최신자료
Institutional Investors in the U.S. Housing Market: Myths and Realities
In recent years, institutional investors have drawn substantial negative media attention for their purported role in limiting housing supply and driving housing unaffordability.
Policymakers at all levels of government have taken notice and advanced a wave of proposals aimed at reining in institutional investors in the housing market. At the federal level, Senator Jeff Merkley has introduced legislation to impose tax penalties for institutional investors owning over 100 homes. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also advocated for removing tax breaks for corporate investors. At the state level, efforts to restrict institutional investors have gained steam in 2025, with often bipartisan bills introduced in at least 22 states？ albeit some of them have failed. At the local level, Fishers and Carmel in Indiana became the first cities to implement long-term single-family rentals bans this year.
These legislative efforts suggest a widespread consensus that institutional investors are a major culprit behind the nation’s housing affordability crisis. However, this narrative is not supported by empirical evidence, as the market share of institutional investors is less than 1% nationally, with 22 counties (0.7% of counties) having percentage as high as 5-10%.[3] Further, their emergence was not a cause, but rather a reaction, to government regulatory failures. These failures include restrictions on home building that have resulted in a multi-million housing shortage, as well as the Federal Reserve’s easy money/inflationary policies, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, that incentivized investors to ramp up home purchases. The solution is not to ban institutional investors but to allow more housing to be built.
Policymakers at all levels of government have taken notice and advanced a wave of proposals aimed at reining in institutional investors in the housing market. At the federal level, Senator Jeff Merkley has introduced legislation to impose tax penalties for institutional investors owning over 100 homes. Senator Elizabeth Warren has also advocated for removing tax breaks for corporate investors. At the state level, efforts to restrict institutional investors have gained steam in 2025, with often bipartisan bills introduced in at least 22 states？ albeit some of them have failed. At the local level, Fishers and Carmel in Indiana became the first cities to implement long-term single-family rentals bans this year.
These legislative efforts suggest a widespread consensus that institutional investors are a major culprit behind the nation’s housing affordability crisis. However, this narrative is not supported by empirical evidence, as the market share of institutional investors is less than 1% nationally, with 22 counties (0.7% of counties) having percentage as high as 5-10%.[3] Further, their emergence was not a cause, but rather a reaction, to government regulatory failures. These failures include restrictions on home building that have resulted in a multi-million housing shortage, as well as the Federal Reserve’s easy money/inflationary policies, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, that incentivized investors to ramp up home purchases. The solution is not to ban institutional investors but to allow more housing to be built.
많이 본 자료
![[2025.07] 대출규제](/userdata/main/incContent/sideLink/23/aaaqQGcnBTcOc8zW9uLNz20251015165742zqfnw.png)
![[사람이 되고 싶어요2] 환율의 변화](/userdata/main/incContent/sideLink/22/aaaqQGcnBTcOc8zW9uLNz20251015165408vtzoa.jpg)
