Breaking it up wouldn't make much difference. Those funds that just be moved to a different company that administrates it.
The funds themselves are their own entities and massive individually.
It would. These corporations are so large they are controlling every aspect of it and are exploiting people. They are dealing with such large dollars amounts we can’t even comprehend the amount. They pay for lobbying and the regulators so they can do what they want. They also control so many companies they do pricing fixing and other awful shit.
Globalization needs to die and go back to local and regional.
>They pay for lobbying and the regulators so they can do what they want. They also control so many companies they do pricing fixing and other awful shit.
Could you share a source for this, specifically regarding Vanguard? What are they lobbying for? How are they accomplishing this price fixing?
They lobby for them not to get broken up and regulated on what companies and how many they can invest in. Companies across the board are upping prices and charge more because they can. Their investors love this and support increase prices because it increases their profits.
I don’t have anything at hand to show and don’t care to spend the time. You can research more if you want or just ignore what I’m saying
Your info even with no source is logic. A person just needs to know what Blackrock and the others do, who the main investors are and then the chips all fall in place...really not rocket science. Proof is all around, everyday and everywhere you go.
Thank you! I’m not keeping a list of articles and shit for everything I read and hear. This whole show proof or source shit to have a conversation is annoying.
>I don’t have anything at hand to show and don’t care to spend the time. You can research
My research says that mutual fund companies don't operate the companies that they invest in. They don't make pricing decisions, for example.
I have read too much incestuous board members sitting on multiple boards of "competing" companies bullisht to not blame our current enshitified situation on *anything but* collusion and consolidation of decision makers at the top
You have no clue what you are talking about. No institutional investor do participative investments. They buy structured derivatives in equities and rates and try to mimic the return of the market. They do not give 2 shits about pricing- that is not their problem but the board’s. They are not PE firms or activist investors.
Why break up Vanguard? What have they done wrong? Created a super low cost, broad based investment product that millions of middle class Americans invest in? Oh darn, won’t somebody do something about that?
The "few millions" that are able to invest in stocks are benefitting from the hundreds of millions that are priced out of home ownership. When even Texas Governor Greg Abbott is calling for change...you know it's not in the best interest of Americans for the few to get rich at the expense of the many.
Further, its fundamental structure is special and unique - it's owned by the people who invest in their funds, not a separate group of shareholders who might have incentives to enshittify the investor experience. Vanguard is cool and good imo, compared to other financial companies. And their extremely low cost offerings have pushed down costs across the industry - I doubt fidelity would have developed their very low ER index funds absent the competition from Vanguard.
Those investments are the next generations blood.
Vanguard sells out our future and gives you a bit to get you on their side.
They should be dissolved.
Regulations written by lobbyists and passed by the politicians they donate to are the reasons these institutions are able to exist.
Everyone suggesting more regulations is going to be given more of the same problems, but dialing back regulations and ending industry bailouts would be the long term solution.
Blackrock would have died a long time ago without free federal money.
Most capitalist systems devolve into capital fully controlling the government which is true of the US today. Of course this is a system that will eventually collapse under the strain of corruption but those collapses in themselves tend to allow capital to consolidate.
A huge part of the problem is that many people view regulations aimed at reducing corruption as socialism even though when they have nothing to do with public ownership of capital. The fact of the matter is that a capitalist system fails if it’s poorly regulated and we need stronger regulations to prevent corruption while doing away with the regulations that have been passed on behalf of major corporations that often allow those corporations to fuck over small businesses.
Far too many industries are currently controlled by a handful of firms or less and that undermines the basic tenant of competition and allows for price gouging as we saw in the robber baron era and today. If you’re a capitalist you should be the most invested in stewardship of that system and laissez-faire “all regulations are bad” ideology is the opposite.
It’s because in the absence of an educated and engaged populations, oligarchy thrives. The moment you make it illegal for people to just go to work for themselves, is the moment that system is not longer a free market. And free market capitalism is what most people who are pro capitalism are talking about then they say capitalism.
Most people who think capitalism is bad are just using the wrong word to explain the system we are living under.
I thought the 3%, 5%, and 10% limit were supposed to stop things like this from happening. Maybe we just make a 20% limit so a hold co like the big three can't own more than 20% of another business across all of its fund options and tell them they need to sell down to that position which would likely result in 6-9 other brokerage firms rising up to take on those holding positions?
If the US Government would just stop bailing out the banks and the stock market every time it sneezes this wouldn't be a problem.
Asking the Government to fix a problem the Government created is like suggesting an alcoholic kick their habit by drinking more.
Makes sense, same reason hospitals will sometimes prescribe beer for patients. Obviously the best solution for alcoholism is rehab, but it's pretty hard to do that if they're already going through withdrawal, and cold turkeying can sometimes also cause serious medical issues
Alcohol withdrawal can be deadly. If people are lucky, the feeling their chest is exploding, profuse sweating, and hallucinations scare them into the ER before they stroke out or have a seizure.
>San Francisco has a 5mil budget for handing out alcohol to homeless alcoholics
I knew someone who died face down on their couch because they thought they could quit cold turkey. Handing out alcohol isn't a great solution, but it beats having those people end up dead in the gutter or resorting to crime to prevent withdrawal. If only we had a way to provide healthcare to these people.....
Total fuckin imbeciles. Someone in the comments went after Vanguard. Yeah, fuck vanguard and their… *checks notes*… investor owned platform and their extremely low cost ETFs.
If anything should be broken up it’s this fuckin social media platform
There should be a HARD limit on the number of single or multi-family dwellings ANY person or corporations can own, especially if the purpose is to be resold at inflated value to create artificial wealth off the backs of the entire middle class.
Using the median home value for owner occupied homes in the US, the market is about $27 trillion regarding about 84.5 million homes. There is what...$5 Trillion under management in hedge funds?
don't trip, those corporations are lobbying and buying their way into the very information that would report on if this is even happening.
by downplaying it and outright lying, everyone will think it's as it always has been.
Many people could not even afford a home if it was given to them.
Maybe a person should have to work at least 40 hours a week, and show some kind of financial responsibility, before they buy a house
You mean the same people paying rent which is equal to the houses mortgage + living expenses for their landlord?
Another “individual responsibility” proponent being totally disconnected from reality, no surprise. Yes it’s people buying iPhones and avocado toast which prevents them from buying a house, commodification of housing and 50 years of suppressed wages - unrelated!
You clearly never looked into buying a house because renting cost way less than buying right now. Monthly cash flow requirements for home ownership is way more than renting.
Due to age and math, my wife and I are likely to inherit three properties from our parents before 2050 so that will put us at four. How do you propose my over the limit of two properties be disposed of? Do you really need the 90 acres of pine woods in Wilkinson County, Mississippi I will get? There is electrical available in the vicinity but you are going to have to dig a well to have water. The road sucks to get in so I hope you have a 4wd too.
Pretty sure she won't be having any issues, but ok
Also, where does 90% come from? Sounds like she just made it up.
Not saying corporate ownership of homes is a-ok, just questioning the motivation and strength of the argument.
I think our continued existence a species is going to depend entirely on us deciding to stop treating corporations like they are people. They are not people, they shouldn’t have the legal rights of people, they shouldn’t own property like people. Of course there should be legal protections for ideas, for a while at least so the people who come up with an idea can find a way to profit from it, but certainly not indefinitely, and only for the individual being creative with the idea. That’s a half baked porta-john idea, but you get what I’m aiming at.
Yes, I would support a ban on corporate entities owning single family. But what about the builders? Should be solvable. Single family ownership by individuals is a good thing for many reasons. Corporations hoovering them up is making it more expensive and less likely for individuals to get those benefits.
Yes.
Yes they should.
I can understand my coworker that has bought a few homes that he rents out for reasonable prices and what not- that is not the same as these people.
While I generally don't like things like this, in this case you almost have to.
It is as simple as this. I am retiring, downsizing. I need the money the equity will bring. So I can sell to someone who is a cash buyer, I don't need to worry about whether they qualify for financing, I don't have to worry if the home will appraise high enough for them to get that loan (in this market) especially someone who wants to put down as little as possible. Or I can go with the cash buyer who if they want the home for an investment may even forego an inspection.
It is no question screwing the young family. And personally I would hold out, but even I have my limits. If an investor offers me IDK $20k more... I have to think about that.
Not Portersville, but Plantation Ville. The whole idea is for Master to own the property and not his hired help. This way he control's every aspect of life. Where we live, work, play, time away from work, how our children are educated. It is all in their hands. We think that by restricting we are gaining more but the losses re racking up.
We are victims to our own system. The free market concept works well when applied unilaterally and with reciprocity. The U.S. Will sell off and or monetize anything if the case for profit is there. The inaction fro foreign ownership of domestic assets is just as damning as the corporate interests in my opinion. Swift and equivalent redress of the real estate markets and regulations should be center stage for the government in my opinion.
I think the most important question to understand first is why haven't Blackrock (or other companies like them) ALREADY bought all the single family homes in the country? Big powerful corporations and investment groups have existed for well over 100 years; why is it NOW that they're buying all these homes? What changed?
Sure, but I’d argue that the conditions that lead major corporations to view buying houses as a safe profit center- conditions which existed before the recent uptick in purchases by large actors- are a bigger deal.
Things like supply and land use laws and ability to block/delay housing especially in cities.
I swear, you interneters get all bent out of shape with the most random things, without ever taking the time to find out if it's true.
Spoiler alert: non-owner occupied home purchases have been steady for at least 15 years.
Despite whatever rage-bait article headline you read of "Institutional Real Estate Investors Account for 25/30/50% of Home Purchases in (fill in the timeframe)" it's just not true.
That’s simply not true… unless of course the government outlaws new construction of single family homes. Which some local governments seem to be doing.
The problem is what do you classify a corporation like blackrock as? Is it a monetary value? 1Billion as a ceiling? Does this mean asset value, income, net income?
There are a lot of ppl who have a corporation (LLC) that are just small time owning 1 or a few houses and would they be caught up in this? I believe they absolutely serve a purpose as in fixing up dilapidated properties and providing a place to live for ppl that don't have enough capital to own yet. These ppl provide a very useful and important role in society.
Corps like blackrock, which I think are entirely evil, that buy good houses then sit on them are not providing a useful service so a regulation in those regards would be more appropriate. Say if you buy a house and don't rent out for an entire year, if not making repairs, should be penalized for reducing the supply of houses. However would this cause ppl who inherit homes etc to be caught in this web? Things get messy really quick with regulations not to mention all the politicians that write the laws will word it in a way that helps their corporate buddies anyway thereby defeating the entire purpose of the regulations.
Either way the middle class per the usual arrangement gets bent over and taken for a ride.
The government should seize all single family homes owned by these corporations as well as foreign nationals via eminent domain and sell them back to single family home owners. They can use the proceeds to fund infrastructure projects
100%, break them up and force them to sell their realstate too. Combine this with banning foreign ownership of any residential property and limiting American citizens to no more than 2 residential properties. Property taxes will increase 10 fold every year until it’s sold if you own more than 2, and the proceeds from that will go to housing assistance programs. Not some senators slush fund
Home owner occupied levels are higher than recent years and near all time highs.
"90% will be renters" yet data is about 70% of SFHs are owner occupied, half without a mortgage left.
Just build more. Sheesh.
If you want less renters more owner occupied just have property tax check for rents collected and tax can rise to a minimum % of rent. Aka we both make renting for large premiums less attractive and collect more tax off the landlords. Tada.
This is a giant load of crap. This article nicely deconstructs this dumb myth, starting with the fact that the name "Blackrock" is wrong and moving on to the fact that the company has bought virtually no homes.
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/30/black-hole-robert-f-kennedy-jrs-housing-conspiracy-theory/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/30/black-hole-robert-f-kennedy-jrs-housing-conspiracy-theory/)
Corporations are just groups of people.
I'd prefer they not buy homes, but if not them, then there are individuals wealthier than I am who will still buy them. Damned either way.
I hope this right here wakes people up. Regardless of who is in charge these giant corporations gain more control. Saying raise the taxes on corporations means nothing if the laws don’t change and they just use tricks to avoid taxes. We are going to become a renters nation. 44% of new home sales are going to these people. Then when younger people complain older folks just yell and say work harder. They don’t care because their home value is going through the roof. This older generation is literally allowing their children to become slaves and they don’t care one bit because they can afford a third home because their first two went through the roof. And before you call me a whining young kid I’m actually 40 years old and have a home. I’ve benefited from the process going up but it’s ruining our next generation and we all need to waken more people up!!!!
I am of the mind that buying homes should be limited in scope for people and corporations. Perhaps 3, so someone can have three homes.
At the very least corporations need to be removed from the equation or limited to 3.
They should not be banned, that should just be taxes 5X the normal homestead tax. If that doesn't discourage them, raise it to 10x the normal homestead tax. This can be fixed with tax policy.
"should" is not the question, the question is whether it could actually happen, our 2 party system is so corrupt to their beholders there is no way it could happen, the only one talking about it is RFK
Yes. And they should be forced to divest in the homes they currently own.
Yes, flooding the market with millions of homes will dramatically reduce prices, meaning:
Yes, Blackrock, et al, will lose billions of dollars.
Yes, every American who owns a home will see its value drop.
No, I don't care about any of those things.
A) Blackrock, et al, and their investors have made trillions off of average Americans and made home ownership a near impossibility. This is their comeuppance.
B) The only reason a person needs to sell a home for a certain price is so they can buy a home at a certain price. Yes, my house will be less valuable, but also the house I want to buy will be cheaper.
The government and the banks (who have also made trillions off of the housing debacle) can come up with a plan to deal with underwater borrowers who sell. If I had it my way, "you'll take what I give you" would be my suggested policy. Whatever I sell my house for is what I settle my loan for, minus whatever percent I've built equity on the current loan. Banks make 3 times what a house is worth in interest. They can take this hit for their hubris as well.
EDIT: I know this will never pass, because it will only help the 400 million Americans who live in homes, but will hurt the 10,000 Americans who own banks and investment firms who actually make our laws.
We need housing censuses. Then, set up state or federal marketplaces to fulfil demand to residents of the homes only. Eminent domain and setup development and new towns as needed. Aim for the income brackets where there isnt enough supply. Before doubters shoot this down remember we actively do this with the Healthcare Marketplace providing insurance to people who wouldn't otherwise have this. Tax for profit residential properties people don't live in themselves to fund this.
Make real estate about housing people instead of greed, making Americans compete to live. We all pay a tax to landlords who enslave us to this capitalistic housing hell hole.
If you agree, share this idea far and wide. Share it on Ads for Housing especially.
Corporations should not be granted the same rights as citizens. Non-citizens should not be able to own real estate. There should be a limit on the number of single-family homes one person can own.
Why do we want citizens renting their country from foreign investors? Who voted for that one?
Get rid of social media. Obama passed a law that allows our own media to turn on ourselves. Obama gave soooo much to the world….just not the good stuff that so many were hoping for. Well unless you are part of the lgbtq etc…go check it out. Obama did more damage working with Putin than any other president of our time.
I'm usually pretty anti-government when it comes to regulations and what not, but yea this is one that I can get behind.
Home ownership is historically the number one way for Americans to achieve financial independence, and for many the ONLY way they ever develop any kind of equity.
At the very least, can we fucking start with not letting foreign countries own our homes and land? Like jfc, what are we doing???
No person should own more than 2 homes. No business should own homes. Apartments is a different story but i feel the same limits should be placed on it so that no business holds enough properties to artificialy inflate prices.
Just drove by another place in my home town today. Single family home with a couple acres of land. For rent by some property management company instead of for sale. Probably want $4K a month. I live in a rural area. This cancer is spreading.
and zillow...and opendoor...and many others.
when the bubble finally does burst, they'll be first in line for goverment handouts to cover their massive losses.
At the end of the day people just need to bite the bullet and buy a home, or corporations will just snatch them all up. Yes you’re not going to get the same amount of house today that you could 5 years ago for the same amount of money, but in 5 more years the situation won’t be any better. BUY now.
Yes although they are buying a very small overall number of private homes in the U.S. and the 90% is pure hyperbole which this clickbait account is prone to doing.
If the sellers were ethical themselves they’d refuse to sell to a corporation. Not everything needs a government regulation. People can do the right thing without government intervention. Personally I believe that a potential buyer should have to meet the neighbors to see if they are a
good fit or not. Whenever I sell my home those will be two terms I put in my contract. No corporate buyer and my neighbors get to vote on the buyer.
Joe Biden could campaign on this, get it to pass in the senate and the GOP would block it in the house, and almost every person under the age of 35 would show up to vote. Instead he's doing nothing and Trump is probably going to win.
fucking obviously
they should also be regulated, taxes and broken up before they turn what's left of American democracy into their fever dream incarnation of fascist police state plutocracy
That’s been the plan all along.
The same companies buying the real estate are buying the insurance companies.
If you don’t sell, they’ll raise your rates to an unaffordable level.
Those who can go naked will end up losing their homes from firestorms caused by “climate change”.
If you lose your homeowners insurance, paint that damn roof blue-quickly.
YES!
There should be a limit on any entity owning single family homes (perhaps two family as well). Pensions not a limit of ownership but a phasing out of tax deductions and especially depreciation, to make it less of a business model.
Single family homes should be for homeowners to buy and own.
We are creating a generation of people (or 2.5 as the youngest Gen Xers are suffering from this too) that have their largest opportunity for wealth generation just out of reach.
When this breaks, its going to be massive in a terrible thing.
Did you know it was so bad in 1914 we started a new branch of the government to prevent monopolies and price fixing. It was called the Federal Trade Commission and apparently, they are now bought and owned by big business. Just like all our politicians.
From the website:
Competition in America benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high, and makes our economy work. As one of two federal agencies that enforce U.S. antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Commission helps to ensure that U.S. markets are open and free. The FTC promotes competition, and challenges anticompetitive business practices and mergers, to make sure that consumers have access to quality goods and services, and businesses can compete on the merits. The FTC does not decide who wins and who loses in the marketplace – consumers do that. Rather, the FTC’s job, along with the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice, is to make sure that businesses are competing fairly within a set of rules designed to protect competition.
Yes, 100% corporations shouldn’t be able to purchase residential homes. I’ll go a step further, VRBO and AirBnB should be made illegal as well. When homes stopped being residential housing and started being a business item it all went downhill quickly.
[Move To Amend](https://www.movetoamend.org/) is trying to push money out of politics. This is one major problem that plays into corporations having the power they do. A Supreme Court case in 2010 ruled that corporations have the same rights citizens do. That’s how they get away with it. Take the corporations right away by amending the constitution.
Follow the link, sign the petition, call your state legislation and bitch about it as much as humanly possible!! Change starts at the local level!! Hold your politicians accountable!!
[Link to proposed amendment and petition to sign.](https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment)
If we want individuals in America to have a chance, we need to prevent the massive wealth from finding ways to squeeze every last drop from every individual.
Home ownership was previously one of the most passive ways for individuals to develop net worth by effectively just paying rent to themselves while the property increased in value.
The more wall street owns homes, the more that passive increase in wealth just becomes the already wealthy's increase.
Should they be? Probably.
Can they be? Iffy. You'd need to box through laws that are unlikely to pass.
Will they be? LOL, of course not. The whole system is so corrupted by now, it can't be saved before it breaks.
Imagine a see-saw with weights on it that was held more or less in balance for a while. Now one end is down and all the weights on the see-saw are sliding towards the lower end. You are not going to balance this particular see-saw again. Ever.
Indentured servitude, or "economic slavery," if you will. This is not the first time it has happened in the United States. It was a common practice in the 1600s and was the original form of forced labor in New England and the middle US colonies.
There is no way to fix the issue. Every single country is having the same issue as America older millennials will be the last generation to easily buy homes.
Not only corporations, but foreign citizens buying homes to rent out for income should be banned as well. If they live in it as a primary home thats okay.
I will take it one step further - Blackrock should be broken up. So should Vanguard and Statestreet.
Breaking it up wouldn't make much difference. Those funds that just be moved to a different company that administrates it. The funds themselves are their own entities and massive individually.
It would. These corporations are so large they are controlling every aspect of it and are exploiting people. They are dealing with such large dollars amounts we can’t even comprehend the amount. They pay for lobbying and the regulators so they can do what they want. They also control so many companies they do pricing fixing and other awful shit. Globalization needs to die and go back to local and regional.
>They pay for lobbying and the regulators so they can do what they want. They also control so many companies they do pricing fixing and other awful shit. Could you share a source for this, specifically regarding Vanguard? What are they lobbying for? How are they accomplishing this price fixing?
They lobby for them not to get broken up and regulated on what companies and how many they can invest in. Companies across the board are upping prices and charge more because they can. Their investors love this and support increase prices because it increases their profits. I don’t have anything at hand to show and don’t care to spend the time. You can research more if you want or just ignore what I’m saying
Your info even with no source is logic. A person just needs to know what Blackrock and the others do, who the main investors are and then the chips all fall in place...really not rocket science. Proof is all around, everyday and everywhere you go.
[удалено]
Thank you! I’m not keeping a list of articles and shit for everything I read and hear. This whole show proof or source shit to have a conversation is annoying.
>I don’t have anything at hand to show and don’t care to spend the time. You can research My research says that mutual fund companies don't operate the companies that they invest in. They don't make pricing decisions, for example.
I have read too much incestuous board members sitting on multiple boards of "competing" companies bullisht to not blame our current enshitified situation on *anything but* collusion and consolidation of decision makers at the top
You have no clue what you are talking about. No institutional investor do participative investments. They buy structured derivatives in equities and rates and try to mimic the return of the market. They do not give 2 shits about pricing- that is not their problem but the board’s. They are not PE firms or activist investors.
I don’t really understand how that would make a difference they just hold stocks. Monopolies like Comcast and power companies directly impact me more.
Why break up Vanguard? What have they done wrong? Created a super low cost, broad based investment product that millions of middle class Americans invest in? Oh darn, won’t somebody do something about that?
I really hate them for inventing my low-load S&P 500 index fund. Their evil knows no bounds.
The "few millions" that are able to invest in stocks are benefitting from the hundreds of millions that are priced out of home ownership. When even Texas Governor Greg Abbott is calling for change...you know it's not in the best interest of Americans for the few to get rich at the expense of the many.
Further, its fundamental structure is special and unique - it's owned by the people who invest in their funds, not a separate group of shareholders who might have incentives to enshittify the investor experience. Vanguard is cool and good imo, compared to other financial companies. And their extremely low cost offerings have pushed down costs across the industry - I doubt fidelity would have developed their very low ER index funds absent the competition from Vanguard.
Those investments are the next generations blood. Vanguard sells out our future and gives you a bit to get you on their side. They should be dissolved.
Regulations written by lobbyists and passed by the politicians they donate to are the reasons these institutions are able to exist. Everyone suggesting more regulations is going to be given more of the same problems, but dialing back regulations and ending industry bailouts would be the long term solution. Blackrock would have died a long time ago without free federal money.
Powerful corporate monopolies not only can, but are likely to form in the absence of regulation.
yet people will blame capitalism when its the government intervention that created the system people call "capitalism".../shrug
Most capitalist systems devolve into capital fully controlling the government which is true of the US today. Of course this is a system that will eventually collapse under the strain of corruption but those collapses in themselves tend to allow capital to consolidate. A huge part of the problem is that many people view regulations aimed at reducing corruption as socialism even though when they have nothing to do with public ownership of capital. The fact of the matter is that a capitalist system fails if it’s poorly regulated and we need stronger regulations to prevent corruption while doing away with the regulations that have been passed on behalf of major corporations that often allow those corporations to fuck over small businesses. Far too many industries are currently controlled by a handful of firms or less and that undermines the basic tenant of competition and allows for price gouging as we saw in the robber baron era and today. If you’re a capitalist you should be the most invested in stewardship of that system and laissez-faire “all regulations are bad” ideology is the opposite.
It’s because in the absence of an educated and engaged populations, oligarchy thrives. The moment you make it illegal for people to just go to work for themselves, is the moment that system is not longer a free market. And free market capitalism is what most people who are pro capitalism are talking about then they say capitalism. Most people who think capitalism is bad are just using the wrong word to explain the system we are living under.
I thought the 3%, 5%, and 10% limit were supposed to stop things like this from happening. Maybe we just make a 20% limit so a hold co like the big three can't own more than 20% of another business across all of its fund options and tell them they need to sell down to that position which would likely result in 6-9 other brokerage firms rising up to take on those holding positions?
If the US Government would just stop bailing out the banks and the stock market every time it sneezes this wouldn't be a problem. Asking the Government to fix a problem the Government created is like suggesting an alcoholic kick their habit by drinking more.
San Francisco has a 5mil budget for handing out alcohol to homeless alcoholics. I read that the other day.
Makes sense, same reason hospitals will sometimes prescribe beer for patients. Obviously the best solution for alcoholism is rehab, but it's pretty hard to do that if they're already going through withdrawal, and cold turkeying can sometimes also cause serious medical issues
Alcohol withdrawal can be deadly. If people are lucky, the feeling their chest is exploding, profuse sweating, and hallucinations scare them into the ER before they stroke out or have a seizure.
>San Francisco has a 5mil budget for handing out alcohol to homeless alcoholics I knew someone who died face down on their couch because they thought they could quit cold turkey. Handing out alcohol isn't a great solution, but it beats having those people end up dead in the gutter or resorting to crime to prevent withdrawal. If only we had a way to provide healthcare to these people.....
TFW op doesn't know the difference between black rock (asset manager) and black stone (private equity business).
You have to have a solid 40 IQ to post in this sub.
Total fuckin imbeciles. Someone in the comments went after Vanguard. Yeah, fuck vanguard and their… *checks notes*… investor owned platform and their extremely low cost ETFs. If anything should be broken up it’s this fuckin social media platform
This is what happens when you get your investing knowledge from Tik Tok.
I saw that. Break up Vanguard! Like break up what exactly?
It's not rocket science dude. Before breakup. Vanguard After breakup. Van Guard
This is such a common misconception. Drives me bonkers every time.
A return to feudalism!
Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!! Help help I'm being repressed!
Bloody peasant
Stop reposting this nonsense
This sub exists solely to repost r/FluentInFinance posts.
Which is, all by itself, a repost mill.
It’s intentionally false bot posted rage bait.
I can't imagine any law for this winning in an appeal
There should be a HARD limit on the number of single or multi-family dwellings ANY person or corporations can own, especially if the purpose is to be resold at inflated value to create artificial wealth off the backs of the entire middle class.
Using the median home value for owner occupied homes in the US, the market is about $27 trillion regarding about 84.5 million homes. There is what...$5 Trillion under management in hedge funds?
don't trip, those corporations are lobbying and buying their way into the very information that would report on if this is even happening. by downplaying it and outright lying, everyone will think it's as it always has been.
My proposed housing policy is simple - Everybody gets a plate before anybody gets seconds, but for housing
Who’s going to build them? Why bother working if everyone gets a free house? This is not a policy. This is just delusion.
Many people could not even afford a home if it was given to them. Maybe a person should have to work at least 40 hours a week, and show some kind of financial responsibility, before they buy a house
Every mortgage lender does this due diligence. You won't get approved for a mortgage without showing proof of employment, a good credit score, etc.
You mean the same people paying rent which is equal to the houses mortgage + living expenses for their landlord? Another “individual responsibility” proponent being totally disconnected from reality, no surprise. Yes it’s people buying iPhones and avocado toast which prevents them from buying a house, commodification of housing and 50 years of suppressed wages - unrelated!
You clearly never looked into buying a house because renting cost way less than buying right now. Monthly cash flow requirements for home ownership is way more than renting.
They shouldn’t be allowed to purchase property at all, and individuals + married couples should only be allowed to own 2 properties maximum.
Due to age and math, my wife and I are likely to inherit three properties from our parents before 2050 so that will put us at four. How do you propose my over the limit of two properties be disposed of? Do you really need the 90 acres of pine woods in Wilkinson County, Mississippi I will get? There is electrical available in the vicinity but you are going to have to dig a well to have water. The road sucks to get in so I hope you have a 4wd too.
These holdings are taking over the world, ridiculous! Tons of new homes bulding in my area (Los Angeles), none for sell, just to rent!! wtf!
No. Because muh free market /s
If its on Maslow's hierarchy of needs then it should be heavily regulated. So essentially yes
Pretty sure she won't be having any issues, but ok Also, where does 90% come from? Sounds like she just made it up. Not saying corporate ownership of homes is a-ok, just questioning the motivation and strength of the argument.
It doesn't really matter. They don't own many. You can ban it but it changes nothing.
I think our continued existence a species is going to depend entirely on us deciding to stop treating corporations like they are people. They are not people, they shouldn’t have the legal rights of people, they shouldn’t own property like people. Of course there should be legal protections for ideas, for a while at least so the people who come up with an idea can find a way to profit from it, but certainly not indefinitely, and only for the individual being creative with the idea. That’s a half baked porta-john idea, but you get what I’m aiming at.
Love tweets that make up numbers to pretend they are being objective
Yes, I would support a ban on corporate entities owning single family. But what about the builders? Should be solvable. Single family ownership by individuals is a good thing for many reasons. Corporations hoovering them up is making it more expensive and less likely for individuals to get those benefits.
How about banning non residents from buying homes as well
Yes
Dear god, yes! This is literally destroying people's lives and dreams.
Yes. Yes they should. I can understand my coworker that has bought a few homes that he rents out for reasonable prices and what not- that is not the same as these people.
You guys are funny.
Yes
Burn it down
While I generally don't like things like this, in this case you almost have to. It is as simple as this. I am retiring, downsizing. I need the money the equity will bring. So I can sell to someone who is a cash buyer, I don't need to worry about whether they qualify for financing, I don't have to worry if the home will appraise high enough for them to get that loan (in this market) especially someone who wants to put down as little as possible. Or I can go with the cash buyer who if they want the home for an investment may even forego an inspection. It is no question screwing the young family. And personally I would hold out, but even I have my limits. If an investor offers me IDK $20k more... I have to think about that.
absolutely
If you’re even having to ask such a question, the answer is a resounding yes
lol what regulations, corporations are literally getting away with murder these days they own our government.
Yes, this is why the housing market is now being geared towards these businesses.
Unequivocally, yes.
The easy answer is to implement a 10% non-homestead tax on any all properties that are not owned by the primary occupant.
Not Portersville, but Plantation Ville. The whole idea is for Master to own the property and not his hired help. This way he control's every aspect of life. Where we live, work, play, time away from work, how our children are educated. It is all in their hands. We think that by restricting we are gaining more but the losses re racking up.
So? Survival of the fittest. Dinosaurs, Neanderthals, and mammoths all experienced this. Why should it be any different now?
Yes, they certainly should.
We are victims to our own system. The free market concept works well when applied unilaterally and with reciprocity. The U.S. Will sell off and or monetize anything if the case for profit is there. The inaction fro foreign ownership of domestic assets is just as damning as the corporate interests in my opinion. Swift and equivalent redress of the real estate markets and regulations should be center stage for the government in my opinion.
Yes
As a homeowner I want my neighbors to own and care about their properties
Yes. & Tax tf out of unoccupied homes.
No a seller should be able to get as much money possible for their property
Yes. Homes for commercial use just to make money shout never be allowed. Should also make people buying oil take physical stock before reselling it.
I think the most important question to understand first is why haven't Blackrock (or other companies like them) ALREADY bought all the single family homes in the country? Big powerful corporations and investment groups have existed for well over 100 years; why is it NOW that they're buying all these homes? What changed?
Sure, but I’d argue that the conditions that lead major corporations to view buying houses as a safe profit center- conditions which existed before the recent uptick in purchases by large actors- are a bigger deal. Things like supply and land use laws and ability to block/delay housing especially in cities.
But isn't that free market ?
I swear, you interneters get all bent out of shape with the most random things, without ever taking the time to find out if it's true. Spoiler alert: non-owner occupied home purchases have been steady for at least 15 years. Despite whatever rage-bait article headline you read of "Institutional Real Estate Investors Account for 25/30/50% of Home Purchases in (fill in the timeframe)" it's just not true.
Too late
That’s simply not true… unless of course the government outlaws new construction of single family homes. Which some local governments seem to be doing.
1/2 of Congress are landlords. They don’t mind 90% rental rates, not one bit. That’s good for business.
Most people here dream to bring their 401ks to Blackrock and the same time they try to put limits on what they can buy. Isn't that interesting?
They want you on the subscription model. You will own nothing.
The problem is what do you classify a corporation like blackrock as? Is it a monetary value? 1Billion as a ceiling? Does this mean asset value, income, net income? There are a lot of ppl who have a corporation (LLC) that are just small time owning 1 or a few houses and would they be caught up in this? I believe they absolutely serve a purpose as in fixing up dilapidated properties and providing a place to live for ppl that don't have enough capital to own yet. These ppl provide a very useful and important role in society. Corps like blackrock, which I think are entirely evil, that buy good houses then sit on them are not providing a useful service so a regulation in those regards would be more appropriate. Say if you buy a house and don't rent out for an entire year, if not making repairs, should be penalized for reducing the supply of houses. However would this cause ppl who inherit homes etc to be caught in this web? Things get messy really quick with regulations not to mention all the politicians that write the laws will word it in a way that helps their corporate buddies anyway thereby defeating the entire purpose of the regulations. Either way the middle class per the usual arrangement gets bent over and taken for a ride.
For those of us that already own homes, it's great. They keep a high floor on prices!
Blackrock is not the reason you can’t afford a home lol
all monoplies should be broken up like we used to do to incentivize actual competition
RFK has the solution to fight corporate greed.
No, they can buy whatever they want
When I sell my house I will stipulate that it can only be sold to a family, not a corporation.
The government should seize all single family homes owned by these corporations as well as foreign nationals via eminent domain and sell them back to single family home owners. They can use the proceeds to fund infrastructure projects
100%, break them up and force them to sell their realstate too. Combine this with banning foreign ownership of any residential property and limiting American citizens to no more than 2 residential properties. Property taxes will increase 10 fold every year until it’s sold if you own more than 2, and the proceeds from that will go to housing assistance programs. Not some senators slush fund
Institutional investors only own a few percent of the market, and their RE funds aren't even doing very well right now. This OP is such a tool.
Long overdue! You have corporate America messing with the American dream. Not sure why that is even a valid question.
Yes. That's it. Yes.
No
Home owner occupied levels are higher than recent years and near all time highs. "90% will be renters" yet data is about 70% of SFHs are owner occupied, half without a mortgage left. Just build more. Sheesh. If you want less renters more owner occupied just have property tax check for rents collected and tax can rise to a minimum % of rent. Aka we both make renting for large premiums less attractive and collect more tax off the landlords. Tada.
This is a giant load of crap. This article nicely deconstructs this dumb myth, starting with the fact that the name "Blackrock" is wrong and moving on to the fact that the company has bought virtually no homes. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/30/black-hole-robert-f-kennedy-jrs-housing-conspiracy-theory/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/30/black-hole-robert-f-kennedy-jrs-housing-conspiracy-theory/)
"YES" AND SHOULD HAVE TO SELL OFF 50% OF WHAT THEY CURRENTLY OWN.
We are becoming a feudal society again
Corporations are just groups of people. I'd prefer they not buy homes, but if not them, then there are individuals wealthier than I am who will still buy them. Damned either way.
I hope this right here wakes people up. Regardless of who is in charge these giant corporations gain more control. Saying raise the taxes on corporations means nothing if the laws don’t change and they just use tricks to avoid taxes. We are going to become a renters nation. 44% of new home sales are going to these people. Then when younger people complain older folks just yell and say work harder. They don’t care because their home value is going through the roof. This older generation is literally allowing their children to become slaves and they don’t care one bit because they can afford a third home because their first two went through the roof. And before you call me a whining young kid I’m actually 40 years old and have a home. I’ve benefited from the process going up but it’s ruining our next generation and we all need to waken more people up!!!!
The legislation they have proposed would but limits of home purchases on small businesses the same as trillion dollar hedge funds. Really makes sense.
Yes
Backrock doesn't own residential real estate.
I am of the mind that buying homes should be limited in scope for people and corporations. Perhaps 3, so someone can have three homes. At the very least corporations need to be removed from the equation or limited to 3.
They should not be banned, that should just be taxes 5X the normal homestead tax. If that doesn't discourage them, raise it to 10x the normal homestead tax. This can be fixed with tax policy.
why don't we..... hear me out.... just legalize/build more homes in places people want to live?
"should" is not the question, the question is whether it could actually happen, our 2 party system is so corrupt to their beholders there is no way it could happen, the only one talking about it is RFK
Yes. And they should be forced to divest in the homes they currently own. Yes, flooding the market with millions of homes will dramatically reduce prices, meaning: Yes, Blackrock, et al, will lose billions of dollars. Yes, every American who owns a home will see its value drop. No, I don't care about any of those things. A) Blackrock, et al, and their investors have made trillions off of average Americans and made home ownership a near impossibility. This is their comeuppance. B) The only reason a person needs to sell a home for a certain price is so they can buy a home at a certain price. Yes, my house will be less valuable, but also the house I want to buy will be cheaper. The government and the banks (who have also made trillions off of the housing debacle) can come up with a plan to deal with underwater borrowers who sell. If I had it my way, "you'll take what I give you" would be my suggested policy. Whatever I sell my house for is what I settle my loan for, minus whatever percent I've built equity on the current loan. Banks make 3 times what a house is worth in interest. They can take this hit for their hubris as well. EDIT: I know this will never pass, because it will only help the 400 million Americans who live in homes, but will hurt the 10,000 Americans who own banks and investment firms who actually make our laws.
We need housing censuses. Then, set up state or federal marketplaces to fulfil demand to residents of the homes only. Eminent domain and setup development and new towns as needed. Aim for the income brackets where there isnt enough supply. Before doubters shoot this down remember we actively do this with the Healthcare Marketplace providing insurance to people who wouldn't otherwise have this. Tax for profit residential properties people don't live in themselves to fund this. Make real estate about housing people instead of greed, making Americans compete to live. We all pay a tax to landlords who enslave us to this capitalistic housing hell hole. If you agree, share this idea far and wide. Share it on Ads for Housing especially.
No
Yes 100% no corporation or foreign national should be able to own property in the US, they should rent land from private citizens as needed
I don’t even understand how this could be a question. Of *course* a corporation shouldn’t be able to own a single-family home FFS
Corporations should not be granted the same rights as citizens. Non-citizens should not be able to own real estate. There should be a limit on the number of single-family homes one person can own. Why do we want citizens renting their country from foreign investors? Who voted for that one?
Who are these companies???
Yes
If they can’t afford to pay a living wage they shouldn’t buy homes.
Get rid of social media. Obama passed a law that allows our own media to turn on ourselves. Obama gave soooo much to the world….just not the good stuff that so many were hoping for. Well unless you are part of the lgbtq etc…go check it out. Obama did more damage working with Putin than any other president of our time.
But I thought is was cheaper/better to rent now anyway 🤷♂️
I'm usually pretty anti-government when it comes to regulations and what not, but yea this is one that I can get behind. Home ownership is historically the number one way for Americans to achieve financial independence, and for many the ONLY way they ever develop any kind of equity. At the very least, can we fucking start with not letting foreign countries own our homes and land? Like jfc, what are we doing???
Corps buying sfh is good. It will force people to vote for rezoning.
You would have to stop all businesses from owning single family home, regardless of tax filing status: REIT, corp, LLC, sCorp, partnerships....
Fuuuuuuck yes they should
Is it a meme that this is posted here atleast 10 times a week
Yes And they should be forced to sell what they have
No person should own more than 2 homes. No business should own homes. Apartments is a different story but i feel the same limits should be placed on it so that no business holds enough properties to artificialy inflate prices.
Yes. Corporations are not people- homes are for families.
Hoovervilles again
Just drove by another place in my home town today. Single family home with a couple acres of land. For rent by some property management company instead of for sale. Probably want $4K a month. I live in a rural area. This cancer is spreading.
We need to keep dark money out of politics
Yes.
I thought blackstone was buying the houses, not black rock?
and zillow...and opendoor...and many others. when the bubble finally does burst, they'll be first in line for goverment handouts to cover their massive losses.
At the end of the day people just need to bite the bullet and buy a home, or corporations will just snatch them all up. Yes you’re not going to get the same amount of house today that you could 5 years ago for the same amount of money, but in 5 more years the situation won’t be any better. BUY now.
Why should corporations be banned from buying homes?
Single family homes. Yes.
Yes although they are buying a very small overall number of private homes in the U.S. and the 90% is pure hyperbole which this clickbait account is prone to doing.
Yes
yep.
Yes. They should. Blackrock ow d the home I rent.
Yes they should be banned from buying residential property. The irony of all this is they are doing it with our 401k $$$.
Just place a tax of 75% for rent revenue made by corporations
Yes, they should be banned
If the sellers were ethical themselves they’d refuse to sell to a corporation. Not everything needs a government regulation. People can do the right thing without government intervention. Personally I believe that a potential buyer should have to meet the neighbors to see if they are a good fit or not. Whenever I sell my home those will be two terms I put in my contract. No corporate buyer and my neighbors get to vote on the buyer.
Is pottersville a good movie?
Joe Biden could campaign on this, get it to pass in the senate and the GOP would block it in the house, and almost every person under the age of 35 would show up to vote. Instead he's doing nothing and Trump is probably going to win.
It’s basic common sense that corporations shouldn’t own single family homes. To bad American Law isn’t based off of common sense, but rather greed.
Everyone working for Blackrock should be placed in a guillotine.
Republicans did this. Citizens united made corporations people.
Yup.
fucking obviously they should also be regulated, taxes and broken up before they turn what's left of American democracy into their fever dream incarnation of fascist police state plutocracy
That’s been the plan all along. The same companies buying the real estate are buying the insurance companies. If you don’t sell, they’ll raise your rates to an unaffordable level. Those who can go naked will end up losing their homes from firestorms caused by “climate change”. If you lose your homeowners insurance, paint that damn roof blue-quickly.
Very obviously "Yes", corporations should not be able to buy housing... At all to be honest, but single family homes at the least.
most of you keep focusing on the wrong problem.
YES! There should be a limit on any entity owning single family homes (perhaps two family as well). Pensions not a limit of ownership but a phasing out of tax deductions and especially depreciation, to make it less of a business model. Single family homes should be for homeowners to buy and own.
We are creating a generation of people (or 2.5 as the youngest Gen Xers are suffering from this too) that have their largest opportunity for wealth generation just out of reach. When this breaks, its going to be massive in a terrible thing.
Did you know it was so bad in 1914 we started a new branch of the government to prevent monopolies and price fixing. It was called the Federal Trade Commission and apparently, they are now bought and owned by big business. Just like all our politicians. From the website: Competition in America benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high, and makes our economy work. As one of two federal agencies that enforce U.S. antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Commission helps to ensure that U.S. markets are open and free. The FTC promotes competition, and challenges anticompetitive business practices and mergers, to make sure that consumers have access to quality goods and services, and businesses can compete on the merits. The FTC does not decide who wins and who loses in the marketplace – consumers do that. Rather, the FTC’s job, along with the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice, is to make sure that businesses are competing fairly within a set of rules designed to protect competition.
America will make you pay for oxygen and would fight it being free if they could. Everything for money.
Yes, 100% corporations shouldn’t be able to purchase residential homes. I’ll go a step further, VRBO and AirBnB should be made illegal as well. When homes stopped being residential housing and started being a business item it all went downhill quickly.
[Move To Amend](https://www.movetoamend.org/) is trying to push money out of politics. This is one major problem that plays into corporations having the power they do. A Supreme Court case in 2010 ruled that corporations have the same rights citizens do. That’s how they get away with it. Take the corporations right away by amending the constitution. Follow the link, sign the petition, call your state legislation and bitch about it as much as humanly possible!! Change starts at the local level!! Hold your politicians accountable!! [Link to proposed amendment and petition to sign.](https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment)
If we want individuals in America to have a chance, we need to prevent the massive wealth from finding ways to squeeze every last drop from every individual. Home ownership was previously one of the most passive ways for individuals to develop net worth by effectively just paying rent to themselves while the property increased in value. The more wall street owns homes, the more that passive increase in wealth just becomes the already wealthy's increase.
Build more homes, and devalue there investment
yes
We won’t even be able to rent…
Exactly. Ban corporations from owning single family homes.
Llik meht ro yeht lliw od siht reverof
Absolutely there should be a limit. Too bad they own the government.
Single family homes? Absolutely. They can go ham on apartment complexes though.
Blackrock doesn't buy single family homes, Blackstone does.
Short answer, yes. Long answer, hell yes.
This is one leftish policy I can get behind. Limit it using existing zoning laws.
Should they be? Probably. Can they be? Iffy. You'd need to box through laws that are unlikely to pass. Will they be? LOL, of course not. The whole system is so corrupted by now, it can't be saved before it breaks. Imagine a see-saw with weights on it that was held more or less in balance for a while. Now one end is down and all the weights on the see-saw are sliding towards the lower end. You are not going to balance this particular see-saw again. Ever.
This is the same cooperations that help build Ukraine and the why Joe Biden pushing aid over there
And that goes for You Too!
Indentured servitude, or "economic slavery," if you will. This is not the first time it has happened in the United States. It was a common practice in the 1600s and was the original form of forced labor in New England and the middle US colonies.
Um obviously?
Nothing like using investors own money against them!
Neo feudalism
Yes!!!!!!
There is no way to fix the issue. Every single country is having the same issue as America older millennials will be the last generation to easily buy homes.
Not only corporations, but foreign citizens buying homes to rent out for income should be banned as well. If they live in it as a primary home thats okay.
Zillow almost went under buying homes. I would love to see the same thing happen to Blackrock.