you’re coming from. Messing with who can buy might just shift the problem instead of fixing it. I’ve seen people get way more outbid by investors than by other buyers, but if sellers don’t list at all, that’s a whole new headache. Making mortgages more accessible or helping with down payments seems like a safer bet—at least then you’re not risking a total freeze in listings.
The mortgage part really hits home for me—literally, since I’m still stuck renting and watching open houses like it’s my side hustle. Last time I tried to put in an offer, some LLC with a name like “Happy Sunflower Investments” outbid me by 30k and didn’t even blink. I get the idea behind banning investors, but if that means sellers start hoarding their houses, then I’m just back to scrolling Zillow at 2am for nothing. Making loans easier or helping with down payments would actually make me feel like I have a fighting chance... instead of feeling like I’m playing Monopoly with billionaires.
I get where you’re coming from—those LLCs can make it feel impossible. But if we ban investors, won’t sellers just wait for the next boom or list privately? Curious if anyone’s seen places where this kind of ban actually helped buyers, or just made things tighter.
I’ve been watching the market in my area for years, and honestly, these big investor groups are a huge part of why it’s so hard for regular people to get a foot in the door. I get the argument about sellers just holding out for higher prices or going private, but here’s the thing—most individual sellers just want a smooth sale, not a bidding war with a faceless LLC. When you take those all-cash, sight-unseen offers out of the mix, houses might actually sit on the market a little longer, which could mean more negotiating power for buyers like us.
But I do wonder if a ban would just push investors to find loopholes—like using straw buyers or smaller partnerships. Or maybe they’d just pivot to multi-family or condos, which could mess with those markets too.
Has anyone actually seen a city or state try something like this? I remember reading about Canada’s foreign buyer ban, but I’m not sure it really made homes more affordable in the long run. Is there anywhere that’s managed to keep prices in check without just shifting the problem around? I’m all for making things fairer, but sometimes these policies have a way of backfiring on the people they’re supposed to help.
Also, does anyone else feel like the real issue is just a lack of inventory? Even if you ban the big guys, if there aren’t enough homes, it’s still a feeding frenzy. Maybe we need to look at zoning and building more starter homes too. Curious if that’s worked anywhere, or if it’s just wishful thinking...
