Category: Housing

Research Continues to Reinforce Case Against Build-to-Rent Provision in Housing Bill

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

As the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, new research is strengthening the case for removing the Senate bill’s build-to-rent (BTR) provision. The findings suggest the provision could curb housing supply without improving affordability.

State of Play

  • At the center of the debate is Section 901, which would require newly built single-family rental homes developed by large institutional investors to be sold to after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, March 27 | The Atlantic, March 30)
  • Industry groups, researchers, and The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) warn that the mandate would disrupt a growing source of housing supply, raise serious constitutional concerns, and potentially trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government. (Roundtable Weekly, March 13 |  CNBC, March 29)

New BTR Research

  • Other recent studies are reinforcing concerns about the provision. A new AEI analysis found the bill’s investor restrictions could reduce supply and hurt lower-income families. (AEI study, March 27)
  • An Urban Institute case study found that single-family rental investors have developed renovation and property-management capabilities that could help rehabilitate more homes and expand the supply of affordable housing. (Urban Institute Case Study, March 30)

Roundtable & Industry Advocacy

  • RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing or revising Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate build-to-rent housing production. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| March 6 | March 13 | March 20 | March 27) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • That case was reinforced again last week in an open letter from housing researchers, who said the mandate would undermine a growing source of supply and is especially unworkable because many BTR communities are not designed to be sold unit by unit. (Letter, Mar. 26 | MultifamilyDive, Mar. 31)

New Cost Pressures

  • Rising aluminum prices are adding new strain to an already challenging development environment, pushing construction costs higher and threatening project viability.
  • “The conflict in the Middle East is further driving up materials prices and making construction that much less affordable and many projects that much less financially viable,” said Anirban Basu, the chief economist for Associated Builders and Contractors. (PoliticoPro, March 27)
  • The pressure comes on top of elevated rates, tariff uncertainty, and labor shortages that have already slowed homebuilding and weighed on new investment. (PoliticoPro, March 27)

What’s Next

  • Congress is in recess until April 13, leaving the package’s next steps uncertain for now.

RER will continue urging Congress to protect the bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would make it harder to build rental housing.

House Weighs Next Move on ROAD to Housing Act

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act remains in limbo in the House, where lawmakers are still weighing how to reconcile the Senate-passed package with the chamber’s own housing bill. The Senate approved its version two weeks ago after combining House priorities with the upper chamber’s broader housing agenda, but House members have raised concerns about several provisions added or revised in the Senate package—most notably the bill’s treatment of build-to-rent (BTR) housing.

State of Play

  • The House and Senate remain at odds over how to advance the housing package after the Senate passed its bill with overwhelming bipartisan support earlier this month. (PoliticoPro, Mar. 23)
  • House Financial Services Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged House Democrats this week to support a formal conference committee, arguing that the final bill should restore House priorities and address stakeholder concerns—an apparent reference to the Senate bill’s restrictions on large institutional investors in single-family housing.
  • Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) said Wednesday that Senate Banking and House Financial Services leaders need to meet to resolve key differences between the two packages.
  • Rep. Flood identified three major House concerns with the Senate bill: the need to preserve but revise the provision restricting institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, the omission of environmental review changes for certain affordable housing programs, and the Senate’s inclusion of a temporary rather than permanent restriction on a Federal Reserve central bank digital currency. (PoliticoPro | Watch Rep. Flood Remarks, Mar. 25)

Build-to-Rent

  • The biggest sticking point remains the Senate bill’s requirement that rental homes developed by large investors be sold to individual homebuyers after seven years. (The Urban Institute, Mar. 17)
  • House Republicans have raised concerns that the provision could undercut new rental housing production, disrupt financing, and introduce significant long-term uncertainty into the market.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has warned that the bill’s forced-sale structure raises serious constitutional concerns and could trigger years of litigation involving property owners, tenants, and the federal government.

New BTR Research

  • Based on a March 19 discussion with 146 BTR executives, developers, and capital partners, the firm reported this week that the Senate bill’s seven-year disposal requirement has already frozen capital and halted new development ahead of enactment. Some capital will not return even if the bill is altered, reflecting ongoing concerns about future policy risk. (John Burns Research & Consulting, Mar. 24)

RER Advocacy

  • RER and a broad real estate coalition have spent weeks urging lawmakers to preserve the housing bill’s supply-focused provisions while removing language that would force large investors to sell newly built single-family rental homes after seven years. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27| Mar. 6 | Mar. 13 | Mar. 20)
  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (Roundtable Weekly, Mar. 20) (Letter, Mar. 5 | Letter, Mar. 13)
  • That message was reinforced again this week in an open letter from housing policy researchers, who warned that the Senate-passed ROAD to Housing Act would undermine BTR housing, which represents a growing source of new supply in markets where housing is already out of reach for many households. (Letter, Mar. 26)
  • The researchers said BTR has helped expand the housing stock, particularly for middle-income renters seeking single-family-style housing, and cautioned that the bill’s seven-year sale mandate would disrupt the model’s economics and reduce future production.
  • The letter also noted that many BTR communities are not structured to be sold off unit-by-unit, making the requirement especially problematic in practice.

What’s Next

  • The House and Senate are out on recess and do not return to Washington until April 14, leaving the future of the broader housing package uncertain. (NYT, Mar. 25)

Whether lawmakers pursue a formal conference or a narrower compromise, RER will continue urging Congress to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental-housing production and make it more difficult to meet the nation’s growing housing needs.

House Weighs Next Steps on ROAD to Housing Act as White House Issues Housing Executive Orders

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate’s overwhelming passage of the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week has shifted attention to the House, where lawmakers are weighing how to reconcile the Senate bill with the House-passed housing package approved in February.  (PoliticoPro, March 17 | Politico, March 19)

State of Play

  • The House and Senate remain at odds over how to advance the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, with House Republicans threatening a formal conference to force negotiations while Senate leaders hope the House will ultimately accept the Senate-passed bill.
  • The Senate passed the bill 89-10 on March 12. They then sent it back to the House, which had already passed its own bipartisan housing package—the Housing for the 21st Century Act—by 390-9 on February 9.
  • The Senate-passed bill preserves much of the prior ROAD to Housing bill’s framework and includes several provisions intended to boost housing supply.
  • The Senate version also includes Section 901, which would restrict additional single-family home acquisitions by institutional investors that directly or indirectly own at least 350 homes and require owners to sell build-to-rent (BTR) homes within seven years or face an onerous penalty. The Section also provides unusually broad regulatory authority to the Treasury Department to address “market disruptions” and other situations that could create troubling future regulatory actions. (Roundtable Weekly, March 13 | Forbes, March 17)
  • House Financial Services Chairman French Hill (R-AR) told CNBC’s Squawk Box he is optimistic the House and Senate can work through differences in their housing bills, but stressed that the Senate text contains “some real problems” that need to be corrected. He pointed specifically to the build-to-rent provision requiring homes to be sold within seven years, which he said would undermine efforts to increase housing supply. (Watch Squawk Box CNBC, March 18)

Executive Orders – Housing

  • President Trump issued two executive orders aimed at boosting housing construction and expanding mortgage access, as the House and Senate work through differences over the ROAD Act. (EO Construction | EO Mortgage, March 13)
  • The administration said the orders are intended to reduce regulatory burdens, increase supply, and improve credit access for qualified borrowers. (WSJ, March 13)
  • The construction order, “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction,” directs federal agencies to revise or eliminate requirements related to environmental reviews, energy conservation standards for manufactured and federally financed housing, and historic preservation, while directing HUD and the White House Domestic Policy Council to develop best practices for state and local governments to increase housing supply and affordability. (EO Construction, Mar. 13)
  • The mortgage order, “Promoting Access to Mortgage Credit,” is intended to expand access to mortgage credit, particularly through community banks and smaller lenders. (EO Mortgage, March 13)
  • The EOs reinforce the administration’s broader housing message and overlap with parts of both congressional bills focused on cutting red tape, supporting community banks, and expanding supply. (PoliticoPro, March 13)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (BisNow, March 12) (Letter, March 5 | Letter, March 13)
  • Last week, RER President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer sent senators an analysis warning that the bill’s forced-sale provision raises serious constitutional concerns and would likely trigger years of litigation. (RER Analysis, March 10)
  • DeBoer stated, “RER supports many provisions in the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act that would help expand housing supply and reduce barriers to homeownership. But the bill’s forced-disposition provision for build-to-rent would discourage investment in new rental housing and raise serious constitutional concerns. As the House takes up the bill, RER urges lawmakers to remove that language and keep the focus on increasing housing supply and affordability. (NMHC & NAA Statement | NAHB Statement, March 12)

RER will continue urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental housing production and chill the capital formation needed to address the nation’s housing shortage.

Senate Passes ROAD to Housing Act as Industry Urges Changes to BTR Language

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate passed the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act on Thursday in an 89-10 vote, advancing one of the most significant federal housing packages in years and setting up the next phase of negotiations with the House. (Multi-Housing News, March 13 | BisNow, March 12)

State of Play

  • The Senate-passed bill preserves much of the prior ROAD to Housing bill’s framework and includes several provisions intended to boost housing supply. (Politico, March 12)
  • The package would streamline project reviews, raise FHA multifamily loan limits, support manufactured housing, and encourage additional housing development in designated Opportunity Zones. (Roundtable Weekly, March 6)
  • The final Senate text includes Section 901, which would restrict additional single-family home acquisitions by institutional investors defined as entities that directly or indirectly own at least 350 homes. (Multifamily Dive, March 12)
  • It also includes a seven-year forced disposition requirement that would require owners to sell build-to-rent (BTR) homes they develop to another private party or pay an onerous penalty. (PoliticoPro, March 10)
  • Real Estate Roundtable (RER) President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer stated, “RER supports many provisions in the Senate-passed 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act that would help expand housing supply and reduce barriers to homeownership. But the bill’s build-to-rent forced disposition provision would discourage investment in new rental housing and raise serious constitutional concerns. As the House takes up the bill, RER urges lawmakers to remove that language and keep the focus on increasing housing supply and affordability. (NMHC & NAA Statement | NAHB Statement, March 12)
  • RER has warned that the bill’s treatment of BTR housing raises significant concerns under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause and the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. (RER Analysis, March 10 | WSJ, March 9)
  • A federal law compelling one private party to sell property it owns directly to another private party, without government initiation of eminent domain proceedings, would be without precedent.
  • If enacted, the BTR language would almost certainly invite years of constitutional litigation involving property owners, renters, and the federal government.

Congressional Concerns

  • House Financial Services Chairman French Hill (R-AR) called the Senate vote an “important step,” while cautioning that lawmakers still need to “get the details right” and address concerns raised by House members. (Politico, March 12)
  • Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) criticized the investor language on the Senate floor, calling it a “drafting error” and warning it could undermine housing production. (Watch Schatz Speech, March 11)
  • “I will stipulate that there are a lot of good things in this bill that are kind of on the pro-housing supply side, but what we are about to do is essentially ban a specific kind of housing,” said Sen. Schatz. (Barrons, March 11 | NBC News, March 12)
  • Sen. Schatz also said the bill could interfere with LIHTC projects, including affordable single-family developments, if the language is not revised.
  • Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) has also warned that the Senate bill’s BTR provision could “crush an industry” that produces roughly 50,000 homes a year. (PoliticoPro, March 11)

What the Research Shows

  • Analysis has reinforced the concern that restricting institutional capital may do little to improve affordability while creating new supply problems.
  • RER has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • Recent analysis from AEI and Cato indicated that driving institutional capital out of housing is unlikely to improve affordability and may instead reduce investment, shrink supply, and leave Treasury with broad discretion over favored and disfavored forms of housing investment. (AEI, March 10 | CATO Institute, March 4)
  • According to analysis by The Pew Charitable Trusts, Section 901 could sharply curtail build-to-rent housing, which has recently added 70,000 to 130,000 homes annually, by undermining the financial viability of those projects, displacing renters, and reducing new single-family construction starts by 100,000 or more homes a year. (Pew, March 10)

RER & Industry Advocacy

  • In March, RER joined a series of coalition letters urging senators to remove or revise Section 901, warning that the seven-year sale requirement would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing. (PoliticoPro, March 10 | BisNow, March 12; Letter | Bisnow | Politico, March 5; Letter, March 9)
  • This week, RER President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer sent senators an analysis warning that the bill’s forced-sale provision raises serious constitutional concerns and would likely trigger years of litigation. (RER Analysis, March 10)
  • In a letter sent today to House leadership, RER and other national organizations thanked the House for advancing landmark housing legislation while urging lawmakers to amend Section 901 before final passage. (Letter, March 13)
  • The letter warns that the Senate-passed language would effectively eliminate the production of BTR housing and take critically needed new housing units off the table at a time of severe affordability and supply pressures. (Letter, March 13)
  • The coalition also argued that BTR homes expand rental choices for families seeking more space and flexibility, and that forcing providers to sell those homes would displace renters, reduce supply, and undermine the bill’s broader pro-housing goals.

What’s Next

  • The House would need to pass the Senate’s version or convene with the upper chamber to combine the bills into one piece of legislation before it heads to the president’s desk. (Politico, March 12)
  • “If the White House wants the House to pick up the bill and pass it, they’ll probably have to make that argument to the House leadership,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said Thursday. (Politico, March 12)

RER will continue urging lawmakers to preserve the bill’s pro-supply provisions while removing language that would reduce rental housing production and chill the capital formation needed to address the nation’s housing shortage.

Senate Housing Package Advances as Investor Ban Draws Opposition

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

The Senate this week moved forward with the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This sweeping bipartisan package combines House and Senate housing provisions with the Trump administration’s push to restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes. (BisNow, March 3 | March 6 | RER Statement, March 4)

State of Play

  • The measure cleared an initial procedural vote, 84-6, after Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released updated legislative text. A second vote on Wednesday, 90-8, moved the package closer to final action.  (Politico, March 2)
  • The latest Senate text largely preserves the prior ROAD to Housing framework, while adding a new provision to limit additional single-family home purchases by large institutional investors. The bill defines a large institutional investor as a company that owns 350 or more homes and incorporates exemptions, including for build-to-rent housing.
  • The White House said President Trump’s advisers would recommend signing it in its current form. (BisNow, March 3)
  • The broader package also encompasses provisions to streamline reviews for projects, raise FHA multifamily loan limits, support manufactured housing, and encourage additional housing development in Opportunity Zones. (BisNow, March 3)
  • Several senators had not reviewed the updated legislative text before Monday’s vote because it was released shortly beforehand. (Politico, March 2)

Congressional Opposition

  • Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he was not supportive of the investor provision if it mirrors the administration’s earlier crackdown, warning it would move policymakers “further away from producing affordable housing.”
  • Today, House Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill (R-AR) warned that his chamber is not prepared to support the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. “There are members in the House whose provisions and views were not accounted for in the current iteration of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act,” Hill said. (Punchbowl News Vault, March 6)
  • Hill is “optimistic” that those concerns can be addressed. Absent that, Hill said “further negotiations, including a possible conference, may be needed.” (Punchbowl News Vault, March 6)

What the Research Shows

  • Analysis has reinforced the concern that restricting institutional capital may do little to improve affordability while creating new supply problems.
  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • A recent Brookings analysis concluded that banning large institutional purchases of single-family rentals would yield only a very small increase in homes available for purchase, while leading to higher rents for families who need or prefer renting. (Brookings Institute, Feb. 23)
  • The same analysis warned that unexpected limits on investor activity could reduce future capital commitments to the sector and weaken property rights in ways that discourage new supply. (Brookings Institute, Feb. 23)
  • A Cato Institute analysis similarly argued that the proposed Section 901 provision in the bill would give the Treasury Department broad discretion to distinguish among favored and disfavored forms of housing investment. (CATO Institute, March 4)

Industry & RER Advocacy

  • RER and broad housing coalitions have been making the same supply-focused case for weeks. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16 |  Jan. 23 | Feb. 27)
  • “On one hand, it undermines the whole idea of the [ROAD to Housing Act] if the purported idea of [the bill] was to help us build more housing and reduce barriers to building, and then you create this legal structure that makes it effectively impossible to build and finance in this very important sector,” said Sharon Wilson Géno, president of National Multifamily Housing Council. (PoliticoPro, March 4)
  • RER member Sean Dobson ( Chairman, CEO and CIO, Amherst) echoed that argument in an op-ed this week, that restricting single-family rental supply does not erase the financial barriers that keep many households from buying; it simply reduces housing options for families who are structurally constrained from homeownership by income, credit, and down payment hurdles. (Fortune, March 5)
  • In a March 5 coalition letter to Senate leaders and the Banking Committee, RER and dozens of national housing organizations warned that Section 901, as drafted, “would effectively eliminate the production of Build-to-Rent (BTR) housing.” (Letter, March 5) (Bisnow, March 5 | Politico, March 5)
  • “It doesn’t prohibit it, but it greatly discourages build-to-rent activities,” RER President & CEO Jeffrey DeBoer told Bisnow in an interview Friday. (Bisnow, March 6)
  • “These projects take years to get through the development process, the zoning process, the funding process,” he added. “Requiring any private business or citizen to sell any kind of asset in a certain time is highly unusual, and I think a lot of people would say it’s unconstitutional.”
  • The letter notes that the bill’s seven-year disposition rule would chill investment across the BTR supply chain, even with nominal exemptions. It urges the Senate to amend the bill to fully exempt BTR housing. (PoliticoPro, March 5)
  • DeBoer also issued a statement earlier this week, following the release of the bill’s updated legislative text, “The Real Estate Roundtable supports many provisions in the ROAD to Housing Act and the Housing for the 21st Century Act, both of which take important steps toward expanding housing supply.  Expanding housing supply requires significant capital investment.  However, the institutional investor provisions under consideration in the Senate bill would be counterproductive. These provisions would discourage the capital investments that are needed to develop, redevelop, and modernize the nation’s owner-occupied and rental housing stock. In particular, the provision to force institutional owners of rental housing to sell the homes that they build within a specified 7-year timeframe would discourage investment in home construction, could actually result in rent increases in many markets, and would no doubt face substantial constitutional challenges. While much of the housing bill now before the Senate is properly focused, the institutional investor provisions should be dropped.” (RER Statement, March 4)

What’s Next

  • The Senate bill still must clear final passage and be reconciled with the House before it can reach the president’s desk. There is speculation that a vote on final passage of the package could happen as early as next week. (PoliticoPro, March 4)

RER will continue advocating for policies that expand housing supply and protect the capital formation needed to build and preserve housing, rather than measures that risk constraining investment without solving the underlying shortage.

RER Statement on the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

Statement by Real Estate Roundtable (RER) President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — “The Real Estate Roundtable supports many provisions in the ROAD to Housing Act and the Housing for the 21st Century Act, both of which take important steps toward expanding housing supply.  Expanding housing supply requires significant capital investment.  However, the institutional investor provisions under consideration in the Senate bill would be counterproductive. These provisions would discourage the capital investments that are needed to develop, redevelop, and modernize the nation’s owner-occupied and rental housing stock.  In particular, the provision to force institutional owners of rental housing to sell the homes that they build within a specified 7-year timeframe would discourage investment in home construction, could actually result in rent increases in many markets, and would no doubt face substantial constitutional challenges.  

Addressing housing affordability challenges facing families across the country requires a greater supply of housing.  While much of the housing bill now before the Senate is properly focused, the institutional investor provisions should be dropped.”

Senate Takes Up House Housing Bill as White House Seeks Limits on Institutional Investors

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

President Donald Trump used his State of the Union address on Tuesday to renew his call for Congress to codify limits on large institutional investors buying additional single-family homes, as lawmakers work to merge bipartisan House and Senate housing packages into a final deal set for a vote next week. (Axios | PoliticoPro, Feb. 25)

State of Play

  • “We want homes for people, not for corporations,” Trump said as he urged Congress to make the policy permanent. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 25)
  • House Republicans met this week with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as lawmakers explore legislative language tied to the housing package. Trump and Bessent have said that any final legislation must include language banning large investors from purchasing single-family. (Reuters, Feb. 19 | PoliticoPro, Feb. 26)
  • Some lawmakers and analysts have argued that investor bans do not address the core affordability driver—a persistent housing supply shortage. Goldman Sachs estimates the U.S. would need to build up to 4 million additional homes beyond the normal pace to reduce the deficit. (CBSNews, Feb. 25 |Washington Examiner, Feb. 26)

What’s Next: Bipartisan Housing Bill Vote

  • Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) filed cloture Thursday on the House-passed  Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644), setting up a Monday vote on the motion to proceed as leadership uses the House bill as the vehicle for a version of the Senate Banking Committee’s ROAD to Housing Act. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26 |Roundtable Weekly, Feb. 13)
  • The House passed the bipartisan bill earlier this month with broad support, and the Senate advanced its bill in October. The two sides are now negotiating a final package. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26 | Roundtable Weekly, Oct. 17)
  • Senate aides said the Senate package could include some provisions from the House’s bill, including measures to expand manufactured and affordable housing and protect borrowers. The Senate measure wouldn’t include the House version’s community banking provisions. (PoliticoPro, Feb. 26)
  • House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-AR) welcomed Majority Leader Thune’s move but urged a final product that reflects “shared priorities of the House, Senate, and White House,” as the administration continues to press for some form of large-investor purchase restriction to be included in any final bipartisan housing deal. (Press Release, Feb. 26)

White House Proposal

  • In a memo sent to lawmakers last week, the administration proposed banning institutional investors who own more than 100 single-family homes from buying any new ones. (CNBC, Feb. 24)
  • The proposal would continue to allow build-to-rent developments, where investors construct new single-family homes specifically for rental use. (WSJ, Feb. 26)
  • Government entities and community land trusts would be exempt altogether, and the Treasury Department would retain authority to approve other transactions deemed to expand homeownership opportunities, giving regulators flexibility to avoid unintended consequences for buyers and renters.
  • Treasury’s forthcoming definitions of “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” are expected to shape scope and compliance, including what property types are captured and how thresholds are applied. (GlobeSt., Feb 26)
  • The ban would apply only to future purchases—without forcing investors to sell existing holdings—and would take effect 180 days after enactment. (CoStar, Feb. 20)

By the Numbers

  • A recent American Action Forum analysis found that large institutional investors have expanded the much-needed supply of rental homes, improved housing quality, and added liquidity in under supplied markets. (AAF Study, Feb. 12)
  • A Chandan Economics review of Census Bureau data finds individual investors—not institutions—own the largest share of U.S. single-family rentals (SFRs). The analysis draws on the Census Bureau’s 2024 Rental Housing Finance Survey (data collected June-November 2024), a comprehensive snapshot of rental-property mortgage financing. (Chandan Economics, Feb. 19 |GlobeSt., Feb. 25)

RER Advocacy

  • The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply is the most effective path to improving affordability, as research shows affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9 | Jan. 16)
  • RER President & CEO Jeffrey DeBoer said, “Evidence shows that policy attacks on institutional investment in housing or other real estate are misguided.  Institutional investors actually expand the supply of rental homes, thus driving down rents. Their investments enable financially constrained families to move into neighborhoods that previously had few rental units, and these investments tend to improve the quality of the existing housing stock. While politically popular, restricting capital into housing will not address the housing problem.  Instead, policy should, as the bulk of the House and Senate bills do, intensely focus on expanding the supply of housing.”
  • In a Feb. 10 comment letter to House Financial Services Committee leadership, RER and national real estate trade groups cautioned against limiting institutional capital in the housing market, including SFR assets. (Comment Letter, Feb. 10 | Roundtable Weekly, Feb. 13)

New Senate Legislation Introduced

  • On Tuesday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and 16 other Senate Democrats introduced the American Homeownership Act. The bill would prevent companies with more than 50 single-family homes for rent from taking deductions for housing value depreciation and mortgage interest payments. Corporations would also be barred from getting federally backed mortgages. (Bill text | Bill fact sheet | Press Release, Feb. 24)
  • The bill would provide a temporary carve-out for companies building new multifamily housing or rehabilitating properties that would otherwise be uninhabitable. (CNBC, Feb. 24)
  • Edward Pinto, co-director of the AEI Housing Center at the American Enterprise Institute, said a more effective proposal would meet three specific criteria: reducing land costs, allowing homes to be built on smaller parcels, and lowering construction costs. (CBS News, Feb. 25)

RER will continue advocating for policies that expand housing supply and protect the capital formation needed to build and preserve housing—rather than measures that risk constraining investment without solving the underlying shortage.

House Passes Bipartisan Housing Package; HFSC Hearings Spotlight Affordability and Secondary Mortgage Market

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

This week, the House overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Housing for the 21st Century Act (H.R. 6644). Following Monday’s vote on this sweeping bill, the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) held a hearing on Tuesday to examine how policies in the financial services and housing sectors contributed to rising cost-of-living pressures for American families by restricting access to capital and credit. On Wednesday, the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance held a hearing to examine housing affordability and the role of the secondary mortgage market.

Housing for the 21st Century Act

  • On Monday, the House approved the bipartisan Housing for the 21st Century Act by a 390-9 vote, marking one of the strongest bipartisan housing votes in recent years. (The Hill, Feb. 10)
  • Led by HFSC Chairman French Hill (R-AR) and Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA), the legislation includes provisions to streamline housing production and affordability by updating outdated programs, removing unnecessary federal requirements, increasing local flexibility, and allowing banks to more freely deploy funding.  (The Hill, Feb. 10 | Comment Letter, Feb. 6)
  • The bill addresses a housing shortfall of up to 5.5 million units, driven by regulatory delays, zoning constraints, and rising construction costs. (The Hill, Feb. 6)
  • In a Feb. 6 letter to Congress, The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) joined a group of national real estate and housing organizations in expressing “strong support” for the measure, commending the HFSC for advancing “practical, solutions-oriented housing policy.” (Comment Letter, Feb. 6)
  • The coalition added that the bill “supports increased housing supply, improved access to homeownership, and appropriate consumer protections, particularly in high-cost and underserved communities.” (Comment Letter, Feb. 6)
  • The bill’s passage in the House sets up negotiations with the Senate, which passed its own housing legislation—the ROAD to Housing Act—late last year. The two bills contain similar supply-side reforms but differ on certain grant programs and community bank provisions. (Punchbowl News, Dec. 14)

Hearing on Affordability Crisis

  • On Feb. 10, the HFSC held a hearing titled, “Priced Out of the American Dream: Understanding the Policies Behind Rising Costs of Housing and Borrowing,” focused on legislative and regulatory proposals to address the affordability crisis. (HFSC Hearing, Feb. 10)
  • The hearing noticed three proposals to restrict institutional investment in single-family rentals (SFRs)—a topic that has gained momentum following a related Executive Order issued last month. However, the SFR issue surfaced only briefly during Tuesday’s session, and none of the restrictive measures advanced. (Executive Order, Jan. 20)
  • In a Feb. 10 comment letter to HFSC leadership, RER and national real estate trade groups cautioned against limiting institutional capital in the housing market, including SFR assets. (Comment Letter, Feb. 10)
  • The letter explained, “There is no evidence that institutional investors are crowding out prospective homebuyers,” citing data showing that institutional investors accounted for just 0.3 percent of the $2 trillion in single-family home purchases over the past year. (Comment Letter, Feb. 10)
  • The letter highlighted the positive developments that institutional investors have contributed to the market, stating, “Institutional SFR investment expands rental supply in markets where it was previously limited, increases access to high-opportunity neighborhoods, and benefits households with lower incomes, wealth, and savings.” (Comment Letter, Feb. 10)
  • RER and coalition partners also urged lawmakers to avoid policies that would restrict capital formation and instead prioritize supply-forward reforms to close the nation’s housing gap. (Comment Letter, Feb. 10)

Homeownership and the Secondary Mortgage Market

  • On Feb. 11, the HFSC’s Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance held a hearing titled, “Homeownership and the Role of the Secondary Mortgage Market,” examining the structure, function, and evolution of the market and how the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac impact housing affordability. (HFSC Subcommittee Hearing, Feb. 11)
  • In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Mike Flood discussed the importance of liquidity and capital efficiency in today’s regulatory environment.
  • “The secondary mortgage market works to provide greater liquidity for lenders and results in greater access to mortgage lending for borrowers. In today’s banking regulatory climate, holding a mortgage on a bank’s balance sheet can result in significant capital costs,” Chairman Flood said. (Rep. Flood Press Release, Feb. 11)
  • Chairman Flood added that no legislation was noticed during the hearing, as the session was intended to explore the subject matter in-depth.
  • Bob Broeksmit, President and CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association, touched on the substantial role that GSEs play in the secondary market. He also advocated that any reforms enacted to end the GSEs’ government conservatorship provide “an ample runway to ensure deep, liquid secondary markets for single-family and multifamily mortgages through all economic cycles and in all geographic regions.” (MBA Testimony, Feb. 11)

RER will continue engaging lawmakers in both chambers to advance durable housing solutions and sensible GSE reforms that support homeownership, expand affordable housing supply, and sustain economic growth.

Executive Order Seeks to Restrict Institutional Single-Family Home Purchases Amid Affordability Push

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

This week, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order directing federal agencies to restrict large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, framing the action as part of a broader effort to restore housing affordability and expand homeownership. (WSJ, Jan. 20)

State of Play

  • The Executive Order directs leaders at HUD, Treasury, FHFA, USDA, VA, and GSA to issue guidance limiting federal programs and government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) activities that facilitate institutional purchases of single-family homes that could otherwise be purchased by owner-occupants. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • The Order instructs the Treasury Secretary to develop formal definitions of “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” within 30 days, signaling that further details on implementation are to come. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • Agencies are also directed to promote first-look policies and disclosure requirements favoring individual buyers, while including narrow exceptions for build-to-rent communities planned and constructed as rental housing, and potentially other types of projects. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • DOJ and the FTC are instructed to review large-scale investor acquisitions in local housing markets for potential anticompetitive behavior, including coordinated vacancy or pricing strategies. (White House EO, Jan. 20)
  • Notably, the Order appears to focus on future acquisitions and does not contain language requiring sale, divestment, or unwinding of existing holdings, instead assuming continued ownership by requiring disclosure from current owners of single-family rentals. (White House EO, Jan. 20)

Remarks from Davos

  • Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week, President Trump reiterated many of the key points from the Executive Order.
  • In his speech, President Trump argued that institutional investors have distorted the housing market, stating that “homes are built for people, not for corporations,” and asserting that large firms purchasing “as much as 10 percent of houses on the market” have crowded out families and first-time buyers. (CNBC, Jan. 21)
  • President Trump also noted a complementary effort to lower borrowing costs, stating, “I’ve instructed government-backed institutions to purchase up to $200 billion in mortgage bonds to bring down interest rates.” (CNBC, Jan. 21)

Activity on Capitol Hill

  • Housing affordability was also a focus for leaders on Capitol Hill this week. HUD Secretary Scott Turner told the House Financial Services Committee that the administration is prioritizing housing supply expansion and regulatory rollback.
  • Sec. Turner cited HUD’s elimination of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule—which he said “did not build one home” and functioned as a de facto national zoning mandate—as part of a larger push to cut red tape, empower local decision-making, and promote homeownership. (HUD Secretary Turner Testimony, Jan. 21)
  • On Thursday, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Economic Growth held a hearing titled “Housing Affordability: Saving the American Dream,” examining regulatory barriers, supply constraints, and market-based approaches to lowering housing costs. (House Oversight Committee, Jan. 22)
  • NAHB Chairman Buddy Hughes testified that regulatory burdens are a central driver of affordability challenges, noting that “nearly 24 percent of the price of a new single-family home is due to regulatory regimes at the state, local and federal levels,” which he said directly increase costs and limit housing production. (Witness Statement, Jan. 22)
  • AEI Housing Center Co-Director Edward Pinto told lawmakers that restrictive state and local land-use regulations are an “immovable object” constraining supply and driving prices higher, while demand-side measures alone risk exacerbating price pressures. (Witness Statement, Jan. 22)

What’s Next

  • The White House has indicated that additional housing-related executive actions are under consideration, particularly measures aimed at first-time homebuyers, as the administration looks to demonstrate progress on housing affordability ahead of the midterm elections. (Washington Post, Jan. 9)
  • The administration has also signaled its intent to pursue legislation that codifies elements of the Executive Order banning institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes, though prospects remain uncertain given jurisdictional, legal, and political hurdles. (White House EO, Jan. 20 | FOX Business, Jan. 21)

RER Advocacy

  • RER has consistently emphasized that expanding housing supply—not restricting capital—is the most effective path to improving affordability.
  • During this week’s RECPAC meeting, Genger Charles (Amherst), Sheila Greenwood (Invitation Homes), Lou Hayden (American Homes), and Ama Romaine (Pretium) participated in a member panel examining proposals to restrict institutional investment in single-family homes and the implications for housing supply, affordability, and capital formation.
  • Panelists emphasized that institutional investors are one piece of the housing ecosystem—not the reason homebuyers are being priced out, pointing instead to chronic supply shortages, elevated interest rates, and local regulatory barriers that raise costs and constrain production.
  • RER has also highlighted research showing affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9)
  • RER President and CEO Jeffrey DeBoer has stressed that “the gap between supply and demand is the true cause of today’s housing crisis,” calling for common-sense reforms that remove barriers to development and maintain incentives for the capital needed to build, modernize, and expand the nation’s housing stock. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9)

RER will continue working with policymakers and the administration to advance supply-forward housing solutions that increase production, preserve access to capital, and help families—whether renters or homeowners—achieve the American Dream.

Washington Ramps Up Housing Agenda as Real Estate Coalition Presses for Solutions that Expand Supply

Posted on by abigail_grenadier

President Trump and lawmakers ramped up efforts to address housing affordability this week—floating executive actions, new financing tools, and legislative proposals aimed at lowering costs for homebuyers and renters. The Real Estate Roundtable (RER) and a broad real estate coalition are urging policymakers to stay focused on the underlying challenge: the nation’s chronic housing supply shortage.

State of Play

  • Speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, President Trump previewed additional affordability proposals, saying, “In the coming weeks, I will be laying out even more plans to help bring back affordability.” (PoliticoPro, Jan. 14)
  • Last week, Trump said he would move to ban “large institutional investors” from purchasing single-family homes—without providing details on what legal steps the administration could take or how “large” would be defined. (Bloomberg, Jan. 8 | WSJ, Jan. 7)
  • Administration officials have indicated to Axios that more details on the administration’s housing policies will come from Trump’s speech at Davos this month. (Axios, Jan. 12)
  • Trump also instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities, an effort the administration says is intended to help reduce mortgage rates and monthly payments. (Politico | Bloomberg, Jan. 9)
  • The administration has floated the idea of “portable mortgages,” which would allow mortgage holders to sell their house and bring their low mortgage-rate along to their new home. (Axios, Jan. 14)
  • On Tuesday, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) unveiled a new “Making the American Dream Affordable Again” policy framework for a second reconciliation package, including housing-related concepts such as a proposed down payment assistance program and ideas tied to easing mortgage “lock-in.” (The Hill, Jan. 13)

Roundtable & Real Estate Coalition View

  • Large-scale SFR investments have helped revitalize distressed properties and communities, contributing to economic growth and stability.
  • RER has consistently emphasized that restricting investment is not a substitute for increasing supply—and that institutional capital can be part of the solution when it supports new housing development and expanded rental options.
  • In a Jan. 13 coalition statement, real estate organizations urged policymakers to prioritize supply-forward policies that expand construction and keep capital flowing to housing: “The only way to lower the cost of mortgages and rent is by encouraging, not hindering, investment… by building the housing our nation needs.” (Coalition Statement, Jan. 13)
  • RER has also highlighted research showing affordability pressures are driven primarily by supply shortages, construction costs, and mortgage rates—not institutional ownership levels. (Roundtable Weekly, Jan. 9)

Sen. Gallego’s Housing Affordability Plan

  • Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) released a housing affordability plan on Wednesday centered on boosting supply, reforming zoning and permitting, lowering costs, and strengthening resilience to extreme weather. (Politico| HousingWire,  Jan. 14)
  • RER President and CEO Jeffrey D. DeBoer welcomed elements of Gallego’s plan focused on increasing supply—such as ideas to expand the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, encourage conversions of obsolete buildings into housing, and reward jurisdictions that streamline land use and zoning rules. (Press Release, Jan. 14)
  • DeBoer said RER looks forward to working with Sen. Gallego “to advance these important proposals in the most impactful way possible.”

Bipartisan Bill Incentivizes Transit-Oriented Housing

  • A bipartisan, bicameral group introduced the Build Housing, Unlock Benefits and Services (HUBS) Act to cut red tape and expand federal infrastructure loan tools to support transit-oriented development and boost housing supply. (One Pager;  Full Text)
  • Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) and John Curtis (R-UT) are leading the bill in the Senate, alongside Reps. Laura Friedman (D-CA) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) in the House.
  • DeBoer said, “The Build HUBS Act is an important step to address the nation’s housing crisis. By expanding the Department of Transportation’s low-interest TIFIA/RRIF loan programs to finance housing in transit-oriented development projects, this bill will increase the supply of housing in America and bring more affordable housing options to communities across the country. We look forward to working with Congress to enact this legislation,” he added. (Press Release, Jan. 15)
  • Rep. Lawler will be a featured speaker at RER’s State of the Industry Meeting next week.

RER will continue working with policymakers and the administration to advance practical solutions that increase construction, support investment, and address the root causes driving today’s housing costs.