President Donald Trump said recently on social media he would ask Congress to stop large investors and private equity firms from buying single-family homes.

His plan did not have many details but echoed a common refrain across the U.S. that investors should not own homes and that they drive up prices.

Critics have argued the issue is overstated, with an estimated 4% of single-family rentals owned by institutional investors. Studies over the years have routinely shown San Diego County as having one of the lowest rates of institutional investors.

Still, the move is likely to be popular with voters and even stopping some big firms, like Blackstone, from buying properties could make a small difference in the real estate market.

Question: Should Congress bar big investors from buying single-family homes?

Economists

Ray Major, economist

YES: Institutional investors should be banned from owning single-family homes. The American dream is built on homeownership, and every person in the United States should be able to work hard and afford a home. Institutional investors reduce the supply and increase home prices turning potential homeowners into lifelong renters. This, in the long run, will eliminate the average American’s ability to build generational wealth and pass it on to their children.

Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy

NO: Investors have mixed effects on housing affordability. Families who cannot afford to buy benefit from renting in neighborhoods with strong schools. Investors can also stabilize markets during downturns, as they did after the financial crisis when prices collapsed. To improve affordability, limiting ownership by large investors in markets where they have pricing power would make more sense than an all-out ban. And if the goal is to increase housing supply and improve affordability, there are far better tools than investment restrictions.

Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research

NO: The vast majority of single-family rental homes are owned by small to mid-size landlords, less than 5% by large investors. Blaming big firms seems a populous desire to make the administration look like caring about home prices and doing something about affordability, but ignoring real drivers of housing costs and actual problems caused by overregulation, development restrictions and compounding fees. Blaming investors could end up with policies having adverse consequences on home markets altogether.

Alan Gin, University of San Diego

YES: Even though institutional investors are a small part of the market, their influence is growing. They are important at the margin, which can have big implications for some communities. By increasing the demand for housing, they cause prices to go up, which leads to housing price inflation as one of the biggest contributors to the elevated overall inflation rate. They can also squeeze out individual buyers, who may have difficulty competing with all-cash offers in a high-interest-rate environment.

James Hamilton, UC San Diego

NO: If an investor buys a home and rents it out, that is one less home occupied by an owner and one more home occupied by a renter. This does not change the overall cost of housing. Moreover, the Constitution does not give Congress or the president the power to impose such a rule. This is a local problem, not a national issue. The real solution is to reduce local fees and restrictions on home building.

Norm Miller, University of San Diego

NO: This limit on institutional ownership is symbolic of populous-driven interference in the housing market, and just like rent controls, it is harmful in the long run, inhibiting capital allocation and new supply in the housing market. Home prices and rent levels are overwhelmingly driven by supply-demand fundamentals: i.e. job growth, migration, zoning constraints, NIMBYs and construction levels. Institutions may manage rents more systematically, using dynamic pricing tools and standardized operating procedures — but they do not set the market. They respond to it.

David Ely, San Diego State University

NO: The shortage of affordable single-family homes is primarily due to insufficient new construction. Existing homeowners choosing not to upgrade because they do not want to give up their low-rate mortgage is a contributing factor. Given the relatively small share of single-family homes owned by institutional investors, restricting their purchase of homes will not materially expand the stock of housing available to households or slow price appreciation.

Executives

Phil Blair, Manpower

NO: The issue is not who owns rental properties, but how few there are available. The private sector has found a real estate investment niche and deserves to be able to exploit it. The law of supply and demand says build more housing and the rental prices will collapse. The administration could be opening up thousands of acres of underutilized land across the country for much-needed housing.

Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health

YES: The percentages might be low in terms of numbers of homes purchased by large investors, private equity or other corporate investors. But their purchases do escalate the price of homes by reducing the inventory available for those wishing to purchase homes for their own personal use by private assets. I think this could modestly control the price of homes by increasing availability for private purchasers.

Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere

NO: President Trump proposed banning large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes. The key word “more” suggests a limit, not a sell-off. Instead of an outright ban, Congress could find bipartisan support for assessing a cap on institutional single-family homeownership. A cap could ease competition for first-time buyers, help protect tenants from “mega-landlords” and reduce market concentration. It could also help balance housing affordability, rental supply, and homebuilding impacts.

Gary London, London Moeder Advisors

YES: But this is a bit of economic dodgeball because there are relatively few homes held in institutional portfolios in San Diego. I propose legislation that focuses on 1) zoning and land use policies to encourage new housing construction, 2) incentivize senior citizen downsizing by eliminating capital gains tax and 3) allow a one-time pass-through of existing property taxes for new transactions. Then a more robust resale market would emerge, coupled with demand for new housing.

Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates

NO: Institutional investors represent a small share of the housing market, so banning them would do little to lower prices. They also supply rental housing for people who can’t or don’t want to buy. Proposals to restrict who can purchase property mirror the kinds of policies pushed in New York City by Mayor Mamdani. We need to reduce regulations, taxes, and fees that constrain supply. Limiting who can buy homes shrinks the market and discourages construction.

Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth

YES: While institutional ownership currently only represents 4% of the market, funds with increasing algorithmic targeting, cash bids and conversion to rentals can drive prices and create negative externalities, especially impacting first-time buyers. First, run market-specific trials with short sunsets and analyze the impact on prices, supply and rental affordability before broader implementation or allow them to lapse.

Have an idea for an Econometer question? Email me at phillip.molnar@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020