Trump's handlers know that his executive order will have no impact. The order focuses on investors buying existing, scattered-site single-family homes, which doesn't happen 99% of the time. The executive order does not ban institutional investors, but rather restricts their activity; specifically, "build-to-rent" developments (projects planned and constructed specifically as rental communities) are exempt. The real problem is with these rental communities, as discussed by Warren and Newsom, because most Americans have great difficulty affording rents in those complexes.
The recent trend is what's worrying. Corporations now own nearly 9% of all residential land in the U.S. (up from 2% before 2019). While overall ownership seems small, these investors are concentrated in specific, fast-growing Sun Belt and metro areas (e.g., Atlanta, Charlotte), where they may own over 10% of single-family rentals, and corporate entities own roughly 21% of total residential parcels in some cities like St. Louis. You'll know that houses are currently unaffordable for most buyers. Also major firms like Blackstone and Pretium plan to invest billions into BTR (build-to-rent) communities, viewing them as a stable, recession-resistant asset class. The rent is high in areas where it's controlled by these corporations.
10% of the housing market is almost 1/3rd of what's available for renters. As of January 2026, 35% of all US occupied housing units are renter-occupied, representing over 46 million households.
When corporations set the high rental rates for almost 1/3rd of rental properties, many of the others normally follow that lead.
The term “institutional investors “ aggregates any corporate ownership of rental stock. There can be numerous corporations in that category each independently owning rental stock and independently negotiating rental rates.
Not sure that changes my argument, but if it will help, I've now removed the line, "with institutional investors (owning 100+ homes) holding roughly 3% to 3.8% of single-family rentals nationwide."
Your assumption is that the 10% of rental stock owned by corporations is 1/3 of unrented stock.
No - I write that "10% of the housing market is almost 1/3rd of what's available for renters. As of January 2026, 35% of all US occupied housing units are renter-occupied, representing over 46 million households." I am not referring to unrented units.
Log in
Trump's handlers know that his executive order will have no impact. The order focuses on investors buying existing, scattered-site single-family homes, which doesn't happen 99% of the time. The executive order does not ban institutional investors, but rather restricts their activity; specifically, "build-to-rent" developments (projects planned and constructed specifically as rental communities) are exempt. The real problem is with these rental communities, as discussed by Warren and Newsom, because most Americans have great difficulty affording rents in those complexes.
Nonsense. Increased availability of rental housing helps to keep rents from rising.
Unless a few mega companies are controlling the rents.
Millions of folks own rental properties. Including me at one time. The rental market is highly fragmented.
It would be great if that were the trend
The recent trend is what's worrying. Corporations now own nearly 9% of all residential land in the U.S. (up from 2% before 2019). While overall ownership seems small, these investors are concentrated in specific, fast-growing Sun Belt and metro areas (e.g., Atlanta, Charlotte), where they may own over 10% of single-family rentals, and corporate entities own roughly 21% of total residential parcels in some cities like St. Louis. You'll know that houses are currently unaffordable for most buyers. Also major firms like Blackstone and Pretium plan to invest billions into BTR (build-to-rent) communities, viewing them as a stable, recession-resistant asset class. The rent is high in areas where it's controlled by these corporations.
A source: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2025/11/25/corporate-landlords-own-tenth-of-residential-land/87462427007
But…10% of market share is not enough to control a market.
10% of the housing market is almost 1/3rd of what's available for renters. As of January 2026, 35% of all US occupied housing units are renter-occupied, representing over 46 million households.
When corporations set the high rental rates for almost 1/3rd of rental properties, many of the others normally follow that lead.
The term “institutional investors “ aggregates any corporate ownership of rental stock. There can be numerous corporations in that category each independently owning rental stock and independently negotiating rental rates.
Not sure that changes my argument, but if it will help, I've now removed the line, "with institutional investors (owning 100+ homes) holding roughly 3% to 3.8% of single-family rentals nationwide."
Your assumption is that the 10% of rental stock owned by corporations is 1/3 of unrented stock.
No, unrented stock would also be about 10% corporately owned.
No - I write that "10% of the housing market is almost 1/3rd of what's available for renters. As of January 2026, 35% of all US occupied housing units are renter-occupied, representing over 46 million households." I am not referring to unrented units.