“So 5% to 6% of investor homes in the US are owned by large institutions. It’s nonsense that if they stop buying it will have any material effect on the housing market.”
Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he was “taking immediate steps” to prevent major institutions from buying more single-family homes and would call on Congress to codify the policy and declare that “people live in homes, not businesses.”
How big investors fit into the housing market
Holly Mabery, Principal Brokerage at eXp Real Estatesaid its agents see a similarly small market share from large investors, although there are large variations by region.
“What’s important to note is that it definitely varies by market,” she said. “It’s always been that way. And if you look nationally, less than 3% of investment properties are owned by large corporations. The average investment is about 90% owned by my parents and your parents. They’re small, mom-and-pop individual owners who can hold it in an LLC.”
Still, Mabery acknowledged that some metropolitan areas are much more concentrated with institutional ownership – especially in the Southeast.
“Now when you get into markets like Atlanta, yeah, it’s still a little bit lopsided, where 25% of all investment properties are owned by a real estate trust or large corporations,” she said. “Then you get into other larger markets like Houston, Orlando and even Charlotte, North Carolina. Those are a little skewed, but Atlanta is probably the highest right now at 25%.”
A historical view
Anthony Lamacchia – Founder and CEO of Lamacchia companies – said the backlash against institutional investors must be understood in historical context.
In a post on social media, Lamacchia wrote: “I clearly remember the last market crash in 2010. We had an abundance of inventory, over 4 million homes for sale in the United States. During that time, these institutional investors were welcome.”
Lamacchia said these companies played a crucial role in stabilizing the market after the foreclosure crisis by absorbing excess inventory, especially in hard-hit regions.
“They were applauded for entering the market and buying up homes, especially in the southern part of the United States, to reduce inventories,” he said. “And that was really a big thing that helped end the foreclosure crisis of excess inventory.”
Fifteen years later, he said, the market has turned — from oversupply to persistent shortage — changing the perception of those same investors.
“Now a lot of people are getting tired of these institutional investors,” Lamacchia said. “It’s because they keep inventory low, and they’ve gotten to the point where they own so much inventory in certain markets that they’re actually able to control inventory levels and make sure they don’t get too high, to drive prices down.”
The pressure on affordability goes beyond investors
eXp’s Mabery says investor activity is just one factor driving affordability – and not necessarily the dominant factor.
“I think it’s definitely a stretch,” she said. “I don’t know if it’s as big as many say, especially when I look at new home development and new construction. You’re basically looking at the first $100,000 as impact fees, zoning permits and so on. Those costs on top of materials and labor already allow you as a potential buyer to build a house.”
She added that affordability should be viewed through the lens of the household budget, and not just through purchase prices.
“It’s not just the cost of acquiring the property,” Mabery said. “It’s also what people can afford with the cost of things that people carry around. Healthcare is a huge problem and then you have to factor in student loan debt.”
Those pressures, she said, have been building across the economy.
“I think it’s easy to say that housing is too expensive, but I think the cost of a family of four operating in this world has become significantly more expensive,” Mabery said. “Whether it’s childcare, health care, school loan debt, or the cost of groceries, all of that absolutely puts pressure on what people determine is affordable for them and their lifestyle.”
What Trump’s move can actually accomplish
Lamacchia said he considers the announcement a known Trump tactic, but wondered how policymakers could define and enforce such a ban without unintended consequences.
“How do they quantify that?” he said. “How do they make that clear without punishing someone who shouldn’t be doing that. They’re probably going to create incentives for some of these investors to sell.”
This approach is in line with proposals that are already circulating in the sector.
Murray has advocated for a temporary waiver of the federal capital gains tax to encourage landlords to sell to owner-occupiers.
“The only thing that would work is to go to the owners, all of them,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re a mom and dad like me, I have two, or someone who owns 50 or 100. They have to say, under certain conditions, to those owners, ‘If you sell that apartment to a first-time home buyer – or any buyer for that matter – in the next twelve months to become an owner-occupier, we will waive any federal capital gains tax you may owe on that property.'”
Mabery said major brokers also have a responsibility to engage constructively in regulatory and legislative discussions.
“It’s really important to have a seat at the table and put forward actual data,” she says. “I think it’s easy for real estate agents and real estate agents to become scapegoats. We need to proactively come to the table and help bring good, meaningful policies forward.”
#Real #estate #leaders #weighing #ban #major #investors