Honestly, even if you kick out the corporate giants, there’s always someone ready to fill the gap. I’ve watched “Uncle Bob” with his three rentals suddenly become a mini-mogul when the big fish leave. It might help a bit, but it’s not a magic fix.
That’s a good point, and I’ve seen something similar play out in my area. When the bigger investors pulled back during the last downturn, it wasn’t like homes just sat empty—smaller landlords swooped in. The supply-demand thing doesn’t really care who’s buying, just that someone is.
I do wonder if banning corporate buyers would just shift the problem sideways. Maybe prices dip for a minute, but then you get more “Uncle Bobs” scaling up, or even family trusts pooling money to buy up properties. The incentives are still there, right? Unless we tackle stuff like zoning or actually build more homes, feels like we’re just playing musical chairs with who gets to be the landlord.
Curious if anyone’s seen a place where this kind of ban actually made housing more affordable long-term... because I haven’t yet.
Unless we tackle stuff like zoning or actually build more homes, feels like we’re just playing musical chairs with who gets to be the landlord.
Couldn’t agree more with this. I’ve watched the same cycle—big players exit, then you get a bunch of “Uncle Bobs” or even out-of-state families pooling cash. The incentives don’t really change, they just shift around. I’d love to see a place where blocking corporate buyers led to lower prices long-term, but honestly, I haven’t seen it yet either. The real game-changer is more housing—otherwise, it’s just new faces at the table.
The real game-changer is more housing—otherwise, it’s just new faces at the table.
That’s been my experience too. I remember when our neighborhood had a couple houses sell to “investors” and folks thought prices would drop if they left. Didn’t happen. Until they actually build more, it’s just shuffling the deck.
I get where you’re coming from, but I think banning big investors could still make a dent, even without a ton of new builds. When you’ve got hedge funds scooping up starter homes, regular buyers just can’t compete. Maybe it wouldn’t fix everything, but it might slow the crazy bidding wars a bit. Just my two cents...
I’ve seen this play out firsthand with some of my clients over the last couple years. There was this young couple—first-time buyers, super excited, pre-approved and everything. We’d find a place that fit their budget, they’d put in an offer, and then… boom, outbid by cash offers from LLCs or investment groups. Happened three times in a row. They started joking that they were just “touring houses for Wall Street.” It was rough.
I get the argument that banning big investors might help level the playing field a bit, at least for entry-level homes. But I do wonder if it’s just treating the symptom, not the cause. Inventory’s still tight, and even if you take the hedge funds out of the equation, there’s still a ton of demand and not enough supply. I’ve had clients lose out to regular folks who are just willing to stretch their budgets way past what makes sense, too.
That said, I can’t deny how much those corporate buyers have changed things. I remember back in 2015 or so, you’d see a handful of cash offers here and there, but now it feels like every other offer is from some investment group. It’s wild. Maybe taking them out of the mix would at least give regular buyers a fighting chance—or at least slow down the pace a bit.
Still, part of me wonders if those investors would just find loopholes or shift to different markets. The housing market always seems to find a way to stay complicated...
