저자: KevinPaffrath · 외국인
요약 보기
트럼프의 기관투자자 단독주택 매수 금지 발언(2026.01) 이후 임대주택 리츠가 하락한 것을 짚고, 네덜란드 buy-to-let 금지 사례(Roderdam effect)와 뉴욕대 연구를 근거로 기관투자자 규제는 임대공급 감소·임대료 상승·집값 상승을 낳아 역효과라고 주장. 본인 회사 Reinvest는 리노베이션 중심이라 영향이 없다고 언급하며 USDC 보유 사실도 밝힘.
다듬은 글
Stocks of the owners of institutional owners of single family rental homes have just been taken a huge hit. I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single family homes. Bill banning institutional investors from buying single family homes as outlined by the president.
But you have seen investors take on larger and larger shares of the overall uh housing stock. Donald Trump just attacked the housing industry, all in an effort to promote affordability by threatening to ban large institutions from competing against us Americans in buying homes. Now, the question is, is this a big win?
Are we finally going to get rid of greedy landlords? And are we finally going to have a chance to buy homes? as Americans who are trying to get into home ownership, especially millennials, Gen Z, are they going to have finally have a chance through this? And how is Donald Trump even going to do this?
Or is the government just breaking our legs with inflation only to hand us crutches and say, "See, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Well, in this video, I'm going to cover all of that. Donald Trump just said, what it means, what he can do, what has happened in the past, not just with bills in America.
We'll look at two specifically, but we'll also look at the exceptions in those, and what has happened based on studies in other countries so we can understand is Donald Trump's idea at face value a good one? We're going to break it all down and we'll talk about how this impacts investors. We'll even talk about my company, real estate artificial intelligence company Reinvest or House Hack, same company towards the end of the video because this has some really awesome implications for House Hack.
You'll see towards the end. But first, let's stick to the facts. I tweeted earlier when this news was announced that American Homes for Rent stock was suspended, down 8.33% as Donald Trump wants to ban large institutional investors from buying single family homes. No further details other than saying that we know that institutional ownership can carry many different definitions.
Some say it's more than a thousand homes, which could affect companies like American Homes for Rent or Invitation Homes. And so we immediately saw some of their stocks decline, though they've somewhat rebounded since then. When the news came out, we saw this collapse in Invitation Homes as well as American Homes for Rent, leading to suspended trading in the stock, showing you how rapidly a hit we saw in these particular stocks.
It's actually interesting because I made a purchase on some mortgage company plays this morning and sent an alert to the investors in my real estate investing uh and uh stock market alpha reports and they actually shot up even more after this news. By the way, if you want to be part of that, you can get that membership over at meetke.com.
You get all the courses and morning live streams and buyell alerts and everything. They shot up even more on this idea that, oh wow, if this makes home ownership more affordable, then more people are going to need loans. I don't know these short-term fluctuations in stocks really tell us anything. But I will tell you that was the reaction function of the market.
Oh, no. Really bad for big holders, good for lenders. We'll see if that lasts. But what did Donald Trump specifically say? because the wording is very important so we can understand timing and how this might actually function. So here's what Donald Trump said. For a very long time, buying and owning a home in America was considered the pinnacle of the American dream.
It was the reward for working hard and doing the right thing. But now because of record high inflation caused by Joe Biden and the Democrats, which let's be clear, Donald Trump was president when we passed the first CARES Act and contributed to a lot of the money printing. But Joe Biden did add to it.
The inflation reduction act we all know was inflationary upfront. All right. Anyway, uh that's always the irony of government is that government often achieves the opposite of what they say they want to achieve. But anyway, that American dream is increasingly out of reach for too many people, especially younger Americans.
Hence why I started by saying Gen Z and millennials. It is for that reason and much more that I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single family homes. And I will be calling on Congress to codify it. People live in homes, not corporations. Now, this is a very populous statement, mind you, because obviously even corporations end up renting out homes to guess what?
American people who live in them. So, this phraseiology though is popular and that's what Donald Trump likes to do in his messaging. He floats ideas to see what kind of reaction people come up with. It's kind of like when he floats uh with like a Fed chairperson like Hasset and all of a sudden all the bankers are like, "Oh no, that guy's a wet blanket." Or he throws up Kevin Worsh and then people are like, "Oh no, that's an even worse idea." Right?
This is what Donald Trump does. He throws up an idea, 50-year mortgage. Let's see how people react. Remember, Donald Trump wants to make sure Congress is controlled by Republicans at the end of this year. So, anything he can do to show that he is pushing for American affordability is in his opinion something that is going to help him gain control in midterms.
Now, with that said, Donald Trump goes on and says, "I will discuss this topic, including housing and affordability proposals and more at my speech in Davos in 2 weeks. Note that Davos takes place January 19th to 23rd, and Donald Trump is usually one of the first speakers at Davos." Okay, so why? Again, Trump is pushing for affordability here.
He wants to say he's working for the little guy. There are just some statistical problems and questions that come out of this. Obviously, the first and most important question that comes out of this is who is this actually going to affect? First, we have to remember this chart. This is pretty basic, and then we're going to get into the deep research.
Are you ready for this? Buckle up. Mom and pop landlords are by far the largest owner of single family renters. According to batch data, in total, 89.6% of single family home rentals are owned by landlords who hold between 1 and five properties. So obviously, we don't know what Donald Trump is going to call an institutional investor.
Is it going to be those with a thousand plus properties? If so, that would only affect about 1.6% of rental properties. And given that the idea is, hey, let's make it more affordable for people to buy homes, what are the odds that you would actually compete against one of those thousand plus property owners when you're buying a home?
Okay. Well, to understand that, you have to ask yourself, what percentage of homes are bid on by investors? So, in other words, when a house comes up for sale, how many of the buyers are usually investors? On average, investors buy about 20% of homes for sale. Some markets a little more, some markets a little less.
But if institutional home buyers only own 1.6% of properties, thousand plus property size, right? Then the odds of you showing up against one of those institutional home buyers would be 20% times 1.6%. So, in other words, maybe one in every 167 homes, you'd actually be up against one of those massive buyers.
Think Invitation Homes or American Homes for Rent. Again, these are companies that own 60 to 80,000 homes. This was really uncommon back in 2011, but it started becoming very common to where in 2022 there are quite a few pro companies that own a lot of single family homes like this. Obviously, if they set the threshold lower to let's say 50 properties, you might increase this to about 3 12% approximately.
Okay, fine. But for the vast majority of rentals, they are owned by people who own just one or two all the way up to five different properties. And this is pretty typical because when people go to sell, they don't necessarily or or when people go to move rather, they don't necessarily always sell. Sometimes they just turn their property into a rental and try to keep that property for generational wealth.
Okay, let's now understand the policy because obviously we look at this and we say, "Hey, like this sounds good." Like the theory is if we have fewer buyers, prices should go down, right? Ah, okay. Well, let's get into if that actually happens because as usual, life is typically a bit more complicated.
And that's why we like to go deep on this channel. I love going deep. And so I'm going to introduce something called the Roderdam effect. Now the Roderdam effect is a really interesting effect that occurred after uh in the Netherlands policy was instituted suggesting that there would be a ban or requiring a ban of buy to let purchases.
Let being lease in this case. So this study analyzed the effects of that Netherlands ban and they found that when they instituted the ban in 2022, while you would think that prices would go down, unfortunately the opposite actually happened. And the Netherlands, let's just put it this way before we even hit the notes of the study, the Netherlands got so freaking pissed about buying uh or or banning investors from buying rentals and they realized it was so bad that the Netherlands actually released this on their website.
You can't make this up. And I'm showing you part of this conclusion up front just because it's so shocking. Look at this. This is on the Netherlands website for tax policy. So the government website. Quote, "Do you want to buy a residential property as an investment to rent out or as a vacation home?
The property transfer tax for houses to buy has gone down. With this change, the government wants to make it more attractive for entrepreneurs to buy homes, to rent them out. This will increase the supply of rented properties and the government expects the tax reduction will lead to more housing development.
What? Wait, wait, wait. So, the Netherlands banned people from buying properties to rent them out and the effects were so bad that they actually turned around and starting started begging investors to buy homes again. How does this make sense, Kevin? There has to be something missing here. show us the actual deets.
Okay, no problem. So, here are the actual deets. Buy to live versus buy to let home ownership. So, take a look at this. The ban on buy tolease properties was found out that this policy significantly reduces investor purchases and increases owner occupancy. Okay, I mean that sounds good, right? Like we we want owner occupancy to go up, right?
Despite removing investor b demand, the ban did not reduce home prices or transaction volumes. Instead, neighborhoods just became more desirable to owner occupiers. The desiraability emerges through residential sorting. New homeowners have higher incomes and are often Dutchorn. They move shorter distances and stay longer than renters whom they replace.
Thus, promoting home ownership may improve neighborhood quality, but reduces mobility and housing opportunities for lower income renters. Hold on a second. Let's pause for a second. What? Basically, what they're saying is when you have a neighborhood that's 50% rentals, people might not spend money to fix up the garden or put in some new hardscaping or a new driveway because why would they?
They're a tenant. They don't benefit from the increasing home price. If anything, that would just increase their own rent. So tenants are generally disincentivized from improving a property. But when you ban rentals essentially in certain neighborhoods and eventually those rentals get replaced with homeowners, you end up driving up the desiraability of those neighborhoods, making those homes more expensive, not less expensive.
And so this research paper goes on to find that in the Netherlands prices actually in the short term rose by 2 to 3%. Take a look at this. Despite largely eliminating buyto- rent demand for housing, we do not detect significant declines in property values. In fact, they actually tend to rise 2 to 3% in the next two quarters.
So, in other words, there's a rapid increase in the prices of homes in just the next 6 months. And this is because when you remove investor buyers, it actually removes and kicks out the renters. So, you're basically getting rid of the quote unquote lower quality tenants, and you're making the rich richer in more bougie hoods.
Now, what about rentals? Well, the problem with rentals is that while the idea is that you push down home prices, you actually don't. You not only increase home prices, but you disincentivize selling. Investors who currently hold properties are less likely to actually sell their properties and increase selling proceeds.
Once again, increasing the cost of living, not decreasing it. This is a tendency with the government. The government tends to do this. Now, this study also went on to say that this is very different for value type investors or investors who rescue abandoned homes and offer liquidity or investing in renovations.
The buy to let tenants or or landlords that this you know legislation generally aims to ban are the people frankly I see this regularly like invitation homes and American homes for rent who just go in. They don't actually renovate the property. They don't actually improve it. They swoop in and just put up a for rent sign.
And so the same Dutch study found that the best investors were actually value investors who didn't compete with first-time home buyers because value investors who buy a fixer upper, they don't compete with first-time home buyers. It's usually just people who want to rent it out asis who compete with first-time home buyers.
This becomes very important because it adds nuance which is usually lost on Twitter or in short form content. But that's why you're here because you value learning every single video you watch and that's why you subscribe to the channel to get this content for free. But what people like is more rental supply because it reduces the costs of uh rentals because you add more rental supply.
People want lower cost of living. How do you lower the cost of living? You generally lower the cost of living by providing more supply. Now, more on that in just a moment, but I want to show you when we talk about value investors, which comes up in the discussion of what should we do and what kind of legislation have we seen in America before, it's worth remembering what a value investor buys.
This is an example of what a value investor buys. Look at the carpet. Look at the mold on the walls. Look at the bathrooms and the kitchen. This is not something that a first-time home buyer buys. This is something that a professional buys who understands how to actually make this property habitable.
If home buyers are required to buy something like this, then what you actually will find is that the home will just sit vacant. So with that said, let's go on to some additional research. What else did we find out? Well, not only did we find that after the Roderdam experiment, the Dutch government U-turned and basically said, "We want to incentivize entrepreneurs from buying homes," the exact opposite of what they said the very first time.
In other words, admitting that banning investors was such a failure that they uturned and actually tried incentivizing. But we also ended up finding that unfortunately when we banned investors from buying homes, rents also increased. So not only did values go up, but because the supply of rentals went down, you could find the Reason Foundation reports that banning investors has failed.
Roderdam and the Netherlands banned them in 2021 2022 which promptly triggered a 4% increase in rents, displaced lower inome families, and led to homes being purchased more often by richer and older buyers. Hardly a victory for affordability or equity. And this is the point. We have to be really careful when we hope that government can solve our problems because it's usually and ironically government that creates the first problem.
Then they try to solve more problems and they just make the problems worse. Now we can prove that government intervention is problematic by looking at the difference between Austin, Texas and New York. When we look at home prices in Austin, Texas from 2022, which is the light teal line here, compared to 2025 or the blue line, we could actually find that home prices in Texas, I wrote it down here somewhere.
There we go. Home prices in Texas have fallen by 21% from the 2022 peak. So in other words, home prices fell in Texas where it was easy to build. Austin, Texas has some of the loosest building requirements. And so when the government got out of the way, home prices actually came down. So if people want affordability, you want more building and you want to get the government out of the way.
If you want more government, then you should look at New York. New York has some of the strictest housing requirements in the country. And their home prices have risen 15% from 2022. They've gone in exactly the opposite direction. And that's why Red Fin inverses the lines here. You can see the blue is up 15%.
That's 2025 compared to 2022. So in other words, once again, the government gets in the way. that tend to make the problem worse, not better. Now, we did see that after the Roderdam study, investor purchases did fall 73%. And home purchases, like home buyer purchases did go up 13%. So, fewer investors bought and more home buyers bought.
That's good. Like, that's what they wanted, right? But again, sales supply from investors fell and the desiraability effect led home buyers to actually pay more money for those properties and rents increased because investor supply fell. Again, the exact opposite of trying to appeal to the mass people who are housing stressed.
In fact, there is very specific research on housing stress. And then let's talk about how Donald Trump could actually legally pull anything off. when it came to housing stress or people who needed to relocate because of job loss or divorce. Because private investors tend to offer more flexible rental arrangements, you have more mobility when you have investors in a market.
But because you actually reduce that rental supply through this ban, you actually unintentionally reduced housing mobility. So once again, the government got in the way and found out that when you get in the way, you tend to make problems worse. Now, is this the only study? I mean, maybe the United States is different.
Well, New York University at Stern also conducted a study on this. And this is what the New York University study had to say. Despite the presence of market power, I show that large landlords increased rental supply by half a home for every home purchased. and decreased rents on net due to lower operating costs at scale.
So basically, when large landlords were buying, not only did they introduce the one property they bought, but they actually increased overall rental supply by an extra half. So it's kind of like every home that an investor bought, 1.5 came up on the market. And the reason that is is because you incentivize development.
When you incentivize development, rents come down. New York University also suggests that when you allow investors to purchase properties, you tend to decrease rents because investors have lower operating costs at scale. Policy seeking to ban institutional investors or cap annual rent increases ironically increase rents by reducing the rental supply, the opposite of the intended effects on the rental market.
In other words, institutional investors tend to benefit renters by lowering rents and overall increasing the quality of rentals by renovating. Now, again, that's not to be confused with the quality of a homeowner neighborhood where you tend to go from, you know, slum lord to a quality rental to overimproved homeowner went allin, right?
Those are different levels of spending in neighborhoods. Anyway, let's now understand what can Donald Trump actually do? Like Donald Trump, can he do this? And has there been anything like this proposed before Congress before? Yes, there has been. And we're going to break it down. First, if Donald Trump just issued an executive order banning uh the government or utilizing the government to ban private ownership of real estate by corporations, he would likely violate the fifth amendment.
The fifth amendment bars the government from taking private property for public use absent compensation. That's eminent domain essentially. But otherwise inside of the fifth amendment, you also have what's known as the takings clause. And the takings clause is essentially a way of saying that the most principle universal law is that without the right to property, all other rights would become utterly useless.
Uh, in English, you can't take people's crap. And in rare exceptions, we're okay with you taking people's crap if you incentivize them, you pay them, and compensate them for it, and only for purposes that would broadly benefit the public domain, the public use. This has regularly been upheld. Eminent domain, it does not require constitutional recognition.
So, you could utilize eminent domain without an act of Congress. But again, you typically need a government benefit and you often have Congress involved, such as when we were building the railroads. Take a look at this. United States versus Gettysburg Electric Railway Company, an appropriation by Congress for continuing work on surveying blah blah blah, building out the railways.
These are basically what eminent domain uh these are the purposes that eminent domain is designed for, some kind of public good. Now, could you make the argument that removing institutional investors benefits the public good? Not based on research. Although Donald Trump is famous for making an argument and kind of just waiting years for the Supreme Court to decide because unfortunately that's the way things work here.
Now, can Donald Trump do this with Congress? Maybe. But remember, what are the odds that Donald Trump is actually going to keep a super majority in midterms? Well, according to Poly Market, just about 3%. I think most people expect they're either going to lose the Senate, the House, or both to Democrats, and we're probably going to have two years of gridlock in Congress, and nothing's going to get done.
Given that this is a midterm election year, it's also really unlikely that any kind of large legislation is going to get passed. But some would argue that a populist piece of legislation like banning institutional home ownership even though it's not founded in fact could be popular enough to eek in.
Now, has this ever been done before? Yes, we have introduced bills like this before. In fact, take a look at this. Here is a bill that previously failed. It's called the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act. And it basically proposed to tax any acquisition of a single family above a certain threshold by 50%.
Now this is how Congress could do it. They could tax the economics of owning real estate out of existence. That's essentially what countries like Ireland have done, though we'll talk about that in just a moment. And it's what the Netherlands really tried to do, but didn't do very well. And as you can see, they're now lowering taxes because they want to incentivize investors.
So anyway, here you could find that in this there's some really key exemptions. And this is really important. Here are the mechanics of how this works. So first, we're going to tax 50% of the fair market value, but only for the properties that exceed a certain threshold. The threshold is take the number of you homes you own currently, multiply it by 90%.
And then add 50. So, let's say you own a 100 homes. Take 50% or sorry, take 90% of that and then add 50. That would mean you're allowed to buy up to 140 homes. After that, you get taxed 50%. And that ratio changes every single year down from 90% to 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, and so on. And eventually it just squeezes it to where you really can't add more than 50 homes per year is the idea of this particular legislation without hitting the 50% tax.
This banned 1 to four units and it exempted critically it exempted foreclosures, federally funded properties and principal residences. Now a foreclosure exemption is actually really useful. You'll actually see that a few exemptions over here. But a foreclosure exemption is really useful because again when you look at a property like this, like who wants to buy this, right?
When you look at property like that, you need an investor who's going to be able to or willing to go in there and fix it up. Here's another example of one. You've probably seen this before. I've shown this Matterport on the channel before, but in case you're new here, just all you have to do is look at the kitchen in this place.
Okay? You need people to go into distressed properties like this, buy them, and fix them up. Homeowners aren't going to do that. That same property that I just showed you, this is the after scan of that property. And this is where you're going to see that there are actually two different types of landlord investors.
And we talked about that. Well, we talked about that a little bit earlier. The value investor and then the just buy and throw up the for rent sign uh investor, right? Somebody undergoing a substantial rehabilitation like this is often actually exempt from laws that have been proposed in America before.
So, not only are foreclosures exempt, but I want you to see it in the actual law yourself. So, this is the End Hedge Fund Control of America Act. And again, remember this did not pass, but it's a template for maybe what we would see. And what you end up finding is right here under exemptions, any exemption would apply to any entity such as a nonprofit or critically quote an organization primarily engaged in the construction or rehabilitation of single family homes.
Now, this applies to one to four single family homes. So, a duplex, triplex, forplex, right? But really what you're saying is, "Hey, hey, we're just going to ban the people who are going in buying and hodddling and not actually doing any work to fix up properties. So if you're buying fixers, you're actually totally exempt from the ban hedge fund America act in America act, right?" In addition, there are also some really funky definitions in here such as like you're only banned if you manage a pool of funds from investors or you have a fiduciary obligation to investors.
This is like some really funky wording that really shouldn't belong in law because it's such a massive loophole. Like let's be real, any corporation is typically not a fiduciary to you. Now corporate executives have a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders, but the corporation itself has only a duty to itself, not to people.
So that's a massive exemption right there, which is just I think sloppy writing of this bill. And to me, it's no surprise that it never passed. Operating companies that provide a product or service that are not pulled investment funds are also exempt, which to me, this just screams loopholes. Again, this never passed.
This was just an idea, but typically you get these massive exemptions that mean practically you don't really make much of a change anyway. It seems like they were really trying to target the hodlers now, which in other words, the buyers, not renovate, and then hodlers, right? Because there are also the renovate and then hodlers.
Different classes of investors, different styles. One's a value investor who tries to buy real estate below market value and fix it up. Like, I'll give you an example. This property right here that I showed you, this property sold in about an 800 maybe $825,000 neighborhood. and it sold for $600,000.
Now, a lot of people might look at, "Oh my gosh, it's gonna take more than $200,000 to fix it up." No, it might take $80,000 to fix it up. And that creates what's called a wedge or this profit opportunity where whoever buys this property, wonder who that could have been, uh would end up profiting potentially up to $140,000 on that acquisition.
Well, $140,000 profit on an acquisition at $600,000 after their fix up cost is a 140k return on $680 in cost. That's about a 20.5% return. That's really good for providing that value. Again, very different than just we're going to buy it and throw up a rent sign. Okay. So, what else? Well, there was another act.
It was called the Stop Wall Street Landlords Act of 2022. And guess what? It also exempted well not only did it exempt federally assisted buildings or principal residences, but it also exempted well, you guessed it, original construction or substantial rehabilitation shall not apply with respect to a single family home originally constructed or substantially rehabilitated by the taxpayer.
In other words, as long as you actually rehab the property, you wouldn't be subject to these laws anyway, which I actually argue would be a good thing. It actually makes it easier for businesses who try to provide value to the community by fixing up properties to buy those properties because you cut out all the other people who were too lazy to actually do any kind of improvements.
Now, outside of an executive order, which I don't think is likely from Donald Trump, uh, which I mean, it's possible, but we'll talk about it. But outside of some kind of executive order, which could run a foul with the, you know, fifth amendment and the takings clause, Congress might pass a bill like this.
But, as we've seen, we know what the implications are going to be of these sort of laws, and we know what kind of exceptions we typically see in these. There are some other strategies Donald Trump could try to take. He could try to choke out funding markets like FHAFA funding. So this is where big institutions sell uh mortgage back securities to government sponsored entities, government sponsored enterprises, whatever the GSC's, you know, the Fanny Freddies.
They could try to limit some of that. They could also try to institute some form of banking regulation via, you know, overall any kind of banking, frankly, regulation that we have where maybe Trump says large-scale blanket loans to real estate are just more risky and we're just not going to allow banks to make those loans unless they hold a lot more capital, effectively disincentivizing those sort of loans.
So, you could affect lending, you could affect uh the securizations market, you could potentially try to institute some form of anti- monopoly regulation given that a lot of these companies tend to dominate in certain markets. But you have to be careful because you don't want to kill the billto- rent sector.
The billto- rent sector is really important and that's where the same company, the reason foundation tells us the market doesn't like doing this. In other words, banning investors because really what increases or like what what would bring prices down would be building more. But instead, prices tend to go up because housing supply doesn't keep up because of quote persistent regulatory barriers, including zoning restrictions, minimum lot sizes, limits on multif family homes, and long costly permitting processes that just simply make it difficult, if not impossible, to meet the rise in demand in a cost-effective way.
In other words, the more barriers there are to building homes, the fewer homes tend to get built. This is not a surprise. In fact, it's exactly what we looked at when we compared Austin to New York real estate. So, this is the ripple effect that you're trying to avoid. And so, graphically, I put together a little image of how this could work.
You could see executive action, though that'll probably get caught up in courts. If you see investor divestment, you could end up decreasing rental supply and just increasing rents. You could also create shocks to individual markets and create these localized crashes where a lot of these institutions tend to operate.
I made a list here of where some of these companies operate. Here's Invitation Homes. Atlanta, the Carolinas, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Jacksonville, Nashville, Orlando, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Tampa, and Inland California. Ironically, almost every single one of those locations is a Republican stronghold.
So in other words, yes, these institutions have focused on Republican strongholds because there tends to be less building regulation. It makes it easier to buy blocks of homes that are newer and pretty consistent. Okay, what about American Homes for Rent? Ah, American Homes for Rent. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington.
also sounds pretty dang red. But again, while there might be a lot of concentration, we once again hit the element of when you ban investors, you tend to make a mistake and you end up regretting it and you end up wishing investors would come back. Then again, that's just the nature of government policy.
Government policy tends to create dead weight loss in the economy and often makes things worse rather than better. Okay. Now, a lot of people have been asking, "Oh, Kevin, what does this mean for a house hack?" Well, frankly, I shouldn't have to tell you because based on the research that I just provided you, it should be pretty obvious.
House hack or my real estate company, which provides . We do a few different things. Number one, we provide nd educational software. So you know we educate with real estate courses like we released something called the reinvest course and this is about building wealth through lectures trumpics getting a head start on your wealth right this is part of the alpha membership you can get at mekevin.com that's why it's the membership by reinvest because we've got the reinvest course in here but reinvest or house hack same company also has this artificial intelligence product so for us we're very diversified in what we do our real estate artificial intelligence product is out uh and we will continue to release or increase the price as we release new features with some new features coming out this week that I'm very excited for.
Now, that said, a lot of people are going, "Oh, but Kevin, what about rentals?" That's fine. See, the benefit for House Hack or my company is that we don't just buy properties and rent them out. We buy the crappiest homes on the street. we buy the worst home on the street so we could turn around and rehab it, which is historically exempted from these limits in almost all legislation we've seen in America anyway.
And since rental supply, like if even if then we had some kind of institutional ban of housing ownership and somehow house hack was large enough to qualify for it, we've seen what happened. If you're not renovating homes, first of all, you're exempt if you're renovating homes, so it would make no difference to house hack.
But what it broadly would do is since it would decrease rental supply, constraining rental supply, we'd see rents go up and home values go up. So once again, ironically, it would just benefit companies that already own homes. It would benefit companies like Invitation Homes and American Homes for Rent on the existing homes that they own because rents would go up and values would go up.
Their entire portfolio would get a big lift without them even lifting a finger. It would be a big benefit to them, not a detriment. And if institutional investors had to just turn around and only do fixeruppers, well, that might make a big difference for the logistics of these other companies. It make no difference for us cuz that's what we do anyway.
I've regularly complained that I hate these companies that just buy and stick up a rent sign and don't do anything for neighborhoods. Now, what else are we doing? Because, see, my goal is always to be 10 steps ahead. I personally think that my company is designed to be the Berkshire Hathaway of the future.
Now, I know that's like it might sound far-fetched or like an eye roller, but I want you to know that that's my vision. It's kind of like shoot for the moon and if you miss, you end up amongst the stars, right? It's like have a goal, right? Uh, you know, like I have a vision board on the wall I talked about on my daily wealth, you know, 20 million ARR from our software, right?
That's my vision board. I I have goals. I have hopes. But in renaming the company from House Hack to Reinvest, the reason we actually did that had nothing to do with artificial intelligence. It actually had a lot to do with making home ownership possible through stable coins like USDC. Yeah, that's circles USDC.
And yeah, I happen to be a shareholder of Circle because I think they went round trip after IPO. And so I started buying the dip after they bounced off of the 60 level, which I think, you know, is potentially a good spot to buy them because their financials are really good. But this isn't a video topic on what stock to buy like USDC, you know, Circle.
It's a video topic on, huh, so housing policies that Donald Trump is looking to implement might not actually do what he's trying to accomplish. Donald Trump is famous for holding up a balloon saying, "Hey, should I do this?" getting a lot of popular support or criticism or commentary and then either nothing happens or something happens with a million different exemptions.
So, for now, we kind of just have to sit around and twiddle our thumbs and wait to see what actually happens. We'll get a speech in Davos, but Davos is usually not where he signs executive orders. He'll just talk about how he's working on affordability. And I doubt he'll actually announce anything other than maybe we're going to introduce a bill to Congress.
Okay. Well, if you hear that, then you can pretty much expect that nothing is going to happen because it's a midterm year and you generally don't see anything happen. Now, going back to this making home ownership possible through a stable coin like USC, that's the whole purpose of why I renamed the company reinvest real estate invest or reinvest your profits or proceeds or whatever into real estate in a liquid manner, in a transactable model.
I don't want to go too detailed on this because obviously there's some benefit to not revealing everything that you're going to do. So, I'll just sort of leave this as a little bit of a hint of something that we are actively and aggressively working on and we've got plenty of a war chest raised now to make it happen pretty soon.
Now, I'd like to go through a few other examples and then let's finish this off because it's getting a little bit long. Canada has tried to ban investors. They couldn't touch domestic buyers. Their laws didn't allow them to touch domestic buyers, so they only ended up banning foreign investors. The Kiwis did this as well.
Ireland, they interestingly tried to do a if you buy more than 10 houses in one year, we will increase your tax duties from 1 to 2% to 10% as a stamp duty on bulk buys of real estate. If you buy your 11th property, it affects all 10. Now, the president can't tax without Congress. We know that and so that's unlikely to happen from Trump and the same issues that you saw in the Netherlands are what you're expecting in Ireland where you're seeing regular research and complaint that investment properties the investment property in market the investment property market in Ireland constrained providing less available or fewer available homes for people to actually buy because investors are usually the ones who are building anyway.
Take a look at this. Sherry Fitzgerald estimates that the private rental sector funds uh have invested €3.7 billion euros in the Irish property market since 2018. The majority of those funds are pension funds driven by customers requirements for long steady income growth. They're the very customers living in the homes anyway.
And research on investment property markets in Ireland carried out by the certain company found that the vast majority of the capital spent on private uh rental sector was built to rent in 2021 and the vast majority comes from investment funds. And if you restrict investment, you restrict building. So they're seeing the same problems.
This isn't unique to America where we've seen the problems via Stern or the Netherlands via the Roderdam issue or Ireland with the stamp taxes. The bottom line is this is Donald Trump trying to implement a populist policy or at least talk about all these things he's going to do as long as you vote for us in midterms.
The reality is it's unlikely to change anything. And even if it does, it will be loaded up with failures that actually end up making housing more unaffordable, actually benefit existing homeowners and the wealthy incumbent homeowners, as they're called in the Roderdam study, and you'll make it harder for people to rent a property because supply will decline.
So, I hate to say it, but all in all, I like that facts matter. And when you look at the facts, this is a stupid policy. Donald Trump would simply make things worse. Now, what could he do? He could incentivize building. If you incentivize building, you will reduce the cost of housing. If only there was a governor in 2021 who could have led the largest state in the country to do exactly that.
Because maybe they happened to know that the way to reduce housing costs is to build more. And maybe if you streamline building permits across an entire state and you enable better transportation between large cities and areas just outside of large cities to rapidly expand and build more master plan communities with new schools and fire departments and police departments and infrastructure uh and you know malls or whatever people want.
Then you have more affordable housing because you give people more choice. But instead, and once again, the government chooses to stand in the way. & .
Comments 0