Considering the impact of the proposed ban on institutional investors buying single-family homes

President Trump's proposed ban on institutional investors buying single-family homes could reshape housing dynamics in key relocation markets across the US.

What Happened

On January 7, 2026, President Trump announced via Truth Social that his administration is “immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes” and will ask Congress to codify the measure into law. Trump framed the initiative as a turning point in housing policy, arguing families should not have to bid against billion-dollar funds for starter houses.

The Context

Wall Street institutions including Blackstone, American Homes 4 Rent, and Progress Residential have bought thousands of single-family homes since the 2008 financial crisis led to a wave of foreclosures. By June 2022, institutional investors owned around 450,000 homes, representing about 3% of all single-family rental homes nationally, according to a 2024 GAO study.  In Atlanta, Jacksonville, and Charlotte, large investors controlled more than 15% of the market for single-family homes as of 2022. Between the start of 2020 and the third quarter of 2025, home prices climbed nearly 55% nationwide, according to the National Association of Home Builders. 

Market Reaction

Shares of major rental-home REITs and private equity firms fell sharply following the announcement. American Homes 4 Rent dropped to a near three-year low and was halted for volatility, closing down 4%. Blackstone shares fell about 5.6%. 

What's Not Yet Clear

Key details have not been released, including how "large institutional investor" will be defined and whether existing holdings will be affected.  Trump indicated he will discuss further housing proposals at his Davos speech later this month.

Markets Most Likely to Be Impacted

While institutional investors own roughly 3% of the single-family rental housing stock across the U.S., they own a much greater share of homes in certain markets, particularly in the Southeast.  Relocation professionals should pay closest attention to the following metro areas:

Highest Institutional Ownership Concentration (by % of single-family rental market):

Largest Absolute Holdings (by number of properties):

Atlanta has 72,000 mega operator-owned properties, Phoenix has 33,000, Dallas has 27,000, Charlotte and Houston have 24,000 each, and Tampa has 23,000. These six cities together contain 45% of mega operators' total holdings.

Top MSAs for Institutional Single-Family Ownership:

Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Columbus, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Memphis, Miami, Nashville, Orlando, Phoenix, Raleigh, and Seattle-Tacoma round out the major markets where institutional investors have concentrated their portfolios.

According to data from Redfin, investors purchased nearly one-third of homes sold in Miami (31%) in the fourth quarter of 2022 and about one-quarter in Jacksonville (27%) and Atlanta (25%)

Expert Perspectives

Some housing experts and economists have questioned the proposal's effectiveness, contending it would have little impact on overall housing stock and risk depressing investment. TD Cowen analyst Jaret Seiberg noted the measure "may boost single-family purchases, but it will come at the cost of reducing single-family rentals." Meanwhile, Blackstone has argued that institutional home purchases have already declined 90% since 2022 and that supply shortage is the primary driver of price increases.

What are the implications for corporate relocation programs?

Potential Benefits for Relocating Employees

This policy could reduce competition for entry-level and mid-tier housing in high-demand markets. First-time homebuyers and relocating employees purchasing homes might face fewer bidding wars with well-capitalized institutional buyers, particularly in Sun Belt markets like Atlanta, Phoenix, Charlotte, and Jacksonville where institutional concentration has been highest.

Concerns and Complications

Several factors complicate this picture:

1. Rental inventory could tighten. If institutional investors exit the single-family rental market, fewer professionally managed rental properties may be available for employees on temporary assignments, those waiting to purchase, or those who prefer renting. This could increase rental costs in markets where corporate landlords provide significant inventory.
2. Impact may be marginal. At roughly 3% of single-family rentals nationally, institutional investors represent a small slice of overall housing. The fundamental supply shortage of approximately 4 million homes and the "rate lock" effect keeping existing homeowners in place are larger structural barriers to affordability.
3. Definition matters. Until "large institutional investor" is defined, it's unclear whether this affects only the largest REITs and private equity players or might sweep in smaller investment groups. The practical impact depends entirely on implementation details.
4. Legislative uncertainty. Executive action has limited reach in private market transactions; congressional codification would be needed for lasting effect, introducing significant uncertainty about whether and when these rules take hold.

What to Watch

Relocation program managers should monitor the Davos speech for additional policy details and track how quickly—and whether—Congress acts on this initiative. The Southeast and Southwest destination markets warrant particular attention in policy updates and employee counseling discussions, especially for relocations into Atlanta, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Tampa, Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston.