"In a more distressed environment, institutional investors tend to provide price support, meaning their absence could introduce greater downside risk to home values. If the proposal were changed to include forced selling, it would likely weigh on home prices, though the timeframe of those possible forced sales would matter, the analysts wrote. Alternatively, if the definition of large were defined more loosely to include investors with at least 10 homes, then the scale would become bigger and the lack of buyers could become more relevant."
"Analysts also pointed to legislative challenges, noting that such a proposal would be unlikely to advance through budget reconciliation and would therefore require 60 votes in the Senate a high bar that makes passage difficult in the near term. Realtor.com senior economist Jake Krimmel echoed that view. According to him, the economic impact would be modest at best and unlikely to significantly improve affordability, which he said is primarily a supply-side problem."
Today's housing market remains relatively firm, with expected 4.23 million existing home sales in 2026. Institutional investors can provide price support in more distressed conditions, so their absence could increase downside risk to home values. A ban focused on future purchases would likely have modest economic impact and would not significantly improve affordability, which is primarily a supply-side problem. Forced-selling provisions would more directly weigh on home prices, with timing of sales affecting the magnitude. Most single-family rentals are owned by small landlords. Large investors account for less than 20% of investor purchases in early 2025. Passage would require 60 Senate votes, making enactment difficult.
Read at www.housingwire.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]