2026-01-08 00:24:07

Recently, the US government introduced a new policy — banning large institutional investors from using single-family homes for rental purposes. This isn't exactly a new idea; former presidential candidates have proposed similar measures before.

The background is as follows: after the subprime mortgage crisis, Wall Street began large-scale purchases of residential properties for rental income. Although institutional investment currently accounts for only 2-3% of the entire housing market, the growth trend is indeed rapid. If this policy is truly implemented, the target will be these institutional investors.

But there's a problem — relevant companies will definitely push back. They can sue on the grounds of "destroying free markets" and "violating private property rights." How long this legal battle will last and what the outcome will be is uncertain.

If Congress can truly pass legislation to support this, enforcement will be much stronger. Otherwise, relying solely on executive orders will have limited effect.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

19 Likes

Reward
19
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MercilessHalal

· 01-10 23:55

Another executive order? I'm already tired of this routine. Just wait to be slapped in the face by the court.

View OriginalReply0

EntryPositionAnalyst

· 01-10 23:31

Basically, it's a paper tiger, waiting to be exposed for what it really is.

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurnerSociety

· 01-10 03:17

It's the same old administrative order routine. Do you really think it can stop the lawyers' barrage?

View OriginalReply0

VibesOverCharts

· 01-08 00:53

Hmm... it's that same rhetoric of "protecting free markets" again, really getting on my nerves. Those guys on Wall Street are just like that—only crying when they get hammered. Legal battle? Sure, there's something to fight for.

View OriginalReply0

DeadTrades_Walking

· 01-08 00:46

Administrative orders are always like this—bluster with little substance. By the time the court makes a ruling, the opportunity has already passed.

View OriginalReply0

StableGenius

· 01-08 00:29

lol they're acting like 2-3% is some existential threat when the real problem's been baked in for over a decade... empirically speaking, executive orders on housing have historically aged like milk. let me explain why this gets tied up in courts for years while corps just rebrand their subsidiaries—seen it before, will see it again.

Reply0

WalletDetective

· 01-08 00:27

Administrative orders, Wall Street law firms have long been sharpening their blades. If a real fight breaks out, it will probably be another tug-of-war.

View OriginalReply0