2026-01-08 12:20:53

Trump recently reignited the discussion on "housing affordability." On Wednesday, he announced on social media plans to ban large institutional investors from continuing to purchase single-family homes, aiming to ease the housing pressure on ordinary American families—after all, the middle class simply cannot afford the current home prices.

Following this policy announcement, the stock prices of many professional real estate investment firms plummeted. One leading real estate investment company became the most immediate victim. This firm, through multiple platforms, has been acquiring large numbers of single-family homes across the U.S., leveraging cash advantages and scaled operations to suppress the competitiveness of ordinary buyers, then holding these properties long-term for rental income.

The core logic of the policy is straightforward: prohibit or severely restrict large institutions from continuing to buy single-family homes. For those whose main investment model is "large-scale acquisitions + scaled operations," this is essentially a direct blow.

First, the asset side is restricted. In the future, they won't be able to expand these assets at low cost, and the logic of real estate allocation is being "cut off" by the policy. Second, exit expectations are hurt. If institutions are limited from taking over, who will pay high prices for these homes? Third, valuation models need to be reassessed. The scale of real estate and long-term rental cash flow were originally important supports for these institutions' "alternative asset premiums." Once the policy changes, the market will immediately discount these assets. In simple terms, this decline reflects the risks of the long-term business model, not short-term emotional fluctuations.

Interestingly, the stock prices of some homebuilders also fell sharply. Many people are confused: "Aren't restrictions on institutional home purchases good for ordinary buyers? Why are homebuilders' stocks falling too?" It seems contradictory, but the underlying logic is actually more complex.

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.

17 Likes

Reward
17
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GlueGuy

· 01-11 10:59

Same old trick again, banning institutional investors will save the middle class? I think it's doubtful. The bad news is that housing prices still can't fall, the good news is that the bears have another trick up their sleeves. Institutions are stuck on the asset side, this round indeed caused some serious damage... but here’s the thing, the people who can actually buy houses are still that same group. Builders are also collapsing, and that's the really interesting part. This policy looks like it’s saving the market, but in reality, it’s changing the game rules... The market fears rule changes the most. Constantly shouting about affordability, but housing prices are still ten or twenty thousand miles away from ordinary people.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-a606bf0c

· 01-11 09:03

Another policy show to cut leeks, just from a different angle this time Institutions are dead, ordinary people can't afford to buy, it's that simple Real estate stocks are being buried together, indicating that this matter is much more complicated than it appears on the surface Trump's card really never fails, every time he can pull off some moves Developers are falling even harder, it feels like the entire logical chain has been broken The short sellers are laughing out loud, this move gives them a perfect excuse Can't understand the details, but it feels like there's more to come

View OriginalReply0

FloorSweeper

· 01-11 04:26

Institutions are losing heavily, and builders are also falling. This is getting really interesting. High housing prices are driven by institutions. Limiting their ability to buy homes can save the middle class? That's too naive. Trump's move seems to be targeting speculators on the surface, but in reality, he's cutting into retail investors' gains. I think I understand the logic behind the builders' decline. When institutions run out of money, they stop hoarding houses, and market demand actually decreases. Wait, after banning institutions from buying detached houses, who will take over these properties? Can ordinary people afford them? Really, the real estate market is a mess. Changing policies will just cause a domino effect. The key issue is how to handle those properties held by institutions. Will there be a market crash when they start dumping? The decline in builder stocks might be because institutions are their major clients, and they are pulling out. This policy looks good on paper, but the actual effect will have to be seen. The US housing market is just playing this way.

View OriginalReply0

potentially_notable

· 01-09 20:26

Ha, it's the same old rhetoric from Trump again, I'm really tired of hearing it. Institutional speculation on housing is indeed disgusting, but will banning it actually lower housing prices? I doubt it. I want to hear why builders are falling; could it be... I get it. This policy sounds good in theory, but can it actually be implemented? The US housing market is a complex game of chess, it's not that simple.

View OriginalReply0

ShibaOnTheRun

· 01-08 12:48

This move is really clever, directly hitting the institution's vital point. --- Wait, are builders also falling? The logic is a bit tangled; need to think it through carefully. --- Another political show? Or are they really going to take serious action? Anyway, the retail investors are the main players. --- Institutions have enjoyed advantages for so many years; now it's their turn to be hit back by policies. Feels good. --- Is the housing price problem really so simple to solve? Do I believe it or not? --- Scaling operations are directly bottlenecked; this is the fundamental pain point. --- Builders are following to be buried with the rest, indicating the market has long realized that the entire logic needs to be reshaped. --- Ordinary people can't afford houses; blaming policies is less effective than blaming capital. So, this step is inevitable. --- Exit channels are blocked, and those cash flows are wasted. --- The discounting issue shows that the market knows this time it's serious.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainDetectiveBing

· 01-08 12:48

Now even developers are being坑了, anyone with a basic understanding of economic logic knows this policy has many loopholes. Developers are hit the hardest, once the supply chain is cut off, it's over, this is the real "invincible." Again and again, Trump always makes superficial statements, middle class still can't afford to buy. Wait, why are developers also falling? Could it be that once institutions stop buying, no one will buy? Now I understand, banning institutions will instead stifle the entire market, developers without scale have no profit. This move is truly impressive, restricting institutions ends up shooting themselves in the foot. Honestly, in real estate, policy changes can happen in a second, valuation models can collapse, maybe there's a reversal coming.

View OriginalReply0

StakeWhisperer

· 01-08 12:42

Institutional bottom-fishing is locked out, retail investors still can't afford it, this is the reality. Do you really think banning a order can save the middle class? When good news lands and the market drops, it shows the market simply doesn't believe. It's right for developers to fall; if no one takes the bait, who dares to develop wildly? Waiting to see the follow-up; it feels like this policy is just talk. This trick has been played for many years, and in the end, it's just to cut retail investors.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeNightmare

· 01-08 12:41

Really, institutions are locked out of real estate expansion, which might actually mess up the liquidity of the housing market. The decline in builders is probably because they have a large inventory to unload. Honestly, who will take over the risk? This policy seems to help ordinary people, but it actually feels like they are shooting themselves in the foot. Mid-income earners have waited so long to finally be able to buy the dip? Or is it just a paper victory? Those REIT institutions are really being pressed to the ground and rubbed this time. Honestly, once the policy is released, the cash flow model is completely invalidated. It's a disaster for these types of institutions. Retail investors see institutions collapsing, and they might feel good about it, but when they turn around, they see their wallets haven't grown thicker. The real estate market is inherently a zero-sum game; now it's just a matter of changing the rules.

View OriginalReply0

MoonRocketman

· 01-08 12:25

Damn, even builders are crashing? This indicates that the launch window has been forcibly closed, and the fuel injection plan has been completely shelved. This round of policies came too aggressively, RSI has already broken through the atmosphere ceiling, and the institutional track has directly fractured. The Bollinger Bands channel has already torn apart. From this angle coefficient, we still need to explore further down to the gravity resistance level to stop the bleeding. Wait, why are builders also following as casualties... This logic doesn't seem right, could the chain be more complex? A single policy cut has directly severed the entire industry chain's upward trajectory, and even builders who should benefit are unable to escape. It feels like this adjustment far exceeds expectations, and the stop-loss level needs to be moved further down.

View OriginalReply0