Tag: Institutional Investors

Bipartisan House Coalition Presses Leadership to Remove Section 901

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

A bipartisan group of 76 House lawmakers urged congressional leaders to remove or revise Section 901 of the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, arguing that the provision would undermine the bill’s affordability goals by discouraging build-to-rent (BTR) housing and reducing rental options for American families. (Punchbowl News, | PoliticoPro, April 22)

Why It Matters

  • The push adds to growing House resistance as negotiators weigh how to reconcile the two chambers’ housing packages.
  • The letter, led by members of the Congressional Real Estate Caucus and Build America Caucus, warns that Section 901 “would have far-reaching and unintended consequences that run counter to the bill’s stated goal of expanding housing opportunity,” and that the provision goes “far beyond its intended purpose” by threatening to reduce rental options. (Letter | PoliticoPro April 22)
  • Lawmakers argue the provision’s broad definition would also capture the construction of new single-family rental communities—threatening a growing source of housing supply at a time when the nation remains millions of units short. (Letter | Punchbowl News, April 22)
  • Section 901 would require certain large institutional investors to sell newly built single-family rental homes after seven years—a change that could disrupt the long-term ownership model behind BTR communities, constrain capital, and reduce housing options for families seeking the flexibility of a single-family rental home.
  • The housing bill was a major focus at The Real Estate Roundtable’s (RER) Spring Roundtable Meeting this week, where members and policymaker guests discussed the growing pushback to Section 901 and the need for any final package to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions. (See story above)

State of Play

  • Since the Senate passed its version of the bill, progressive and conservative groups alike have cited numerous benefits that single-family rental owners and builders deliver for U.S. housing markets, including expanding supply, maintaining housing stock, and providing families the opportunity to live in communities where homeownership remains out of reach. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026 | Competitive Enterprise Institute, February 2026)
  • Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner recently toured a build-to-rent (BTR) community with the project’s developer, operator, and industry representatives, underscoring the growing visibility of BTR. (The Real Deal, April 18 | NMHC, April 13)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • RER and other housing advocates continue to urge lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that could reduce rental housing production and discourage new investment.
  • RER and broad housing coalitions have consistently emphasized that housing affordability is driven by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels—and that restricting institutional capital would only make it harder to meet the nation’s growing housing needs. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27 | April 3 | April 10 | April 17)
  • Last week, RER shared with members of Congress a recent white paper by Paul Clement of Clement & Murphy, PLLC, arguing that Section 901’s forced-sale requirement raises serious constitutional concerns under the Takings Clause, and also raises equal protection and federalism concerns. (Roundtable Weekly, April 17)

As lawmakers work to address the housing shortage, the focus should remain on expanding supply and lowering barriers to development—not on punitive restrictions that threaten new investment, undermine build-to-rent housing, and worsen affordability challenges.

White House Economic Report Underscores Supply Gap as ROAD to Housing Act Stalls

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

Congress returned to Washington this week after a two-week recess with little visible movement on the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, even as House Financial Services Committee staff continued work on a bipartisan response to the Senate-passed bill.

State of Play

  • House and Senate lawmakers remain at odds over how to reconcile the competing housing packages, with the Senate bill’s treatment of institutional investment in single-family housing still one of the biggest sticking points. (Politico, April 14)
  • RER and other housing advocates continue to press lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that could reduce rental housing production and discourage new investment.

Why It Matters

  • The report says that if single-family homebuilding had continued at its historical pace after 2008, the U.S. would have “10 million or more additional single-family homes today”—a striking measure of the nation’s housing shortfall and the scale of lost supply. (CRE Daily, April 14)
  • White House economists reached that figure by asking how many homes would exist today if construction had continued at its pre-2008 pace, making the estimate as much about lost capacity as current demand. (Propmodo, April 13)
  • The findings reinforce that improving affordability will require more building, more investment, and fewer barriers to supply—and that policies constraining new housing production could worsen affordability rather than improve it.

New Research

  • Updated research continues to undercut the argument that institutional ownership is the main source of today’s affordability challenges.
  • An AEI report released last week says large institutional investors own less than 1 percent of the nation’s single-family homes and concludes that Section 901 of the Senate’s bill would reduce the supply of newly constructed and rehabilitated homes while burdening low- and middle-income renters. (AEI, April 10)
  • Separate Realtor.com research published in March also found that the institutional investor footprint has been shrinking from its 2022 peak. (Politico, April 14 | Realtor, March 13)
  • Recent market data points in the same direction. If institutional investment were the main cause of the nation’s housing affordability problems, the markets with the heaviest investor activity would be consistently posting the strongest price growth. (Roundtable Weekly, April 10 | GAO Report, April 6 | GAO Report, 2024)
  • The latest Case-Shiller data show the opposite pattern: Chicago and New York led annual home-price gains in December 2025, while several Sun Belt metros where institutional investors have been more prominent—including Tampa, Phoenix, Dallas, and Miami—saw prices decline. That divergence reinforces the broader point that supply constraints, not institutional investment alone, are the bigger force shaping affordability. (S&P Global, December 2025 | Realtor, October 2025)

New Housing Legislation Introduced

  • Separate from the House-Senate standoff, Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) this week introduced the Freedom to Build Act, a proposal backed by The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) that would create a HUD “Freedom to Build” certification for localities adopting pro-supply policies such as faster approvals, regulatory streamlining, and other measures to expand housing construction. (Sen. Hagerty Press Release, April 14)
  • The bill is intended to incentivize deregulation, expand housing supply, and make homes more affordable by aligning existing federal incentives with communities that reduce barriers to building.
  • Jeffrey D. DeBoer, President & CEO of RER said, “This legislation would be a meaningful step toward expanding housing supply and improving affordability for working families. The Freedom to Build Act would align federal incentives with local decision-making to help unlock private capital, enhance housing supply, and support long-term economic growth. The Real Estate Roundtable has long supported policies that promote housing affordability—for renters and homeowners—and strengthen the connection between housing, jobs, and transportation.”

Sen. Hagerty will also be a featured guest at RER’s upcoming Spring Roundtable Meeting next week (Roundtable-level members only), where housing supply, affordability, and related policy developments will be among the topics discussed.

New GAO Data, Rising Cost Pressures Undercut Case for Build-to-Rent Restrictions

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

As the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act awaits House action, new federal data and rising development cost estimates are reinforcing a key point in the housing debate: affordability challenges are driven by supply constraints, and federal policy should not make it harder or more expensive to build. (Washington Post, April 6)

What the Data Shows

  • At the center of the debate is Section 901, which would force large institutional investors to sell certain newly built single-family rental homes after seven years—a provision that could undermine build-to-rent housing and reduce supply. (Roundtable Weekly, April 3)
  • A new GAO report found that institutional investor ownership of single-family rental homes increased in six metro areas from 2018 to 2024, but still accounted for a very small share of all single-family homes in those markets—ranging from less than 1 percent to 3 percent. (GAO Report, March 24 | Highlights, March 24)
  • The findings add new weight to the argument that institutional ownership is not the main driver of the nation’s affordability challenges.
  • The Washington Post noted this week that forcing build-to-rent homes to be sold within seven years would weaken a fast-growing source of new single-family housing. (Washington Post, April 6)
  • A separate February report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) reached a similar conclusion, finding that institutional investors own less than 1 percent of all single-family homes nationwide and account for less than 2 percent of all home purchases, and concluding that the broader affordability problem is rooted in supply-demand imbalances rather than investor concentration. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026)
  • The reports undercut the argument that restricting institutional investment is likely to meaningfully improve affordability, particularly when housing shortages, financing costs, regulatory barriers, and construction expenses remain the primary constraints on supply.

Market Impact

  • As Barron’s reported this week, Section 901’s proposed restrictions on institutional investors are already having a chilling effect on investments in single-family housing, with investment managers indicating that pension funds and other large investors may pause or reconsider deals until there is greater clarity around housing policy. (Barron’s, April 7)
  • Research from John Burns Research & Consulting suggests the Senate bill has “already paralyzed” the build-to-rent development industry, with new development slowing and capital “now frozen,” impacting project viability “from day one, not just in seven years.” (Barron’s, April 7)

Tariffs & Construction Costs

  • A new Cushman & Wakefield report found that tariff rates in effect as of April 7 would raise construction materials costs by 6.0 percent relative to a 2024 baseline and increase total project costs by roughly 3.0 percent, adding more pressure to housing and commercial real estate development. (Cushman & Wakefield, April 8)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • RER and broad housing coalitions have consistently emphasized that housing affordability is driven by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels—and that restricting institutional capital would only make it harder to meet the nation’s growing housing needs. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 | Jan. 23 | Feb. 27 | March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27 | April 3) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • Research continues to show that restricting institutional capital is unlikely to improve affordability and could create new supply constraints. The PPI report, for example, notes that build-to-rent development is becoming an increasingly important source of new housing supply. (Progressive Policy Institute, February 2026)

What’s Next

  • Congress returns next week with a robust agenda. The Senate is set to return April 13 and the House on April 14, with unresolved DHS funding, a possible new reconciliation push, and the administration’s budget request all competing for floor time and political attention.
  • That packed schedule could make it harder for housing legislation to advance quickly.

The Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act and broader housing policy will be a major focus at the upcoming Spring Roundtable Meeting April 20-21 in Washington, D.C. (Roundtable-level members only).

Research Continues to Reinforce Case Against Build-to-Rent Provision in Housing Bill

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

As the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, new research is strengthening the case for removing the Senate bill’s build-to-rent (BTR) provision. The findings suggest the provision could curb housing supply without improving affordability.

State of Play

  • At the center of the debate is Section 901, which would require newly built single-family rental homes developed by large institutional investors to be sold to after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, March 27 | The Atlantic, March 30)
  • Industry groups, researchers, and The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) warn that the mandate would disrupt a growing source of housing supply, raise serious constitutional concerns, and potentially trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government. (Roundtable Weekly, March 13 |  CNBC, March 29)

New BTR Research

  • Other recent studies are reinforcing concerns about the provision. A new AEI analysis found the bill’s investor restrictions could reduce supply and hurt lower-income families. (AEI study, March 27)
  • An Urban Institute case study found that single-family rental investors have developed renovation and property-management capabilities that could help rehabilitate more homes and expand the supply of affordable housing. (Urban Institute Case Study, March 30)

Roundtable & Industry Advocacy

  • RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing or revising Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate build-to-rent housing production. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • That case was reinforced again last week in an open letter from housing researchers, who said the mandate would undermine a growing source of supply and is especially unworkable because many BTR communities are not designed to be sold unit by unit. (Letter, Mar. 26 | MultifamilyDive, Mar. 31)

New Cost Pressures

  • Rising aluminum prices are adding new strain to an already challenging development environment, pushing construction costs higher and threatening project viability.
  • “The conflict in the Middle East is further driving up materials prices and making construction that much less affordable and many projects that much less financially viable,” said Anirban Basu, the chief economist for Associated Builders and Contractors. (PoliticoPro, March 27)
  • The pressure comes on top of elevated rates, tariff uncertainty, and labor shortages that have already slowed homebuilding and weighed on new investment. (PoliticoPro, March 27)

What’s Next

  • Congress is in recess until April 13, leaving the package’s next steps uncertain for now.

RER will continue urging Congress to protect the bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would make it harder to build rental housing.

House Weighs Next Move on ROAD to Housing Act

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, where lawmakers are still weighing how to reconcile the Senate-passed package with the chamber’s own housing bill. The Senate approved its version two weeks ago after combining House priorities with the upper chamber’s broader housing agenda, but House members have raised concerns about several provisions added or revised in the Senate package—most notably the bill’s treatment of build-to-rent (BTR) housing.

State of Play

  • The House and Senate remain at odds over how to advance the housing package after the Senate passed its bill with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this month. (PoliticoPro, Mar. 23)
  • House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged House Democrats this week to support a formal conference committee, arguing that the final bill should restore House priorities and address stakeholder concerns—an apparent reference to the Senate bill’s restrictions on large institutional investors in single-family housing.
  • Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) said Wednesday that Senate Banking and House Financial Services leaders need to meet to resolve key differences between the two packages.
  • Rep. Flood identified three major House concerns with the Senate bill: the need to preserve but revise the provision restricting institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, the omission of environmental review changes for certain affordable housing programs, and the Senate’s inclusion of a temporary rather than permanent restriction on a Federal Reserve central bank digital currency. (PoliticoPro | Watch Rep. Flood Remarks, Mar. 25)

Build-to-Rent

  • The biggest sticking point remains the Senate bill’s requirement that rental homes developed by large investors be sold to individual homebuyers after seven years. (The Urban Institute, Mar. 17)
  • House Republicans have raised concerns that the provision could undercut new rental housing production, disrupt financing, and introduce significant long-term uncertainty into the market.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has warned that the bill’s forced-sale structure raises serious constitutional concerns and could trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government.

New BTR Research

  • Based on a March 19 discussion with 146 BTR executives, developers, and capital partners, the firm reported this week that the Senate bill’s seven-year disposal requirement has already frozen capital and halted new development ahead of enactment. Some capital will not return even if the bill is altered, reflecting ongoing concerns about future policy risk. (John Burns Research & Consulting, Mar. 24)

RER Advocacy

  • RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the housing bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would force large investors to sell newly built single-family rental homes after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| Mar. 6 | Mar. 13 | Mar. 20)
  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (Roundtable Weekly, Mar. 20) (Letter, Mar. 5 | Letter, Mar. 13)
  • That message was reinforced again this week in an open letter from housing policy researchers, who warned that the Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act would undermine BTR housing, which represents a growing source of new supply in markets where housing is already out of reach for many households. (Letter, Mar. 26)
  • The researchers said BTR has helped expand the housing stock, particularly for middle-income renters seeking single-family-style housing, and cautioned that the bill’s seven-year sale mandate would disrupt the model’s economics and reduce future production.
  • The letter also noted that many BTR communities are not structured to be sold off unit-by-unit, making the requirement especially problematic in practice.

What’s Next

  • The House and Senate are out on recess and do not return to Washington until April 14, leaving the future of the broader housing package uncertain. (NYT, Mar. 25)

Whether lawmakers pursue a formal conference or a narrower compromise, RER will continue urging Congress to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental-housing production and make it more difficult to meet the nation’s growing housing needs.

Senate Housing Package Advances as Investor Ban Draws Opposition

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate this week moved forward with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This sweeping bipartisan package combines House and Senate housing provisions with the Trump administration’s push to restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes. (BisNow, March 3 | March 6 | RER Statement, March 4)

State of Play

  • The measure cleared an initial procedural vote, 84-6, after Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released updated legislative text. A second vote on Wednesday, 90-8, moved the package closer to final action.  (Politico, March 2)
  • The latest Senate text largely preserves the prior ROAD to Housing framework, while adding a new provision to limit additional single-family home purchases by large institutional investors. The bill defines a large institutional investor as a company that owns 350 or more homes and incorporates exemptions, including for build-to-rent housing.
  • The White House said President Trump’s advisers would recommend signing it in its current form. (BisNow, March 3)
  • The broader package also encompasses provisions to streamline reviews for projects, raise FHA multifamily loan limits, support manufactured housing, and encourage additional housing development in Opportunity Zones. (BisNow, March 3)
  • Several senators had not reviewed the updated legislative text before Monday’s vote because it was released shortly beforehand. (Politico, March 2)

Congressional Opposition

  • Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he was not supportive of the investor provision if it mirrors the administration’s earlier crackdown, warning it would move policymakers “further away from producing affordable housing.”
  • Today, House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill (R-AR) warned that his chamber is not prepared to support the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. “There are members in the House whose provisions and views were not accounted for in the current iteration of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” Hill said. (Punchbowl News Vault, March 6)
  • Hill is “optimistic” that those concerns can be addressed. Absent that, Hill said “further negotiations, including a possible conference, may be needed.” (Punchbowl News Vault, March 6)

What the Research Shows

  • Analysis has reinforced the concern that restricting institutional capital may do little to improve affordability while creating new supply problems.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • A recent Brookings analysis concluded that banning large institutional purchases of single-family rentals would yield only a very small increase in homes available for purchase, while leading to higher rents for families who need or prefer renting. (Brookings Institute, Feb. 23)
  • The same analysis warned that unexpected limits on investor activity could reduce future capital commitments to the sector and weaken property rights in ways that discourage new supply. (Brookings Institute, Feb. 23)
  • A Cato Institute analysis similarly argued that the proposed Section 901 provision in the bill would give the Treasury Department broad discretion to distinguish among favored and disfavored forms of housing investment. (CATO Institute, March 4)

Industry & RER Advocacy

  • RER and broad housing coalitions have been making the same supply-focused case for weeks. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27)
  • “On one hand, it undermines the whole idea of the [ROAD to Housing Act] if the purported idea of [the bill] was to help us build more housing and reduce barriers to building, and then you create this legal structure that makes it effectively impossible to build and finance in this very important sector,” said Sharon Wilson Géno, president of National Multifamily Housing Council. (PoliticoPro, March 4)
  • RER member Sean Dobson ( Chairman, CEO and CIO, Amherst) echoed that argument in an op-ed this week, that restricting single-family rental supply does not erase the financial barriers that keep many households from buying; it simply reduces housing options for families who are structurally constrained from homeownership by income, credit, and down payment hurdles. (Fortune, March 5)
  • In a March 5 coalition letter to Senate leaders and the Banking Committee, RER and dozens of national housing organizations warned that Section 901, as drafted, “would effectively eliminate the production of Build-to-Rent (BTR) housing.” (Letter, March 5) (Bisnow, March 5 | Politico, March 5)
  • “It doesn’t prohibit it, but it greatly discourages build-to-rent activities,” RER President & CEO Jeffrey DeBoer told Bisnow in an interview Friday. (Bisnow, March 6)
  • “These projects take years to get through the development process, the zoning process, the funding process,” he added. “Requiring any private business or citizen to sell any kind of asset in a certain time is highly unusual, and I think a lot of people would say it’s unconstitutional.”
  • The letter notes that the bill’s seven-year disposition rule would chill investment across the BTR supply chain, even with nominal exemptions. It urges the Senate to amend the bill to fully exempt BTR housing. (PoliticoPro, March 5)
  • DeBoer also issued a statement earlier this week, following the release of the bill’s updated legislative text, “The Real Estate Roundtable supports many provisions in the ROAD to Housing Act and the Housing for the 21st Century Act, both of which take important steps toward expanding housing supply.  Expanding housing supply requires significant capital investment.  However, the institutional investor provisions under consideration in the Senate bill would be counterproductive. These provisions would discourage the capital investments that are needed to develop, redevelop, and modernize the nation’s owner-occupied and rental housing stock. In particular, the provision to force institutional owners of rental housing to sell the homes that they build within a specified 7-year timeframe would discourage investment in home construction, could actually result in rent increases in many markets, and would no doubt face substantial constitutional challenges. While much of the housing bill now before the Senate is properly focused, the institutional investor provisions should be dropped.” (RER Statement, March 4)

What’s Next

  • The Senate bill still must clear final passage and be reconciled with the House before it can reach the president’s desk. There is speculation that a vote on final passage of the package could happen as early as next week. (PoliticoPro, March 4)

RER will continue advocating for policies that expand housing supply and protect the capital formation needed to build and preserve housing, rather than measures that risk constraining investment without solving the underlying shortage.

Senate Takes Up House Housing Bill as White House Seeks Limits on Institutional Investors

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

President Donald Trump used his State of the Union address on Tuesday to renew his call for Congress to codify limits on large institutional investors buying additional single-family homes, as lawmakers work to merge bipartisan House and Senate housing packages into a final deal set for a vote next week. (Axios | PoliticoPro, Feb. 25)

State of Play

  • “We want homes for people, not for corporations,” Trump said as he urged Congress to make the policy permanent. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 25)
  • House Republicans met this week with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as lawmakers explore legislative language tied to the housing package. Trump and Bessent have said that any final legislation must include language banning large investors from purchasing single-family. (Reuters, Feb. 19 | PoliticoPro, Feb. 26)
  • Some lawmakers and analysts have argued that investor bans do not address the core affordability driver—a persistent housing supply shortage. Goldman Sachs estimates the U.S. would need to build up to 4 million additional homes beyond the normal pace to reduce the deficit. (CBSNews, Feb. 25 |Washington Examiner, Feb. 26)

What’s Next: Bipartisan Housing Bill Vote

  • Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) filed cloture Thursday on the House-passed  Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644), setting up a Monday vote on the motion to proceed as leadership uses the House bill as the vehicle for a version of the Senate Banking Committee’s ROAD to Housing Act. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26 |Roundtable Weekly, Feb. 13)
  • The House passed the bipartisan bill earlier this month with broad support, and the Senate advanced its bill in October. The two sides are now negotiating a final package. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26 | Roundtable Weekly, Oct. 17)
  • Senate aides said the Senate package could include some provisions from the House’s bill, including measures to expand manufactured and affordable housing and protect borrowers. The Senate measure wouldn’t include the House version’s community banking provisions. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26)
  • House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-AR) welcomed Majority Leader Thune’s move but urged a final product that reflects “shared priorities of the House, Senate, and White House,” as the administration continues to press for some form of large-investor purchase restriction to be included in any final bipartisan housing deal. (Press Release, Feb. 26)

White House Proposal

  • In a memo sent to lawmakers last week, the administration proposed banning institutional investors who own more than 100 single-family homes from buying any new ones. (CNBC, Feb. 24)
  • The proposal would continue to allow build-to-rent developments, where investors construct new single-family homes specifically for rental use. (WSJ, Feb. 26)
  • Government entities and community land trusts would be exempt altogether, and the Treasury Department would retain authority to approve other transactions deemed to expand homeownership opportunities, giving regulators flexibility to avoid unintended consequences for buyers and renters.
  • Treasury’s forthcoming definitions of “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” are expected to shape scope and compliance, including what property types are captured and how thresholds are applied. (GlobeSt., Feb 26)
  • The ban would apply only to future purchases—without forcing investors to sell existing holdings—and would take effect 180 days after enactment. (CoStar, Feb. 20)

By the Numbers

  • A recent American Action Forum analysis found that large institutional investors have expanded the much-needed supply of rental homes, improved housing quality, and added liquidity in under supplied markets. (AAF Study, Feb. 12)
  • A Chandan Economics review of Census Bureau data finds individual investors—not institutions—own the largest share of U.S. single-family rentals (SFRs). The analysis draws on the Census Bureau’s 2024 Rental Housing Finance Survey (data collected June-November 2024), a comprehensive snapshot of rental-property mortgage financing. (Chandan Economics, Feb. 19 |GlobeSt., Feb. 25)

RER Advocacy

  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • RER President & CEO Jeffrey DeBoer said, “Evidence shows that policy attacks on institutional investment in housing or other real estate are misguided.  Institutional investors actually expand the supply of rental homes, thus driving down rents. Their investments enable financially constrained families to move into neighborhoods that previously had few rental units, and these investments tend to improve the quality of the existing housing stock. While politically popular, restricting capital into housing will not address the housing problem.  Instead, policy should, as the bulk of the House and Senate bills do, intensely focus on expanding the supply of housing.”
  • In a Feb. 10 comment letter to House Financial Services Committee leadership, RER and national real estate trade groups cautioned against limiting institutional capital in the housing market, including SFR assets. (Comment Letter, Feb. 10 | Roundtable Weekly, Feb. 13)

New Senate Legislation Introduced

  • On Tuesday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and 16 other Senate Democrats introduced the American Homeownership Act. The bill would prevent companies with more than 50 single-family homes for rent from taking deductions for housing value depreciation and mortgage interest payments. Corporations would also be barred from getting federally backed mortgages. (Bill text | Bill fact sheet | Press Release, Feb. 24)
  • The bill would provide a temporary carve-out for companies building new multifamily housing or rehabilitating properties that would otherwise be uninhabitable. (CNBC, Feb. 24)
  • Edward Pinto, co-director of the AEI Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, said a more effective proposal would meet three specific criteria: reducing land costs, allowing homes to be built on smaller parcels, and lowering construction costs. (CBS News, Feb. 25)

RER will continue advocating for policies that expand housing supply and protect the capital formation needed to build and preserve housing—rather than measures that risk constraining investment without solving the underlying shortage.

Fed Holds Rates Steady as Housing Affordability Pressures Shape Policy Debate

Posted on by abigail_grenadier
The Federal Reserve building in Washington, DC

After the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) concluded its January meeting on Wednesday by holding rates steady at 3.5 percent to 3.75 percent, President Donald Trump announced today he is nominating former Fed governor Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chair. (Axios, Jan. 30 | CBS News, Jan. 28)

Fed Chair

  • “I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best,” said Trump in a Truth Social post announcing the selection. (CNBC, Jan. 30)
  • Warsh still needs Senate confirmation and, if approved, would take over in May when Powell’s term expires.

Key Takeaways

  • The FOMC voted 10-2 to maintain rates, with Governors Stephen Miran and Christopher Waller dissenting in favor of an additional quarter-point cut. While most Fed officials still expect further reductions in 2026, Chair Powell emphasized that decisions will remain “data dependent.” (Fed statement, Jan. 28)
  • Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the economic outlook has “clearly improved” since the Committee’s December meeting.
  • Fed Chair Jerome Powell said the economic outlook has “clearly improved” since the Committee’s December meeting.
  • He cited growth and signs of stabilization in the labor market, while emphasizing that policymakers want greater confidence that inflation is moving toward the Fed’s 2 percent target before resuming rate cuts.
  • The U.S. economy grew at a 4.4 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2025. Chair Powell noted that this performance suggests that interest rates are not currently restrictive enough to materially slow economic activity. (AP, Jan. 28)
  • Inflation remains above target, with the Fed’s preferred measure running near 2.8 percent late last year. Chair Powell acknowledged that recent tariff-related price pressures have lifted goods inflation but suggested those effects are likely temporary and could begin easing later this year. (AP, Jan. 28)
  • The Fed’s decision to hold rates steady reinforces expectations that borrowing costs will remain elevated through at least mid-year.
  • For commercial real estate, sustained higher-for-longer rates continue to place pressure on refinancing, valuations, and transaction activity.

Institutional Investor Legislation Introduced

  • Against this backdrop of a pause in rate cuts and broader concerns about housing affordability, lawmakers have renewed efforts to target institutional participation in the single-family housing market.
  • On Jan. 20, Reps. Summer Lee (D-PA), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Mark Takano (D-CA), and Jill Tokuda (D-HI) reintroduced the Stop Wall Street Landlords Act (H.R. 7138). (Press Release, Jan. 20)
  • The bill would deny mortgage interest, insurance, and depreciation deductions for large institutional investors that own single-family homes and impose a 100 percent federal real estate transfer tax on covered properties that are not sold within 18 months of enactment, with proceeds used to fund the federal Housing Trust Fund.
  • The proposal would also bar the Federal Housing Financial Agency, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae from supporting single-family mortgages tied to large institutional investors. (CNBC, Jan. 18)
  • Other legislation aimed at restricting institutional investment in the single family rental market include:
  • Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) introduced the American Family Housing Act (H.R. 7186), co-sponsored by Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), which would direct the SEC to enforce restrictions on large institutional investors (those with more than $100 billion in assets under management) from purchasing single-family homes. Rep. Miller serves on the House Agriculture Committee and Rep. Carter on the House Budget Committee.
  • The debate has taken on added political significance following President Trump’s recent statements and Executive Order on curtailing institutional ownership of single-family homes. (CNBC, Jan. 18 | Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 23)

Looking Ahead

  • Proposals such as the Stop Wall Street Landlords Act risk could further restrict housing supply and access to capital at a time when liquidity and investment are already under pressure.
  • As The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) and partners have emphasized, targeting institutional investment does not address the core drivers of unaffordability: high mortgage rates, rising construction costs, labor shortages, and restrictive zoning that limits housing supply. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9)

RER will continue to engage policymakers about the importance of expanding housing supply, preserving access to capital, and maintaining regulatory flexibility to support long-term stability for the commercial real estate industry and the overall economy.

Executive Order Seeks to Restrict Institutional Single-Family Home Purchases Amid Affordability Push

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

This week, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies to restrict large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, framing the action as part of a broader effort to restore housing affordability and expand homeownership. (WSJ, Jan. 20)

State of Play

  • The Executive Order directs leaders at HUD, Treasury, FHFA, USDA, VA, and GSA to issue guidance limiting federal programs and government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) activities that facilitate institutional purchases of single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by owner-occupants. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • The Order instructs the Treasury Secretary to develop formal definitions of “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” within 30 days, signaling that further details on implementation are to come. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • Agencies are also directed to promote first-look policies and disclosure requirements favoring individual buyers, while including narrow exceptions for build-to-rent communities planned and constructed as rental housing, and potentially other types of projects. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • DOJ and the FTC are instructed to review large-scale investor acquisitions in local housing markets for potential anticompetitive behavior, including coordinated vacancy or pricing strategies. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • Notably, the Order appears to focus on future acquisitions and does not contain language requiring sale, divestment, or unwinding of existing holdings, instead assuming continued ownership by requiring disclosure from current owners of single-family rentals. (White House EO, Jan. 20)

Remarks from Davos

  • Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week, President Trump reiterated many of the key points from the Executive Order.
  • In his speech, President Trump argued that institutional investors have distorted the housing market, stating that “homes are built for people, not for corporations,” and asserting that large firms purchasing “as much as 10 percent of houses on the market” have crowded out families and first-time buyers. (CNBC, Jan. 21)
  • President Trump also noted a complementary effort to lower borrowing costs, stating, “I’ve instructed government-backed institutions to purchase up to $200 billion in mortgage bonds to bring down interest rates.” (CNBC, Jan. 21)

Activity on Capitol Hill

  • Housing affordability was also a focus for leaders on Capitol Hill this week. HUD Secretary Scott Turner told the House Financial Services Committee that the administration is prioritizing housing supply expansion and regulatory rollback.
  • Sec. Turner cited HUD’s elimination of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule—which he said “did not build one home” and functioned as a de facto national zoning mandate—as part of a larger push to cut red tape, empower local decision-making, and promote homeownership. (HUD Secretary Turner Testimony, Jan. 21)
  • On Thursday, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic Growth held a hearing titled “Housing Affordability: Saving the American Dream,” examining regulatory barriers, supply constraints, and market-based approaches to lowering housing costs. (House Oversight Committee, Jan. 22)
  • NAHB Chairman Buddy Hughes testified that regulatory burdens are a central driver of affordability challenges, noting that “nearly 24 percent of the price of a new single-family home is due to regulatory regimes at the state, local and federal levels,” which he said directly increase costs and limit housing production. (Witness Statement, Jan. 22)
  • AEI Housing Center Co-Director Edward Pinto told lawmakers that restrictive state and local land-use regulations are an “immovable object” constraining supply and driving prices higher, while demand-side measures alone risk exacerbating price pressures. (Witness Statement, Jan. 22)

What’s Next

  • The White House has indicated that additional housing-related executive actions are under consideration, particularly measures aimed at first-time homebuyers, as the administration looks to demonstrate progress on housing affordability ahead of the midterm elections. (Washington Post, Jan. 9)
  • The administration has also signaled its intent to pursue legislation that codifies elements of the Executive Order banning institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, though prospects remain uncertain given jurisdictional, legal, and political hurdles. (White House EO, Jan. 20 | FOX Business, Jan. 21)

RER Advocacy

  • RER has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply—not restricting capital—is the most effective path to improving affordability.
  • During this week’s RECPAC meeting, Genger Charles (Amherst), Sheila Greenwood (Invitation Homes), Lou Hayden (American Homes), and Ama Romaine (Pretium) participated in a member panel examining proposals to restrict institutional investment in single-family homes and the implications for housing supply, affordability, and capital formation.
  • Panelists emphasized that institutional investors are one piece of the housing ecosystem—not the reason homebuyers are being priced out, pointing instead to chronic supply shortages, elevated interest rates, and local regulatory barriers that raise costs and constrain production.
  • RER has also highlighted research showing affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9)
  • RER President and CEO Jeffrey DeBoer has stressed that “the gap between supply and demand is the true cause of today’s housing crisis,” calling for common-sense reforms that remove barriers to development and maintain incentives for the capital needed to build, modernize, and expand the nation’s housing stock. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9)

RER will continue working with policymakers and the administration to advance supply-forward housing solutions that increase production, preserve access to capital, and help families—whether renters or homeowners—achieve the American Dream.

Trump Proposes Restricting Institutional Investment in Single-Family Housing

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he would move to ban “large institutional investors” from purchasing single-family homes, framing the proposal as part of a broader push to improve housing affordability. (Washington Post | CNBC, Jan. 7)

State of Play

  • “I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it. People live in homes, not corporations,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. (Bloomberg, Jan. 8)
  • He indicated plans to discuss the issue at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, later this month. (WSJ, Jan. 7)
  • The White House did not specify what executive actions, if any, would be taken, nor how it would define “large institutional investors.”
  • As currently described, the proposal would apply only to future acquisitions and would not require existing owners to divest their single-family rental (SFR) portfolios. (GlobeSt., Jan. 8)
  • Codifying a ban would require clear statutory language passed by Congress and signed into law—raising complex questions around thresholds, exemptions, and enforcement.
  • Legal challenges would likely follow, including claims related to takings, equal protection, and interstate commerce. Absent congressional authorization, the executive branch lacks clear authority to impose such a restriction solely through regulation. (Propmodo, Jan. 8)
  • Former House Financial Services Committee Chair Patrick McHenry said on Bloomberg on Thursday that housing affordability challenges are driven largely by state and local land-use and regulatory barriers, noting that institutional investors account for only a small share of the housing market. (Bloomberg, Jan. 8)
  • Also this week, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he is directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds to address the national housing affordability crisis. Federal Housing Finance Director Bill Pulte said in an interview that Fannie and Freddie Mac will carry out the president’s directive by purchasing $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities from the public market. (Politico | Bloomberg, Jan. 9)

What the Data Shows

GAO Report
  • Research consistently finds that housing affordability pressures stem primarily from chronic supply shortages, high construction costs, and elevated mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels.
  • According to SFR Analytics, the top 24 SFR owners control just over 520,000 homes—about 3.5% of rental homes and less than 1% of the total single-family housing stock—underscoring the limited market impact of large investors. (Bloomberg, Jan. 7)
  • Single-family rentals expanded after the Great Financial Crisis in 2008-2009 as investors helped absorb foreclosures, stabilize neighborhoods, and provide rental housing for households unable to buy.  (Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Oct. 2025)
  • A 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that large institutional investment expanded rental-housing options, helped stabilize neighborhoods after the financial crisis, and improved access to quality communities for low- and middle-income households. (GAO Report Highlights | Full GAO Report) (Roundtable Weekly, June 2024)
  • The GAO study also found that large-scale SFR showed that many working families desire the space provided by single-family homes, but may have low credit scores and otherwise can’t afford to buy them. Renting is commonly their best option for moving into better neighborhoods and school districts.
  • Another study out of UNC Charlotte, released in May 2024, finds that children from low- and moderate-income households see improved achievements in school when they rent single-family homes in neighborhoods where they cannot afford to buy.  (UNC Study Highlights | Full UNC Report, 2024)
  • An August 2025 report from the American Enterprise Institute found that institutional investors are not a primary driver of housing unaffordability, noting that housing shortages stem largely from restrictive zoning, limited new construction, and inflationary pressures. (American Enterprise Institute Report, Aug. 2025)
  • Stephen Scherr, co-president of Pretium Partners, which owns Progress Residential (RER member) one of the nation’s largest SFR operators, said on CNBC today that institutional investors help expand housing supply by de-risking large developments through purchase commitments that enable projects to move forward. He added that many renters they serve are not mortgage-eligible and use renting as a pathway to eventual homeownership. (CNBC, Jan. 9)

Roundtable View

  • Expanding the supply of housing across the geographic and economic spectrum is essential for the nation’s economic vitality.
  • Large-scale SFR investments have helped revitalize distressed properties and communities, contributing to economic growth and stability.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has consistently emphasized that restricting capital will not solve the affordability crisis, and that increasing housing supply is the most effective path forward.
  • RER President and CEO Jeffrey DeBoer said: “Access to affordable housing is central to the American Dream, a dream that for some families means renting a home and for others means owning a home. For more than a decade, our nation’s supply of both owner-occupied and rental housing has, for a variety of reasons, not kept up with demand. This gap between supply and demand is the true cause of today’s housing crisis. The supply of housing must be increased.”
  • “This will require, among other actions, common sense policy reforms to local permitting and zoning regulations, recognizing in both national and local policy actions the reality of escalating labor and material costs and, importantly, the need to maintain and improve incentives to encourage the capital needed to develop, redevelop, and modernize the nation’s housing stock,” DeBoer said. “We work with all policymakers to advance initiatives that remove barriers to housing development, incentivize capital investment in housing, and help people achieve the American Dream.” 
  • In March 2025, RER and Nareit submitted comments to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in response to the agency’s inquiry into the impact of large-scale SFR operators and institutional investors on home prices and rents. (Letter, March 2025)
  • The letter emphasized that institutional investors account for a small fraction of home purchases and play a limited, but constructive role in expanding supply, rather than driving affordability challenges. (Roundtable Weekly, March 2025)
  • This week, RER member Sean Dobson (Chairman, CEO & CIO, Amherst) said restricting investment would not improve affordability. “Banning investors from putting capital into the housing market is not going to make affordability any better,” Dobson said during an appearance on Wednesday on Bloomberg Markets. (Bloomberg, Jan. 7)

Without meaningful steps to expand housing supply, proposals to limit institutional participation are unlikely to address the root causes of affordability pressures facing renters and would-be homebuyers, reinforcing RER’s ongoing work with policymakers and the administration to promote policies that increase housing supply and improve affordability.