Latest Breaking News

BumRushDaShow

(170,379 posts) Mon Apr 13, 2026, 04:26 PM 14 hrs ago

Senate housing bill that takes aim at institutional investors may do little for homebuyers -- and could even hurt renters

Source: CNN Business

PUBLISHED Apr 13, 2026, 5:00 AM ET

Banning mega investors from buying single-family homes has accomplished a rare feat in Washington: bipartisan consensus. Many housing advocates blamed Wall Street firms buying up homes for a post-pandemic surge in housing costs. Now, with an executive order from President Donald Trump and a Senate bill advancing the idea, a ban may soon become reality.

Last month, the Senate passed a bill 89-10 aimed at improving housing affordability, following the House of Representatives’ passage of a narrower version earlier this year. The Senate’s version, backed by Republican Sen. Tim Scott and Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, is designed to spur more home building and lower costs. That includes a restriction on large institutional investors, defined as those owning 350 or more single-family homes, buying more single-family properties.

But banning mega investors from buying single-family homes may do little to lower prices, some economists say. Instead, the ban could reduce single-family rental options in neighborhoods where many people cannot afford to buy. “Institutional investors make for a convenient boogeyman, but they don’t address the real issue,” said Jay Parsons, a rental housing economist.

These investors own only a small share of the country’s single-family housing stock. Just 0.7% of America’s 92 million single-family homes are owned by investors with more than 350 properties in their portfolios, according to John Burns Research and Consulting. Most investor-owned homes, in fact, belong to smaller landlords. “Mom-and-pop” investors — those who own fewer than 10 properties — make up the vast majority, according to property intelligence firm Cotality.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/13/business/housing-institutional-investors

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Senate housing bill that takes aim at institutional investors may do little for homebuyers -- and could even hurt renters (Original Post) BumRushDaShow 14 hrs ago OP

I don't see it is so much as way to "redistribute" who owns them as rental properties ToxMarz 14 hrs ago #1

But not much of the country's single-family housing stock is rented out. paleotn 13 hrs ago #2

I always envisioned that the solution would be placing a high tax.... 70sEraVet 13 hrs ago #3

I also thought taxing owners of sfr's between 3-10 might make a difference. Buddyzbuddy 12 hrs ago #4

The ratio of housing owned by investors out of all housing currently in existence is irrelevant; snot 11 hrs ago #5

ToxMarz

(2,969 posts)

1. I don't see it is so much as way to "redistribute" who owns them as rental properties

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 13, 2026, 04:57 PM

14 hrs ago

From my perspective it is to get those homes into the hands of actual owner/occupants. The Instituitional investors get a sweet deal from the banks to take large numbers of foreclosures (or from other distressed property schemes) at deep discounts which make them great for cash flow as rental properties. That also reduces the inventory available to owner/occupants, drives up the market prices (which the institutional investors aren't paying), and then benefits the institutional investors again when they want to sell.

paleotn

(22,372 posts)

2. But not much of the country's single-family housing stock is rented out.

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 13, 2026, 05:32 PM

13 hrs ago

Most are simply lived in by owners. So the 0.7% stat is meaningless. What's the institutional % of single-family housing that IS rented out? Or rental housing in general?

In my mind, DC can only do so much in this regard. Housing construction, zoning, regs., etc., etc. are state matters. It's the states that have to get their shit together. Including my state. VT is one of the worst in this regard. Our Act 250 sometimes makes me want to beat my head on a wall. A good idea that went waaaaaaaaaay too far. Montpelier's inadequacy in addressing the issue is even worse.

70sEraVet

(5,517 posts)

3. I always envisioned that the solution would be placing a high tax....

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 13, 2026, 05:56 PM

13 hrs ago

on the large-volume investors, to force them into putting those homes back on the market for home ownership or small-time investors.
I know that in Nashville TN, folks that are pre-approved for a mortgage go with an agent to view houses, only to be told that an out-of-state cash buyer made a bid, and the seller accepted it. Its tough out there for folks.

Buddyzbuddy

(2,710 posts)

4. I also thought taxing owners of sfr's between 3-10 might make a difference.

Reply to 70sEraVet (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 13, 2026, 06:38 PM

12 hrs ago

350! That's not a restriction. That's a goal.

I also think the big investors are a major reason why homeowners insurance costs have skyrocketed. The big investors don't have to carry insurance because they can self insure. It's worth it because the risk is spread out among many properties, therefore limiting a catastrophic loss.
This in turn depletes the funds needed by insurance companies to cover losses.

snot

(11,848 posts)

5. The ratio of housing owned by investors out of all housing currently in existence is irrelevant;

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Mon Apr 13, 2026, 07:46 PM

11 hrs ago

rather, what matters is the ratio of the total number of homes that are actually available for sale relative to the number of families that want to buy homes. Investors have tied up disproportionate chunks of the housing that would otherwise be for sale.

The biggest concern that affects both owned homes & rental units is the the fact that wage inflation has not kept up with the inflation in the costs for shelter.

Limiting the number of homes that investors can own may not fix much in the near term, but it's a step in the right direction.

As for renters, I read recently on a financial site that most cities actually have a surplus of rentals available at this point – although the article may have been focussing on apartments.

Reply to this discussion