2026年2月25日 / 美国东部时间下午1:58 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
作者：梅根·塞鲁洛（Megan Cerullo），MoneyWatch记者
梅根·塞鲁洛是哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）旗下MoneyWatch网站驻纽约记者，报道小型企业、职场、医疗保健、消费者支出和个人理财等领域。她经常出现在哥伦比亚广播公司新闻24/7频道讨论自己的报道。
阅读完整简历
周二，在国情咨文演讲中，特朗普总统再次呼吁禁止机构投资者购买单户住宅，而同一天，民主党也提出了针对这一做法的竞争性打击方案。但专家表示，这两项计划都不太可能大幅提高住房可负担性。
特朗普上月首次在社交媒体帖子中提出这一想法，提议禁止拥有100套或更多房屋的机构投资者购买单户住宅，并写道”人们住在家里，而不是公司里”。民主党方面则提出了一项法案，将限制大型购房者的某些税收减免。
尽管这两种方法都旨在提高住房可负担性，但专家表示，它们未能解决房价上涨的核心驱动因素：住房短缺。高盛的估计显示，美国需要在正常建设速度之外，额外建造多达400万套住房，才能显著缓解住房短缺问题。
房地产投资初创公司Mogul的首席执行官亚历克斯·布莱克伍德（Alex Blackwood）告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻：”核心问题是我们供应不足，而这两项提案都没有真正解决这一核心问题。”
特朗普提案可能带来的帮助
在国情咨文演讲中，特朗普吹嘘了他1月份签署的禁止机构投资者购房的行政命令，指责这类公司推高了房价。他提到了来自休斯顿的两个孩子的母亲雷萨尔·威金斯（Raysall Wiggins），称她购房时屡屡受挫。
“她竞标了20套房子，但都输给了那些绕过检查的大型投资公司，”特朗普在演讲中说，”他们用现金支付，把这些房子变成出租房，偷走了她的美国梦。”
他补充道：”现在我要求国会将这项禁令永久化，因为我们想要的是人们的家——真的，我们想要的是人们的家，而不是公司的家。”
白宫在回应记者提问时，援引了特朗普在国情咨文中关于住房可负担性的言论。
专家表示，特朗普的提案在机构投资者占比较大的城市可能会产生更大影响，包括威金斯所在的休斯顿，以及佐治亚州的亚特兰大和北卡罗来纳州的夏洛特。
根据2023年城市研究所的分析，大型机构投资者持有全美约3.8%的单户租赁住房。不过，在亚特兰大，投资者持有这类住房的比例约为28%，夏洛特为20%，休斯顿为9%。
“这在这些问题严重的地方会产生重大影响，”美国家庭所有者联盟（American Property Owners’ Alliance）执行董事科林·艾伦（Collin Allen）告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻，”但从整体上看，他们持有的房屋比例仍然很小。”
Cotality的首席经济学家汤姆·马龙（Thom Malone）表示，限制投资者的努力反映了购房者在与资金雄厚的机构竞争时的挫败感。
“如果你要与投资者竞争，很难提出更有竞争力的报价，”他告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻。
民主党提案
与此同时，马萨诸塞州民主党参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦（Elizabeth Warren）和俄勒冈州民主党参议员杰夫·默克利（Jeff Merkley）周二提出了一项立法，禁止拥有50套或更多房屋的实体扣减与这些房产相关的折旧和抵押贷款利息。
该法案还将禁止投资者购买联邦机构出售的止赎房屋。
“这项法案将打击掠夺性房东，同时增加住房供应投资，促进美国人购房，”沃伦在一份声明中说。
共和党人和民主党人都认为，华尔街通过限制住房供应并推高美国人的住房成本，加剧了全国的住房危机。
艾伦表示，虽然限制投资者抢购房屋可能是解决住房可负担性问题的多管齐下策略的一部分，但仅针对他们本身无法解决问题。
“我们必须建造更多房屋，并考虑允许扩大供应的政策，”他说。
美国企业研究所（AEI）住房中心联合主任爱德华·平托（Edward Pinto）告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻，更有效的提案需要满足三个标准：降低土地成本、允许在较小地块上建造房屋，并降低建筑成本。
相比之下，限制机构投资者购房的能力”不会对提高住房可负担性产生太大影响——如果有影响的话”，平托说，”它只是给人一种正在采取积极行动的印象，因此在两党中可能都有一定吸引力，但无法解决任何问题。”
编辑：艾米·皮基（Aimee Picchi）
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/most-viral-moments-from-trumps-state-of-the-union-address/
Trump renews his call to ban institutional homebuyers as Democrats offer a competing crackdown
February 25, 2026 / 1:58 PM EST / CBS News
By
Megan Cerullo Reporter, MoneyWatch
Megan Cerullo is a New York-based reporter for CBS MoneyWatch covering small business, workplace, health care, consumer spending and personal finance topics. She regularly appears on CBS News 24/7 to discuss her reporting.
Read Full Bio
President Trump renewed his call to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes during his State of the Union address on Tuesday, the same day Democrats offered their own proposal to crack down on the practice. But experts say neither plan is likely to do much to make homes more affordable.
Mr. Trump first floated the idea last month in a social media post, proposing to bar institutional investors that own 100 or more homes from buying single-family properties and writing that “people live in homes, not corporations.” Democrats, for their part, introduced a bill that would limit certain tax deductions for large-scale homebuyers.
While both approaches aim to improve housing affordability, experts say they fall short of addressing the core driver of rising prices: a shortage of homes. Homebuilding cratered after the Great Recession of 2008-09 and has yet to catch up with demand.
The U.S. would need to build as many as 4 million additional homes beyond the normal pace of construction to significantly reduce the housing shortage, according to a Goldman Sachs estimate.
“The core problem is that we don’t have enough supply, and neither proposal really solves this core issue,” Alex Blackwood, CEO of Mogul, a real estate investment startup, told CBS News.
Where Trump’s proposal might help
In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Trump touted his January executive order to ban institutional investors from buying homes, blaming such firms for driving up home prices. He pointed to Raysall Wiggins, whom he described as a mom of two from Houston who had been stymied in her efforts to buy a home.
“She placed bids on 20 homes and lost all of those bids to gigantic investment firms that bypassed inspection,” Mr. Trump said in the speech. “Paid all cash and turned those houses into rentals, stealing away her American dream.”
He added, “And now I’m asking Congress to make that ban permanent, because homes for people — really, that’s what we want. We want homes for people, not for corporations.”
Reached for comment, the White House referred to Mr. Trump’s remarks on housing affordability during his State of the Union speech.
To be sure, Mr. Trump’s proposal could have a greater impact in cities where institutional investors have a large footprint, which include Wiggins’ home city of Houston, as well as Atlanta and Charlotte, North Carolina, experts said.
Large institutional investors own about 3.8% of all single-family rental homes nationwide, according to a 2023 Urban Institute analysis. In Atlanta, however, investors own about 28% of such homes, compared with 20% in Charlotte and 9% in Houston.
“It would make a significant difference in these places, where it’s an outsized issue,” Collin Allen, executive director of the American Property Owners’ Alliance, a homeowners’ advocacy group, told CBS News. “But they own a small share of homes overall.”
Thom Malone, principal economist at Cotality, a provider of housing market insights, said the push to limit investors reflects frustration among homebuyers competing with deep-pocketed institutions.
“If you’re up against an investor, you’re going to have a hard time putting together a more competitive bid,” he told CBS News.
A Democratic proposal
Meanwhile, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon on Tuesday introduced legislation to prevent entities that own 50 or more homes from deducting depreciation and mortgage interest tied to those properties.
The bill would also ban investors from buying foreclosed homes sold by federal agencies.
“This bill will take on predatory landlords while making investments to increase housing supply and boost homeownership for Americans,” Warren said in a statement.
Both Republicans and Democrats contend that Wall Street is exacerbating the nation’s housing crisis by limiting housing supply and driving up costs for Americans.
While limiting investors’ ability to snap up homes could be part of a multi-pronged approach to addressing housing affordability, targeting them alone won’t solve the issue, according to Allen.
“We have to build more homes, and look at policies that allow us to expand supply,” he said.
Edward Pinto, co-director of the AEI Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, told CBS News that a more effective proposal would meet three criteria: It would reduce land costs, allow homes to be built on smaller parcels and bring down construction costs.
Limiting institutional investors’ ability to purchase homes, by contrast, “is not going to have much of an impact — if any — on making homes more affordable,” Pinto said. “It just gives the impression of doing something positive, and so it may have some attractiveness on both sides of the aisle, but it’s not going to solve any problems.”
Edited by Aimee Picchi
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/most-viral-moments-from-trumps-state-of-the-union-address/
发表回复