## Trump's Proposal on Home Acquisition: Ambitious Plan or Regulatory Failure?

Protecting Americans' access to their own homes has been one of the key political slogans in recent years. Donald Trump has once again addressed this issue, proposing radical restrictions on large investment funds seeking to acquire additional properties. The proposal sparked a significant increase in public debate interest and an immediate market reaction — shares of Blackstone, Invitation Homes, and American Homes 4 Rent plummeted in value. However, analysts warn: does this solution truly address the problem, or does it merely superficially change the structure of the real estate market?

## Why Are Institutional Investors Not the Main Culprits?

Market reality appears more complicated than political rhetoric suggests. Large corporate entities managing rental property portfolios control only about 3.4% of all rental homes in the United States — just 80,000 properties held by the biggest players. Companies owning 100 or more homes account for less than 1% of all real estate transactions, according to John Burns Research and Consulting data.

The increased attention to the issue of institutional investors stems more from their media visibility than their actual impact on the market. Rick Palacios Jr. from John Burns notes that “although institutional investors attract enormous attention, the actual numbers show they represent a small segment.” Most rental homes still belong to small investors — so-called “mom-and-pop” investors — owning fewer than ten properties. In Q3 2025, this group accounted for about 14% of purchases, while the largest investors made up only 2.5% of transactions.

## Where Is the Real Problem?

Economist Daryl Fairweather from Redfin points out a truth often overlooked in politicized discussions: “The main cause of rising housing costs is simply the lack of available homes.” It is the scarcity of resources itself, not corporate greed, that attracts investors. If we want to solve the housing crisis, we need to focus on increasing supply — especially through building higher-density housing in attractive locations.

Trump’s proposal, although popular, does not address the core of the problem. Even a complete ban on large investment funds would leave the main cause untouched — insufficient housing supply in the market.

## Varying Impact Depending on the Region

It should be noted, however, that the influence of big investment capital is not uniform across the country. Corporate property owners have concentrated their activities in rapidly developing cities in the Southeastern US. The Government Accountability Office report reveals that in 2022, major investors controlled 25% of rental homes in Atlanta, 21% in Jacksonville (Florida), and 18% in Raleigh (North Carolina).

In these regions, the problem is indeed more pressing, although experts still debate whether institutional buyers are raising rents or providing more rental units to the market.

## Ambiguous Research on Actual Impact

Selma Hepp, chief economist at Cotality, emphasizes the complexity of the issue: “Scientific studies are far from conclusive.” Institutional investors traditionally focus on dynamic regions with strong labor markets — it is there that rising demand first drives up rents, which then attracts investment capital, not the other way around.

Joshua Coven from Baruch College conducted in-depth research on this phenomenon. His conclusions are ambivalent: large owners may indeed lower rents by increasing rental availability. On the other hand, by acquiring properties, they reduce the pool of homes available to individual buyers — which contributed to about a 20% increase in prices in the most active markets. Coven commented: “This makes it harder for people to become homeowners — prices are rising, and fewer homes are for sale. At the same time, these properties enter the rental market, increasing the availability of rental housing.”

## Does a Ban Really Change Anything?

Policies restricting the activities of institutional investors or banning rent increases could have the opposite effect — reducing rental availability and ultimately raising prices. It’s a paradox often ignored by proponents of change.

The real solution to the housing crisis requires a more advanced approach: increasing supply through liberalization of building regulations, support for dense construction, and all initiatives that increase the number of available homes — both for rent and purchase. Without this, the fundamental problem will remain unchanged, regardless of who owns the properties.