‘Property Profiteers’: The Speculative Forces Shaping U.S. Housing
Speculative real estate investment is the acquisition of properties primarily intending to capitalize on short-term market fluctuations and rapid value appreciation for quick resale profits. It has become a significant challenge in housing markets worldwide, including the United States. Driven by the prospect of quick profits from property value appreciation, speculative investment has heightened housing shortages and contributed to rising property prices, making it increasingly difficult for residents to afford homes. In the years following the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, foreign and institutional investments, particularly by private equity firms, have rapidly reshaped the U.S. housing landscape. These investors acquire vast quantities of single- and multi-family properties, transforming ownership patterns and inflating prices in high-demand urban areas (Americans for Financial Reform, 2022).
The surge of investment has created substantial challenges for lower- and middle-income purchasers, including those buying a home for the first time, to stay competitive. A recent American Financial Reform report found that private equity firms now control over 1.6 million housing units in the U.S., including one million apartment units and nearly 240,000 single-family rental homes (Americans for Financial Reform, 2022). Investors can often make quick cash offers, outmaneuvering residents dependent on slower financing. This has increased prices in markets with already limited supply, such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York, intensifying the affordability crisis for residents. Given the severity of this issue, effective policy interventions are urgently needed to stabilize prices, ensure housing affordability, and prevent homes from being treated purely as commodities for speculative gain.
In major U.S. cities, speculative investors often purchase properties only to leave them vacant, expecting a significant return when prices rise. This approach reduces the availability of affordable housing and contributes directly to price inflation, turning homes into assets for profit rather than fulfilling their social purpose (Schuetz, 2022). For example, properties that could otherwise house residents are held off the market, exacerbating housing shortages and making it increasingly difficult for individuals and families to find affordable accommodation. In California, for instance, the state’s high cost of housing has prompted policymakers to address this trend with legislation aimed at bulk purchases by investors in foreclosure auctions (Liu et al., 2013).
The scale of speculative investment by foreign entities and large firms is particularly concerning in the United States, where traditionally, fewer restrictions have been placed on foreign property acquisitions. Recognizing the destabilizing effects, urban and public policy interventions, specifically through taxation or in legal forms, are essential to reducing speculative influence in the housing market. Several countries have developed practical approaches to limit speculative real estate investment, particularly by imposing targeted taxes and tightening financial regulations. These measures can serve as models for U.S. policymakers seeking to stabilize housing prices and reduce the impact of speculative investment (Hao, 2010).
The United Kingdom uses capital gains and stamp duty taxes to deter speculative property investment. Specifically, second homes and investment properties are subject to increased taxes on capital gains, reducing the attractiveness of rapid buying and reselling. In addition, the United Kingdom applies additional stamp duty to foreign investors, thereby leveling the playing field for domestic buyers (Liu et al., 2013). These tax policies reduce the profit margins for short-term investors, disincentivizing speculative flipping and helping to keep property prices more stable for residents. Implementing similar capital gains taxes and stamp duties in the United States could help achieve similar stability in urban housing markets.
Germany’s policies are notable for prioritizing long-term ownership and tenant protections, discouraging speculative investment through high transaction taxes, and a robust rental culture. Property buyers in Germany are subject to a real estate transfer tax, with rates that vary by region and can reach up to 6.5% (Liu et al., 2013). Additionally, Germany’s housing finance system, emphasizing long-term, fixed-rate mortgages, further stabilizes the market by reducing the likelihood of high turnover and speculative ownership. The legal framework governing property transactions is comprehensive. It aims to maintain housing as a social asset rather than a speculative one through laws like the “Residential Building Law,” which regulates development and ownership standards (Hao, 2010). The U.S. could consider similar long-term ownership incentives and tenant protections to create a more stable and accessible housing market.
Singapore has adopted a rigorous Seller’s Stamp Duty (SSD) on properties sold within a short period, imposing rates as high as 16% on homes sold within the first year of purchase. This measure has effectively curbed speculative investment, particularly by foreign buyers looking for quick profits (Liu et al., 2013). Furthermore, Singapore limits foreign investors' loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, requiring higher down payments that discourage speculative purchases. Adopting similar measures in the United States could help prevent speculative investment in urban markets. For example, by implementing higher taxes on properties resold within one or two years, the United States could reduce incentives for flipping, while tighter LTV ratios for foreign buyers would prioritize financing for local, long-term owners.
In response to the growing influence of speculative investments, the United States has begun introducing policies that prioritize residents and discourage bulk purchases by large investors. California’s Assembly Bill 1079, for instance, offers tenants and local governments the first right to purchase foreclosed properties before they are auctioned to investors (Americans for Financial Reform, 2022). This gives community-focused buyers an advantage, preventing large firms from monopolizing foreclosed properties. Additionally, cities like San Francisco and Oakland have introduced vacancy taxes that penalize owners who leave properties vacant, creating a disincentive for speculative investors to hold properties solely for price appreciation (Schuetz, 2022).
Federal initiatives have also begun to recognize the need for more stringent regulations on foreign investment. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) now scrutinizes foreign acquisitions near sensitive infrastructure, such as military installations, for national security and market stability (Americans for Financial Reform, 2022). Expanding CFIUS’s role to include urban housing markets would enable the government to limit foreign investments that are exacerbating housing shortages, particularly in high-demand areas.
Speculative investment in real estate has reshaped the American housing market, contributing to affordability challenges and displacing residents in many urban areas. By introducing taxes, financial regulations, and legal reforms that mirror successful international examples, U.S. policymakers can curb speculative real estate investment, promoting a more equitable housing landscape where homes serve as places of residence rather than as assets for short-term gain.
Edited by Justin Hahm
References
Valdés Viera, O. (2022). Private equity and the housing market: A looming crisis? Americans for Financial Reform. https://ourfinancialsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/AFR_Research_Memo_PEHousing_Hearing_6-28-22.pdf
Baybeck, B., Berry, W. D., & Siegel, D. A. (2011). A strategic theory of policy diffusion via intergovernmental competition. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 711–727.
Derthick, M. (2007). Where federalism didn’t fail: Response to Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review, 67(Suppl. 1), 68–78.
Hao, Y. (2010). China's housing observation and international comparison (2nd ed.). Beijing: China Architecture Press.
Liu, Q., Luo, Q., & Xie, Y. (2013). A study of the national policy on suppressing real estate speculation: Based on the comparative analysis of China, Britain, Singapore, and Germany. International Conference on Education Technology and Management Science (ICETMS), Atlantis Press, 179–182.
Schuetz, J. (2022). Fixer upper: How to repair America’s broken housing systems. Brookings Institution Press.
Library of Congress. (1900). Ugly Gridions. Speculative housing in London about 1900 [Photography]. https://picryl.com/media/ugly-gridirons-speculative-housing-in-london-about-1900-vb-plate-three-in-section
