Business
Trump moves to ban home purchases by institutional investors
Danielle KayeBusiness reporter
Houston Chronicle via Getty ImagesUS President Donald Trump has said he will move to ban big corporate investors from buying single-family homes, in a bid to make housing more affordable for Americans.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump said he would ask Congress to “codify” the plan and would discuss it further at the Davos World Economic Forum later this month.
The pledge bolstered an idea that has been circulating for years among housing advocates and lawmakers, in response to Wall Street’s increased role in America’s residential housing market. But some analysts question the extent to which a ban would affect prices.
Shares of Blackstone, one of the largest private equity buyers, fell more than 5% on Wednesday.
“That American Dream is increasingly out of reach for far too many people, especially younger Americans,” Trump said on social media, referring to home ownership.
“People live in homes, not corporations.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the details of a possible ban, including whether it would require congressional approval.
Trump’s comments on Wednesday come as his administration faces growing public pessimism about his handling of the economy. He has in recent weeks sought to allay voter anxiety about the cost of living in the US, with home affordability high on the list of Americans’ concerns.
Sam Garin, a spokesperson for an advocacy group that has raised alarm about the effect of private equity ownership on renters, said her group welcomed Trump’s move.
“We eagerly await the details of what this policy will actually entail,” said Garin, of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project, adding: “But we urge policymakers not to stop there.”
Since the 2008 financial crisis led to a wave of foreclosures, Wall Street investors such as Blackstone and other private equity firms have bought tens of thousands of homes to rent out, becoming major landlords, especially in certain markets.
Their role has drawn scrutiny from lawmakers in both political parties, who have blamed the firms for helping to push up the cost of renting and buying.
On Wednesday, Ohio Republican Senator Bernie Moreno, said he would introduce legislation to codify Trump’s proposal.
Shares of property firms fell on Wednesday after Trump’s comments. Builders FirstSource, a building products supplier, dropped more than 5%, while Invitation Homes, which owns single-family homes, fell 6%.
But some housing industry analysts questioned whether a ban would make much of a dent in home prices, given the relatively small role of institutional investors in the overall market.
Laurie Goodman, a fellow at the Urban Institute, said the impact of a ban would depend in part on how “large” investors are defined.
Blackstone has said that institutions own 0.5% of all single-family homes in the US.
Goodman said that her research found that institutional investors, when defined as those that own at least 1,000 units in three or more locations, own about 4% of the single-family market.
That number, she added, has held steady over the past few years, as purchases have slowed amid high interest rates and high home prices.
Goodman said a proposal for a ban raised other questions, such as how existing properties owned by institutional investors would be handled.
She said instead of an outright ban, “institutional investors should be required to provide more for their tenants”.
Business
Government to water down business rate rise for pubs
Simon Jack,BBC Business Editorand
Lucy Hooker,Business reporter
Getty ImagesA climbdown on forthcoming increases to the business rates bills faced by pubs in England is set to be announced by the government in the next few days.
The government is expected to say it will make changes to how pubs’ business rates are calculated, resulting in smaller rises to bills.
Treasury officials say they have recognised the financial difficulties facing many pubs after sharp rises in the rateable value of their premises.
The move follows pressure from landlords and industry groups that included more than 1,000 pubs banning Labour MPs from their premises.
The BBC understands it will apply only to pubs and not the whole hospitality sector.
The Treasury is also thought to be ready to relax licensing rules to allow longer opening and more pavement areas for drinking.
In her November Budget, Chancellor Rachel Reeves scaled back business rate discounts that have been in force since the pandemic from 75% to 40% – and announced that there would be no discount at all from April.
That, combined with big upward adjustments to rateable values of pub premises, left landlords with the prospect of much higher rates bills.
A campaign to dilute the impact of these rises has been gaining traction in recent weeks, with pub owners and industry groups lobbying for more support.
Conversations between the government and the hospitality sector were “ongoing”, DWP minister Dame Diana Johnson said.
Speaking to Radio 4’s PM programme, she said: “We as a government want to make business rates fairer but you’ll also know we’re coming to the end of the transitional relief that was available because of Covid.”
On Wednesday Labour MPs called on the government to rethink its support for the industry.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: “What has happened is that over Christmas Labour MPs were banned from every single pub they tried to get into… so now they are pushing for a U-turn.”
She said the Conservatives had a “much better plan” which was to “slash business rates for all of the High Street, not just pubs”. She said business rates bills of less than £110,000 would be scrapped completely.
Reform also welcomed the climbdown, saying “pubs have already been lumbered with astronomical energy costs”.
The party’s deputy leader Richard Tice said: “Pubs are the backbone of our communities and a huge part of British heritage. Their closures would be a cultural catastrophe as much as an economic one.”
To calculate a pub’s business rate bill the rateable value of its premises is multiplied by a set figure: “the multiplier”.
The government had already offered some relief by reducing the multiplier for pubs, and may be about to reduce it further.
Alternatively they could boost the £4.3bn “transitional relief” fund brought in to ease the impact of withdrawing support following the pandemic.
Geoff RobbinsGeoff Robbins, who owns the Wheatsheaf Pub in Faringdon, Oxfordshire with his wife Jo, said it was “a great relief” that more help was on the way.
His rates are due to rise by around 80% over the next three years. He needs a discount on most of that, he reckons, after factoring in higher gas, electricity and staffing costs.
“Rates are a tax against your business whether you make a profit or loss… you’ve got to pay, there’s no way round it,” said Geoff, who got in touch with BBC Your Voice.
Industry groups also welcomed news there would be additional help.
Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, said it was “potentially a huge win” for the sector.
“This could save locals, jobs, and means publicans can breathe a huge sigh of relief,” she said.
Kate Nicholls, chair of UK Hospitality, representing the industry, said the support should apply not just to pubs, but to all hospitality businesses affected by rising rates, including cafés and restaurants.
“We need a hospitality-wide solution, which is why the government should implement the maximum possible 20p discount to the multiplier for all hospitality properties,” she said.
Other sectors are calling for the support to be even broader, to include live music venues, theatres, galleries, gyms and retailers.
Unpicking the recent Budget would be seen by many as another U-turn following climbdowns on winter fuel payments, disability benefits and inheritance tax on farms and family businesses.
Shadow business and trade secretary Andrew Griffith said the change showed Rachel Reeves’ Budget was “falling apart”.
“Labour were wrong to attack pubs and now have been forced into another screeching U-turn,” he said.
Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesperson Daisy Cooper said: “This is literally the last chance saloon for our treasured pubs and high streets – so the government must U-turn, today.
“These businesses are worried sick, making decisions now, and can’t wait a minute longer.”
The calculation of business rates is an issue that is devolved in all four UK nations.
The discount on rates during the pandemic only applied to hospitality businesses in England.
Scottish businesses are waiting for the Budget there next week to hear how the Edinburgh government will approach the issue.
Pubs there will hope the Scottish government follows the UK government in offering some relief.
Additional reporting by Kris Bramwell

Business
RFK Jr.’s new food guidelines could boost beaten down fast-casual chains like Chipotle and Sweetgreen
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attends a briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 7, 2026.
Kevin Lamarque | Reuters
New federal dietary recommendations have sparked mixed reactions from the embattled restaurant industry, as changing guidelines could encourage Americans to dine out less often or choose from a smaller pool of restaurants when they do leave home.
The Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture unveiled the nutrition guidelines on Wednesday. The recommendations, which are updated every five years, pushed for higher consumption of protein and full-fat dairy and reduced intake of processed foods and sugary drinks.
The guidelines are primarily a public health tool for federal agencies, health-care providers and nutrition experts, so it’s unclear how much they will influence individual consumer choices. Although the recommendations largely focus on eating at home, they lightly touched on the restaurant industry as well.
“When dining out, choose nutrient-dense options,” the guidelines advise.
While the recommendations could discourage Americans from spending at restaurants — especially at a time when high inflation has curbed trips to dine out — some pockets of the industry had a positive reaction to the changes. The changes could give a particular boost to struggling fast-casual chains like Sweetgreen and Chipotle, which have long touted the type of natural ingredients championed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make American Healthy Again” movement.
One lobbying executive who represents restaurant companies, whose organization was involved in meetings with the White House on the new guidelines, said the outcome could have been “far worse” for the sector. The person, who declined to be named because their organization was involved in private discussions, said the end result was better for the industry than proposed guidance from earlier in 2025 was.
However, the executive said they are still concerned the guidelines could encourage Americans to eat at home when diners have affordable options to incorporate those foods at restaurants. That implication could also ruffle feathers among restaurant chains and their franchisees.
Despite those potential concerns from some, industry lobbying group the National Restaurant Association backed the new guidelines.
“Now, more than ever, restaurant operators are offering a wider variety of options, allowing consumers to choose what best fits their dietary needs, preferences, and lifestyles. We congratulate Secretary Kennedy and the Trump Administration on the release of the new guidelines and look forward to continued collaboration with policymakers to ensure that nutrition guidance remains practical, flexible, and supportive of access and innovation,” National Restaurant Association spokesman Sean Kennedy said in a statement to CNBC.
Restaurant franchise lobbyist the International Franchise Association, called the approach “nuanced” and said it may limit the number of price increases restaurants have to make.
“Fortunately, the more nuanced approach of these guidelines helps ensure our members will not have to raise prices and that consumers can continue to make their own choices,” the group said. “Any future regulations or guidance must keep potential cost increases top of mind, as restaurant owners already face numerous regulatory burdens and supply chain challenges, which most often disproportionately affect small business owners, like franchisees, and ultimately, American consumers.”
How fast casual could benefit
Some of the most supportive reactions came from chains that had been beaten down in 2025, including Chipotle and Sweetgreen. Both fast-casual names saw pullbacks from younger consumers who continue to struggle in a K-shaped economy, where spending has concentrated more among the highest earners.
Sweetgreen, which was the biggest restaurant sector laggard last year with a nearly 80% stock decline, cheered the new guidelines.
A spokesperson told CNBC in a statement: “We keep ultra-processed ingredients and added sugars out of our restaurants, source transparently from partners we know and trust, and cook our food from scratch. That is why we are excited to see the new Food Pyramid so clearly emphasizing whole, real, and unprocessed foods.”
Sweetgreen founder and CEO Jonathan Neman wrote on X, “The U.S. government is for the 1st time urging Americans to avoid highly processed food, added sugar, and refined carbohydrates. Today, the government finally told the American people the truth. Avoid highly processed food (which is 70% of a child’s diet). Avoid refined carbohydrates. CELEBRATE REAL FOOD… LFG!”
Chipotle will debut a High Protein Menu on Tuesday, December 23, with items ranging from 15 to 81 grams of protein per item.
Source: Chipotle Mexican Grill
Similarly, Chipotle, which recently debuted a high protein and GLP-1 friendly menu, told CNBC it has already catered to similar dietary guidelines.
“Our menu of real ingredients makes it easy to follow the new dietary guidelines that prioritize high-quality protein, healthy fats, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains—while limiting highly processed foods and refined carbohydrates,” Chipotle spokeswoman Laurie Schalow said in a statement. “With real food made from wholesome ingredients—without artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives—Chipotle offers choices that fit a balanced, modern approach to eating.”
The company’s stock was down nearly 40% in 2025, but some Wall Street analysts have pointed to it as a potential winner in the new GLP-1 landscape, where users of the drugs often opt for smaller portions with more protein.
Kennedy has spearheaded the MAHA platform, championing a diet based on whole foods to prevent chronic disease. At times, his beliefs, like his advocacy for beef tallow and encouragement of more red meat in diets, have run afoul of both public health experts and industry players, like McDonald’s.
Kennedy’s criticism of processed foods has put fast-food chains on the defensive, although President Donald Trump is a vocal and loyal fan, particularly of McDonald’s.
Business
Planning To Use Your EPF Money To Pay Off Debts? Here’s What It Could Cost You
For thousands of salaried individuals, a familiar dilemma emerges a few years after buying a home. On one hand lies the home loan statement, with its stubborn outstanding balance and monthly EMI. On the other sits the Employee Provident Fund (EPF) passbook, steadily growing with every contribution and annual interest credit. The question that naturally follows is simple but consequential: should you dip into your EPF savings to repay the home loan and become debt-free? (News18 Hindi)

At first glance, the idea appears appealing. Closing a home loan using EPF funds promises immediate relief from EMIs, emotional comfort and the satisfaction of owning a house outright. However, financial experts caution that what feels like a smart short-term move could quietly weaken long-term financial security. (News18 Hindi)

EPF is not just another savings account. It is a structured, compulsory retirement instrument designed to build wealth steadily over decades. Contributions made by employees and employers earn an annual interest of around 8.25%, compounded over time. Crucially, these returns are entirely tax-free, making EPF one of the most efficient long-term investment tools available to salaried individuals. (AI-Generated Image)

Home loans, in contrast, are structured liabilities that become easier to manage with time. As EMIs progress, the interest component gradually reduces while the principal repayment increases. Simultaneously, salaries typically rise with experience and inflation, reducing the relative burden of EMIs over the years. Under the old tax regime, borrowers also benefit from deductions on both principal and interest, though these benefits are absent under the new tax regime. (News18 Hindi)

The interest rate comparison often drives confusion. Home loan rates currently hover around 7-7.5%, slightly lower than EPF’s 8.25%. On the surface, the difference appears marginal. But the real distinction lies in taxation. For someone in the highest tax slab, an 8.25% tax-free EPF return is equivalent to earning nearly 11% from a taxable investment. Few instruments offer that level of safety and assured, post-tax returns. (News18 Hindi)

Consider a commonly cited scenario. A borrower has a home loan outstanding of Rs 20 lakh with ten years remaining, and an EPF balance of Rs 20 lakh earning 8.25% interest. If the entire EPF amount is withdrawn to close the loan, the borrower saves roughly Rs 9 lakh in interest payments over the remaining tenure. However, this comes at the cost of completely exhausting the retirement corpus. Rebuilding such a fund later, especially as expenses rise with age, can be challenging. (News18 Hindi)

If the EPF is left untouched instead, the same Rs 20 lakh can grow to more than Rs 44 lakh over 10 years, entirely tax-free. Even after accounting for the interest paid on the home loan, the individual ends up with a significantly stronger financial cushion for retirement. In essence, the compounding power of EPF outweighs the interest saved on early loan closure in most situations. (News18 Hindi)

There are, however, limited circumstances where using EPF for loan repayment may make sense. Individuals who are nearing retirement, have surplus EPF savings well beyond their projected needs, or face severe cash flow stress may consider partial or full withdrawal. Even then, experts recommend caution and detailed financial planning before taking such a step. (News18 Hindi)
-
Sports4 days agoVAR review: Why was Wirtz onside in Premier League, offside in Europe?
-
Business4 days agoAldi’s Christmas sales rise to £1.65bn
-
Sports1 week ago
Tom Wilson’s New Year’s Eve: Two goals, a fight, a win and an Olympic nod
-
Entertainment4 days agoMinnesota Governor Tim Walz to drop out of 2026 race, official confirmation expected soon
-
Sports4 days agoFACI invites applications for 2026 chess development project | The Express Tribune
-
Fashion4 days agoJacquemus hires new COO from Parisian label Lemaire
-
Politics4 days agoChina’s birth-rate push sputters as couples stay child-free
-
Sports4 days agoSteelers escape Ravens’ late push, win AFC North title

