They'll buy up property management companies who will then buy the houses to rent out.

Blackrock splits into redrock, orangerock, yellowrock, etc.

All owned by rainbowrock (a blackrock® company).

Because it's not a ban on private equity purchasing homes, it's a limit of 350 going forward. Because as if that limit isn't absurdly high (it should be more like 3) it's also unlikely to hold up in court. They should have levied increasing taxes.

Change in the definition of what a single family home is in 3, 2, 1....

If there is no enforcement then why bother to write laws down?

I see an awful lot of non-enforcement of laws that are already on the books.

It's actually not bad, prevents shell games, but still allows them to keep properties they already own and allows up to 350 new properties larger than single family.

A potential hack would be offering loans to businesses to buy 350, and if theyvreally want to push the limits they can try to buy the smaller companies which just so happens to transfer their properties.

Yeah, what's the gaping truck-sized loophole no one's reporting on yet?

Apparently PE was already getting out of the market? A how money works video said that they represented ~25% of recent home sales despite having ~7% of homes.

An important distinction here is that BlackRock is not a PE firm. They are an asset management company. Now, that's not to say they're not in the business of buying up homes, just that they're not PE. Blackstone is the PE firm which has been buying up single family homes. They're different companies. Both evil though.

My first thought was "what is a private equity firm" really and does the law have provisions for firms that are owned by private equity.

If some numbered corporation in Delaware owns a house and private equity owns a controlling stake in that firm can it still own housing.

What I'm asking is what is the blood quantum of a cooperation.

They realize the market is at peak so they're going to get out anyway.

Or, better theory, they've grandfathered in existing arrangements so it's just keeping out additional PE firms.

Hopefully they're just being taxed at increased rates that make profit unviable and allows them to unload the houses normally. I don't really know how the legislation works though.

I'd start with taxing 100% property taxes of empty properties as a logical next step.

Senate vote was 85-5

Ron Johnson of Wisconsin Mike Lee of Utah Rand Paul of Kentucky Rick Scott of Florida Tommy Tuberville of Alabama

Guessing Trump knew it would be a losing battle to veto it. Also, it should make him look better with him having to do nothing but stay out of the way

Alternative to CBS.

I'm out of the loop, what's wrong with CBS news?

Does this not apply to at least some apartments? And a lot more now that it just became federal law?

Gonna need more than 45 DNC for that.

Its interesting the way legislation gets copied around the world - watching the cannabis reform was a great example.

Mamdani might also lead the way in a similar sense I'm hoping.

Hopefully both of these blaze some trails for the majority of us...

And let's not forget: the younger people of today are the older people of tomorrow. Except for those who are handed things due to generational wealth, we're looking at an extremely large contingent of the country (world?) which will own nothing. Perhaps the largest ever such contingent. Does not seem like a sustainable situation over any extended term.

ok, so this Bill was passed by a Supermajority (2/3+ majority) in Congress, which means that it doesn't require the President's approval to become law. While his signature would be nice and expedient, it's it's required. So...

After a prescribed period of time (which has now passed) it becomes law automatically (which has now happened). Yay!

Under normal circumstances, a law in Congress gets passed by a simple majority (51%). That requires the President to sign off (or they can veto). A lack of signature can act as a "pocket veto" during which the Bill will expire and require a new House/Senate vote to resubmit. But that didn't happen this time.

Trump got handed a slam-dunk Supermajoority-approved Bill that he decided not to sign and hold hostage for his crybaby shitty-diaper election cheating bill. He lost that fight, and this Supermajority-approved housing bill has now been approved anyway. He could have vetoed it, but it just would have gone back to Congress who would have, again, Supermajority voted to approve it, overriding his veto, and embarrassing him further when it passed anyway.

So fuck Trump and his Election Cheating Act, and we get this (weak-ass) bipartisan housing bill anyway.

Quick! Someone dangle something shiny in front of him before the window closes!

Maybe hold an award ceremony from “FIFÔ. They are award him the FIFÅ Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. That might distract him long enough…

You didn't expect this to actually fix the problem did you? Sorry, too much money to be made.

We’ve had low interest rates propping up the stock market and speculative bubbles for far too long. This is why there has been too much cheap capital chasing returns over the last decade.

It’s a bubble of its own which we are starting to see pop in a number of sectors. (Private Equity firms and banks starting to show signs of strain, zombie businesses going under, AI bubble running out of capital sources and now tapping retail investors, crypto crash, etc.)

However this president is intent on getting us to 0% interest rates which will reverse that progress. Once the asset class can tap into essentially free money all of this progress will be undone.

If PE can get free capital every 7 years and sit on an appreciating asset while making renters pay for it, they will. If PE has to refinance that asset every 7 years at 7% or 8% interest suddenly the math doesn’t work especially in a slumping housing market.

In Canada, these houses are all being bought by Mom and pop Boomer investors, leveraging equity of houses they paid 12 acorns for.

They need to be forced to sell en mass and the limit needs to be was lower like 5 not 350

Private Equity's housing stock is actually pretty small when compared against so-called "Mom and Pop" landlords. This law creates exceptions for Mom-and-Pops that own ten properties or less.

PE accounts for an average of 2.4% of home ownership in the US. Mom-and-Pops take up another 6.5%, nearly 3x as much. This law will have an outsized impact on sunbelt cities where PE owns double-digits portions of the market, but most of the country won't perceive these changes at all.