Institutional Investors Outbid Individual Homebuyers

Institutional Investors Outbid Individual Homebuyers

Highlights

• Institutional and other large corporate investors own an increasing share of single-family homes, taking properties off the market for individual homebuyers and putting upward pressure on home prices and rents.
• Institutional investors have concentrated their purchases regionally (in the Sun Belt) and in particular neighborhoods (typically low-income, historically nonwhite and disinvested areas).
• Federal, state, and local governments can combat the negative impacts of institutional investors, often in partnership with nonprofit and other social-purpose organizations that can purchase single-family homes for individual buyers or help those buyers purchase them directly.

Institutional and large corporate investors represent a growing percentage of owners of single-family homes. Institutional investors are single, nonindividual entities such as limited liability companies (LLCs), limited liability partnerships (LLPs), and real estate investment trusts (REITs) that have portfolios of 1,000 or more housing units. Unlike traditional, smaller-scale "mom and pop" landlords, these investors often can outbid prospective individual homeowners with all-cash offers and fast-track their purchases by waiving common steps in the buying process that would be too risky for individual buyers to skip. Institutional investors have various motivations; some may seek to hold onto the home as a rental unit and maximize its profitability; others may be interested primarily in capital gains from home value appreciation in the medium term; and still others, referred to as trading platforms, may seek to scale purchases in markets where they can profit from quickly reselling properties without investing in improving them. When institutional and other large corporate investors concentrate their activity in a local market — particularly within a specific neighborhood — the effects can be significant. In addition to preventing individual buyers from purchasing homes, investor activity lowers the overall availability of homes for purchase and raises prices for the remaining homes in the market. And these practices can have material impacts for renters in investor-owned properties, including additional costs and fees and issues related to unit conditions and maintenance.

Investor activity in the single-family rental market increased rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Photo courtesy of Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority

Institutional Investors in the Single-Family Market

An estimated 39 percent of rental housing units in the United States are single-family dwellings.¹ Because larger households tend to prefer the size of single-family homes, roughly 41 percent of the renter population lives in single- family homes.² In recent years, institutional and other large investors have been actively expanding their share of the single-family rental market. Between 2011 and 2017, these investors purchased more than 200,000 single-family homes at a total cost of $36 billion.³ Investor purchases surged again during the COVID-19 pandemic: in the first quarter of 2022, investor purchases of single- family homes averaged 28 percent per month, compared with 19 percent the previous year and the average of 16 per- cent between 2017 and 2019.⁴ This rate is much higher in certain areas of the country, reaching up to 67 percent in Lincoln County, Mississippi; 63 percent in Van Buren County, Iowa; and 52 per- cent in Tarrant County, Texas, in 2021.⁵ Large portfolio investors (those holding more than 100 properties) drove this growth.⁶ According to CoreLogic, institutional investors purchased 3 percent of homes sold in 2021, three times their typical share in prior years.⁷ Research by MetLife Investment Management suggests that, as of August 2022, institutions owned approximately 700,000 single- family rental homes.⁸

The increase in institutional investors began during the Great Recession, when housing prices dropped precipitously and credit tightened.⁹ During the financial crisis, investors bought foreclosed properties, often at a discount, with institutional buyers joining the usual cash investors.¹⁰As hundreds of thousands of homes went into foreclosure, the federal government sought to stabilize housing prices by increasing demand for the homes, which it accomplished largely by creating incentives for private investors to make bulk purchases.¹¹ In his study of Atlanta, Immergluck notes that in 2012, "a combination of public policy and Wall Street financialization" accelerated the rise of activity by institutional private-equity investors in the single-family rental market.¹² Banks and other lenders, as well as the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), had amassed large numbers of foreclosures on their portfolios that they wanted to offload. In addition, because the foreclosure crisis left many potential homebuyers wrestling with lower credit scores and tighter lending standards, private households were less likely to qualify to buy homes even at lower price points, thereby increasing the demand for rentals.¹³ Immergluck documents how federal policymakers argued that foreclosed properties should be converted to rentals.¹⁴ Noting the large number of foreclosed properties and the nation’s growing demand for rentals, a Federal Reserve white paper stated, "Reducing some of the barriers to converting foreclosed properties to rental units will help redeploy the existing stock of houses in a more efficient way."¹⁵ Notably, says Immergluck, this approach represented a missed opportunity to help homebuyers purchase homes while prices were low.¹⁶ Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both held pilot sales in 2012 to facilitate the sale of real estate owned properties and mortgage notes to investors who would operate them as rentals.¹⁷ The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) also expanded its sales of distressed mortgage notes to investors through its Single-Family Loan Sales Program, also known as the Distressed Asset Sales Program.¹⁸

Institutional investors had long avoided the single-family market because of the challenge of managing dispersed properties.¹⁹ Digital technologies, however, including improved data and analytics, have transformed the single-family rental market.²⁰ Technology has made both purchasing and managing dispersed rental properties more efficient and profitable. Corporate owners can use digital tools to acquire property quickly and other tools to screen applicants, accept payments, manage maintenance requests, and gather data on rental markets.²¹ Fields and Vergerio point out that these tools allow institutional investors to monitor real estate markets and move quickly to identify, evaluate, and make offers on properties that fit their criteria, and they allow landlords to analyze costs at scale to identify inefficiencies and maximize profits.²² Goodman and Golding point out that institutional investors, with their access to capital, may be better able to efficiently renovate properties after purchase than individual homebuyers and therefore perform a useful function in improving the condition and quality of the housing stock.²³

Large corporations own nearly 1 in 5 detached single-family rental homes in Phoenix.

As noted previously, investor activity grew rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its ongoing effects may further shape market dynamics.²⁴ However, the recent rise in interest rates and financing costs appear to have slowed the growth of investors’ purchases (although not their market share, because investors may be better able to weather interest rate increases than individual buyers). Investor purchases fell for two straight quarters following their peak in the third quarter of 2021.²⁵ At the same time, as higher mortgage rates have driven away individual homebuyers from the purchase market, homebuilders have increasingly turned to institutional investors to finance "build-to-rent" developments.²⁶ Elora Raymond of Georgia Tech says that the relevant data point will be the rate of return on the investment in single-family homes compared with alternative investments. Any time the return rate favors single-family homes, investors will buy them.²⁷

Although different types of investors have different motivations, market conditions have aligned at certain points to make single-family homes an attractive option for many investors (see "Institutional Investors: A Local Perspective").²⁸ Some investors may primarily be interested in purchasing and holding properties to collect rental streams and fees.²⁹ This investment strategy becomes particularly attractive when price-to-rent ratios fall.³⁰ Other investors may be attracted by the opportunity for capital gains, focusing on purchasing properties that they anticipate will appreciate in value over the medium term before being resold.³¹ Still others may want to profit from a quick resale of their purchase. This type of investor, sometimes called a trading platform, profits by using automated processes and cash offers to move quickly and bypass common fees such as those for appraisals, real estate agents, and financing before reselling their purchases.³²

Investors vary in the markets and properties they target, but, historically, most of the growth in investor purchases has been in the Sun Belt (the southern and western regions of the United States), which, not coincidentally, experienced high foreclosure rates during the financial crisis.³³ For example, in 2013, 12 percent of single-family homes in Atlanta were purchased as rentals compared with 1 to 2 percent of single-family purchases nationwide from 2012 to 2014.³⁴ As the housing market recovered from the financial crisis, investors were no longer able to purchase foreclosed properties in bulk. However, according to Immergluck, Sun Belt properties remained attractive to investors because of the region’s relatively lax tenant protections and the unlikelihood that local governments would pass rent control laws.³⁵ The largest investors often use revenue strategies that require operating at a large scale for profitability; as a result, they seek out areas where they can acquire many properties.³⁶ In some cases, regional concentrations have intensified; for example, in the third quarter of 2021, large investors purchased 43 percent of homes for sale in the Atlanta metropolitan area and 39 percent of those in the Phoenix-Glendale-Scottsdale area.³⁷ Overall, large corporations own nearly 1 in 5 of the approximately 41,000 detached single-family rental homes in Phoenix.³⁸

Investors can outcompete individual buyers with cash offers or by waiving processes such as inspections.

Within regions, researchers find that large corporate investors that are buying single-family rentals and rent-to-own units tend to concentrate their purchases at the neighborhood level, primarily in "low income, historically non-white neighborhoods that have suffered from disinvestment, but where gentrification or real estate cycle dynamics predict medium term price increases."³⁹ A study of the single-family home rental market in Atlanta from 2010 to 2015 found that investors concentrated their purchases in older neighborhoods with high numbers of Asian, Latinx, and Black residents, and a study of Los Angeles County found that investor activity was higher in neighborhoods with relatively low home prices and a high proportion of Black residents.⁴⁰ In their study, which included some cities outside of the Sun Belt, Dowdall et al. note that investor purchases in Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and Richmond are also concentrated in areas with below average homeownership rates where prospective homebuyers face barriers to mortgage financing.⁴¹

Some variations of this general trend exist. For example, the large corporate trading platforms that specialize in buying and quickly reselling homes at a profit purchased homes in areas with smaller populations of people of color overall, and, after the pandemic began, these platforms reduced their purchases in places with a high risk of housing instability.⁴² Private equity investors have increased their ownership share in manufactured home communities, where, in many cases, residents own their homes but rent the land underneath their homes. Because moving their homes is difficult and costly, most of these homeowners are essentially trapped in their current location, even as the landowners raise their rents.⁴³ Esther Sullivan of the University of Colorado, Denver, notes that, as with the housing bubble and bust in the 2000s, manufactured housing is a bellwether for investors’ strategies; the return-maximizing strategies that private equity firms have employed in manufactured home communities — including raising rents (in some cases as high as 50 to 60%), charging new fees, and cutting costs for expenses such as maintenance — are the same ones that investors in the rental market for single-family homes have used.⁴⁴

Impact on Prospective Homebuyers and Renters

Because investors tend to concentrate their purchases in particular markets, even particular ZIP Codes or neighborhoods, they can significantly affect home prices, rents, and options for prospective homebuyers.⁴⁵ It even matters, says Raymond, "not just what percent- age of units, but what percentage of three-bedroom units [for example], or in a particular school zone," are investor owned, "because that’s how tenants are searching" — by a particular housing type and location.⁴⁶ Investor activity reduces the inventory of homes available for potential owner-occupants to purchase, especially homes at lower price points.⁴⁷ These lower-priced homes are the types of homes that first-time home- buyers and groups that historically have been excluded from homeownership are likely to target. Researchers indeed observe declines in the number of homeowners and homeownership rates in areas with high investor activity.⁴⁸

Because institutional investors buy with cash and sometimes bypass appraisals and other typical processes, institutional investors can use these advantages to outcompete prospective homebuyers to purchase available homes.⁴⁹ Investors also might be more willing to waive inspections — an attractive advantage for sellers of homes needing repairs, which are not uncommon in the markets investors target.⁵⁰ These purchases not only take units off the market but also apply upward pressure on the prices of the homes that remain for sale. One study found that from 2007 to 2014, the increase in institutional investors "contributed to 9 percent of the increase in the real house price growth…."⁵¹

These dynamics contribute to the demand for the very type of rental properties that institutional investors seek. The management strategies investors employ to maximize profit, in turn, affect the costs and conditions for renters. Institutional investors use property managers, whom tenants sometimes perceive as removed and impersonal.⁵² To maximize cash flow, investors systemize the transfer of responsibilities for maintenance and other expenses, such as landscaping, to tenants, or, in some cases, charge fees for these services as well as for pools, automatic door locks, and utilities, among others.⁵³ Investors also can use leases to shift obligations onto tenants. Semuels reports that a standard lease from one corporate owner required tenants to replace air filters monthly and assume responsibility for sewer and sink backups and broken glass. Another owner charged tenants for any maintenance staff trips to the unit.⁵⁴ Some companies reportedly charged tenants aggressively to increase earnings, deducting the expenses from tenants’ security deposits. According to Semuels, between 2014 and 2018, one company increased such charges by more than 1,000 percent.⁵⁵

Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority purchased 194 single-family homes from an institutional investor to sell to individuals. Photo courtesy of Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority

A study of Milwaukee rental data found that rentals owned by LLCs were more likely to be in disrepair, both because LLC investors tend to buy in areas where dilapidated properties are concentrated and because the properties deteriorated more rapidly under LLC ownership.⁵⁶ Travis writes that, because identifying the precise owners of LLCs is so difficult and because of the liability protections that LLC status offers, both tenants and local governments may be less able to hold these owners accountable for tenant mistreatment and poor housing conditions.⁵⁷ Institutional investors are also more likely than other landlords to evict tenants. In their study of Fulton County, Georgia, Raymond et al. find that owners of 15 or more single-family home rentals were 8 percent more likely than smaller portfolio landlords to file eviction notices, a trend that holds even when controlling for neighborhood and property characteristics.⁵⁸ Seymour and Akers similarly find that large investors were more likely than small- or medium-sized landlords to file eviction notices and execute evictions.⁵⁹

In addition to the immediate impacts — outcompeting potential homebuyers as well as increasing costs and worsening conditions for renters — investment activity has long-term impacts. Dowdall et al. note that when the five largest institutional investors sell their units, they often sell them in bulk to other investors (61% of homes they sell), thereby keeping them in the rental market. This way, investors may significantly alter the tenure mix of a neighborhood over the long term.⁶⁰

Immergluck notes that because investors bought properties at the nadir of the market, they, rather than low- and middle-income homebuyers, have benefited from the recovery in housing values since the foreclosure crisis.⁶¹ As a result, these low- and middle-income households missed out on what could have been transformational gains in household wealth.

Combating the Negative Impacts of Institutional Investors

Various nonprofit and social-purpose institutions can compete with investors to buy single-family homes and preserve them as affordable rentals or resell them at affordable prices. Some policy interventions offer these institutions a competitive advantage in purchasing, such as first look programs that give nonprofits or tenants the first opportunity to purchase a property that is for sale before it is listed on the open market. Nonprofit organizations in several markets acquire and rehabilitate properties that they then offer at affordable prices to individual homebuyers. (See "Investments in Affordable Housing" for a discussion of the Atlanta Neighborhood Development Partnership, Inc.; Housing Partnership Inc. in Louisville, Kentucky; and Acts Housing in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, all of which attempt to help preserve affordable single-family homes for individual buyers.)

Another entity that can compete with institutional investors to protect singlefamily homes for individual purchasers are social-purpose REITs. Social-purpose REITs are institutional investment funds that seek returns for investors while also upholding a stated social mission, such as preserving affordable housing. One such example, the Housing Partnership Equity Trust (HPET), founded in 2013 as institutional investors were snapping up huge numbers of foreclosed properties, focuses on purchases that preserve naturally occurring affordable housing in multifamily properties. HPET provides investment capital and partners with nonprofit housing providers to manage the purchased housing. HPET’s investments adhere to its core mission to meet social impact goals such as setting affordable rents and serving specific high-need populations. The average rent at HPET properties is affordable to households earning less than 60 percent of the area median income. HPET also encourages environmental sustainability at its properties by tracking and reducing energy usage, seeking to improve cash flow (and investors’ returns) by reducing operating costs rather than transferring costs to renters. HPET has also kept vacancy rates low to increase profitability. The REIT has nearly 3,000 units in 14 properties across 7 states.⁶²

Like HPET, community land trusts (CLTs) can acquire properties, often those that need some rehabilitation, to preserve affordability. In some cases, CLTs have first look options to buy distressed properties. The Oakland Community Land Trust, for example, was founded in 2009 to purchase foreclosed properties and preserve them to provide affordable homeownership opportunities for residents of Oakland, California. The trust used federal Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding, but it was often outbid by investors’ cash offers. However, the land trust has recently increased its capacity and garnered additional resources. In 2019, the Oakland City Council awarded the trust $12 million to buy properties. The land trust continues to acquire properties, including single-family homes, to preserve as affordable housing options in Oakland and prevent further displacement of low-income households.⁶³

Investor activity poses unique challenges for residents of manufactured home communities, who typically own their units but rent the land on which they are sited.⁶⁴ Investors buying the land might seek to either profit from rental streams and fees or resell the land at a markup. ROC USA is a nonprofit organization that helps manufactured home communities become resident-owned land trusts in which the residents collectively own the land. ROC USA has helped convert 303 manufactured home communities representing 21,386 households to resident ownership.⁶⁵ Only a small percentage of manufactured home communities are resident owned, but those that are can protect themselves from excessive rent hikes and other measures that a profit seeking institutional landlord might impose.⁶⁶ Sullivan notes that residents of these communities also have more control to invest in needed infrastructure that institutional investors might neglect.⁶⁷

Government Efforts To Mitigate Negative Effects

Although HUD has few tools to limit investor purchases, it has attempted to prioritize individuals and nonprofits in the sale of FHA-insured and HUDowned properties. HUD has an Office of Asset Sales to manage properties that fall under its ownership — for example, homes secured with FHA-insured reverse mortgages after a borrower dies with no surviving nonborrowing spouse. HUD has prioritized owner occupancy for the sales of these properties. In June 2022, HUD auctioned approximately 1,450 properties that had secured reverse mortgages that were available exclusively to mission-driven nonprofits and state and local government buyers, thereby excluding commercial investors. HUD expects that these buyers will preserve or expand affordable homeownership opportunities or, in some cases, affordable rental options. The effort follows a December 2021 sale in which HUD reserved half of the auctioned properties for nonprofits and local governments; these entities purchased 814 mortgage notes.⁶⁸

ROC USA is a nonprofit organization that has helped 303 manufactured home communities convert to resident ownership, giving residents control over their communities. Photo courtesy of ROC USA/Mike Bullard

The Biden Administration also has announced steps to increase sales to individuals and nonprofits through Second Chance Claims Without Conveyance of Title (CWCOT), a process by which loan servicers sell foreclosed FHA-insured properties without first conveying them to HUD. In May 2022, FHA created a special listing period during which governments, nonprofits, and owner occupants have an exclusive opportunity to purchase CWCOT properties.⁶⁹ Similarly, the Federal Housing Finance Agency has directed GSEs and HUD to extend the "first look" period during which nonprofits and owner occupants can purchase their real estate owned properties. HUD will also expand its outreach efforts to educate eligible buyers about the process for purchasing HUD- and enterprise-owned properties.⁷⁰ Dowdall et al. recommend forming an intergovernmental task force to investigate and address the rise of institutional investors as well as other changes to the housing market to ensure a coordinated approach across federal agencies and with federal, state, and local governments.⁷¹

Julia Gordon, who now serves as HUD’s assistant secretary for housing and FHA commissioner, says that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, and state housing finance agencies should improve and expand financial products that help individual homebuyers purchase and renovate the types of properties that investors might target. Further, she says, because most homeowners might not be able to manage a renovation effort, state and federal entities should help nonprofit organizations acquire and renovate properties.⁷² The National Community Stabilization Trust (NCST) is a nonprofit that administers "first look" and other distressed properties sales programs for local nonprofit; government; and mission-aligned, for profit property purchasers that renovate these properties and return them to productive use, including through resale to owner occupants. NCST has found that, although investors of all types commonly renovate distressed homes for homeownership, its mission aligned purchasers were particularly effective at facilitating homeownership in minority neighborhoods.⁷³ Independent researchers have also found that rehabilitating distressed properties strengthens neighborhoods by boosting the values of neighboring properties.⁷⁴

More generally, the Biden Administration, including HUD, is mitigating the potential negative impacts of investor purchases of single-family homes through policies designed to increase the supply of affordable housing and support for homebuyers. The administration also is pursuing measures to increase the supply of manufactured housing and two- to four-unit properties by expanding FHA and GSE financing and encouraging localities to reform zoning to eliminate barriers to housing construction. To bolster manufactured homes as a source of affordable housing, HUD recently announced a proposed rule to increase and index loan limits for FHA insurance for personal property loans to purchase manufactured homes.⁷⁵ Federal funds can also support local efforts to activate alternatives to investor ownership; in Portland, Oregon, the Portland Housing Bureau used community development block grants in partnership with private developers, nonprofits, and state and local governments to purchase and rehabilitate Oak Leaf Mobile Home Park and prevent it from being sold and repurposed, which would have displaced its residents.⁷⁶

State and local responses, including robust rental registries and enhanced tenant protections, can also mitigate the increase and impacts of corporate investment. Landlord-tenant laws, zoning, and tax incentives are among the local factors that can make institutional investment more or less likely in a particular area.⁷⁷ Generating accessible data on the extent of investor activity can help localities understand how to respond. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis created a tool to track investor ownership in the Twin Cities region. The tool also estimates and categorizes investor size to analyze investors’ differing strategies.⁷⁸ State governments can require LLCs to disclose their ownership so that tenants and local officials can hold them accountable for problems with their properties.⁷⁹ Sullivan also notes that no central database currently exists to track the extent or location of institutional investment in manufactured home communities. Such a database could help researchers and policymakers understand and analyze trends and take action to protect tenants.⁸⁰

Community or tenant opportunity to purchase policies or laws, such as the District of Columbia’s District Opportunity to Purchase Act and Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, can give local governments and tenants a first option to purchase rental properties before they are listed on the market.⁸¹ Dowdall et al. suggest that another trigger could be significant differences in assessed value and purchase value, which could then require an independent appraisal to ensure that investors cannot take advantage of homeowners by paying significantly less than what their properties are worth.⁸²

Dowdall et al. recommend that state and local governments or quasi-governmental and nonprofit entities purchase single-family portfolios and resell the properties to individual homeowners. They offer the example of the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, which purchased 194 single-family homes owned by a single institutional investor to resell them, ideally to current renters receiving support from community-based partners.⁸³ Landlord licensing, rental registries, and code enforcement can help mitigate abuses or negligence by landlords or property managers, who may be remote.⁸⁴ Local governments can also adopt tenant protections against evictions, such as just cause eviction and right to counsel laws.

Conclusion

Institutional and other large-portfolio investors have substantially increased their activity in single-family rental markets over the past decade, and they have the potential to continue to extend their holdings. These investors often outcompete prospective homebuyers for relatively low-cost homes and depress the homeownership rate in areas where they concentrate their purchases. For renters, the investors’ profit model results in high rents, fees, and the transfer of responsibilities traditionally shouldered by landlords to renters. Nonprofits, CLTs, and social-purpose REITs can compete to keep homes available to individual homebuyers. Federal, state, and local governments can create opportunities for nonprofits to buy properties, and they can take measures to mitigate the conditions of renters through tenant protections and information sharing to hold large landlords accountable.

1. William Maher. 2022. "Single-family Rental Housing – Institutional Opportunities," RCL CO."
2. Claire Gray. 2021. "An Overview of Single-Family Rentals," National Multifamily Housing Council.
3. Alana Semuels. 2019. "When Wall Street Is Your Landlord," The Atlantic, 13 February.
4. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. 2022. "State of the Nation’s Housing," 12.
5. National Association of Realtors. 2022. "Impact of Institutional Buyers on Home Sales and Single-Family Rentals," 11.
6. Ibid.
7. Tim Henderson. 2022. "Investors Bought a Quarter of Homes Sold Last Year, Driving Up Rents," Stateline. 22 July.
8. Jeff Adler. 2022. "Institutional Investment in Single Family Rentals Is on the Rise, Reports Yardi Matrix," Yardi Matrix.
9. Lauren Lambie-Hanson, Wenli Li, and Michael Slonkosky. 2019. "Leaving Households Behind: Institutional Investors and the U.S. Housing Recovery."
10. Francesca Mari. 2020. "A $60 Billion Housing Grab By Wall Street," New York Times, 4 March.
11. Semuels.
12. Dan Immergluck. 2022. Red Hot City: Housing, Race, and Exclusion in Twenty-First Century Atlanta, Oakland: University of California Press, 161
13. Immergluck, 161–2, 164.
14. Immergluck, 163–5.
15. Federal Reserve. 2012. "The U.S. Housing Market: Current Conditions and Policy Considerations," 1.
16. Immergluck, 171.
17. Semuels.
18. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. n.d. "Distressed Asset Stabilization Program Enhancements."
19. Mari.
20. Desiree Fields and Manon Vergerio. 2022. "Corporate Landlords and Market Power: What does the singlefamily rental boom mean for our housing future?" 1.
21. Tech Equity Collaborative. 2022. "Sold to the Highest Bidder: How Tech is Cashing In on the American Dream."
22. Fields and Vergerio, 12.
23. Laurie Goldman and Edward Golding. 2021. "Institutional Investors Have a Comparative Advantage in Purchasing Homes That Need Repair," Urban Wire.
24. Elora Raymond, Yilun Zha, Ethan Knight-Scott, and Leah Cabrera. 2022. "Large corporate buyers of residential rental housing during the COVID19 pandemic in three southeastern metropolitan areas," Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
25. Lily Katz and Sheharyar Bokhari. 2022. "Investor Home Purchases Slump 17% From Pandemic Peak as Interest Rates Rise."
26. Committee on Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives. 2022. "Memorandum: Where Have All the Houses Gone? Private Equity, Single Family Rentals, and America’s Neighborhoods," 23 June; Joe Burns. 2022. "Housing stress creates opportunity for Build-to-Rent," finLedger, 13 October.
27. Interview with Elora Raymond, 30 September 2022.
28. Emily Dowdall, Ira Goldstein, Bruce Katz, and Benjamin Preis. 2022. "Investor Home Purchases and the Rising Threat to Owners and Renters: Tales from 3 Cities."
29. Mari.
30. Pedro Gete and Michael Reher. 2018. "Mortgage Supply and Housing Rates."
31. Raymond et al.
32. Mari; Raymond et al.
33. Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 12; Henderson.
34. James Mills, Raven S. Molloy, and Rebecca E. Zarutskie. 2015. "Large-Scale Buy-to-Rent Investors in the Single-Family Housing Market: The Emergence of a New Asset Class?" Federal Reserve Board.
35. Immergluck, 170.
36. Fields and Vergerio, 2.
37. Committee on Financial Services.
38. Andrew McIntyre. 2022. "Wall Street’s Single-family Home Grab, Phoenix, Part 1," Law 360.
39. Raymond et al.
40. Committee on Financial Services.
41. Dowdall et al.
42. Raymond et al.
43. Jim Baker, Liz Voight, and Linda Jun. 2019. "Private Equity Giants Converge on Manufactured Homes: How private equity is manufacturing homelessness & communities are fighting back."
44. Interview with Esther Sullivan, 29 September 2022.
45. Fields and Vergerio, 2–3.
46. Interview with Elora Raymond.
47. Mari.
48. Dowdall et al.
49. Fields and Vergerio, 22–3.
50. Dowdall et al.
51. Lambie-Hanson et al.
52. Mari.
53. Ibid; Semuels.
54. Semuels.
55. Ibid.
56. Adam Travis. 2019. "The Organization of Neglect: Limited Liability Companies and Housing Disinvestment," American Sociological Review 84:1, 162.
57. Ibid., 165.
58. Elora Raymond, Richard Duckworth, Ben Miller, Michael Lucas, and Shiraj Pokharel. 2016. "Corporate Landlords, Institutional Investors, and Displacement: Eviction Rates in Single-Family Rentals," Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta.
59. Eric Seymour and Joshua Akers. 2021. "‘Our customer is America’: Housing insecurity and eviction in Las Vegas, Nevada’s postcrisis rental markets," Housing Policy Debate 31:3-5, 534.
60. Dowdall et al.
61. Quoted in Mari.
62. Housing Partnership Network. "About HPN" (housingpartnership.net/hpet). Accessed 7 October 2022.
63. James A. Crowder Jr., Chris Schildt, and Rick Jacobus. 2021. "Our Homes, Our Communities: How Housing Acquisition Strategies Can Create Affordable Housing, Stabilize Neighborhoods, and Prevent Displacement."
64. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. 2020. Evidence Matters Winter/Spring 2020.
65. ROC USA. "Media Center" (rocusa.org/media-center-2/). Accessed 7 October 2022.
66. Evidence Matters Winter/Spring 2020.
67. Interview with Esther Sullivan.
68. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2022. "HUD Announces First-Ever HUD-Held Single Family Note Sale (HVLS 2022-2) Exclusively for Mission-Driven Non-Profits and Units of State and Local Government," 12 April press release.
69. White House. 2021. "FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Announces Immediate Steps to Increase Affordable Housing Supply," 1 September statements and releases; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2022. "Mortgagee Letter 2022-08: Expanding Affordable Housing Supply Through FHA’s Claims Without Conveyance of Title (CWCOT) Process."
70. Ibid.
71. Dowdall et al.
72. Julia Gordon. 2018. "The Dark Side of Single-Family Rental," Shelterforce.
73. Andrew Jakabovics and David Sanchez. 2021. "Does a Nonprofit "First Look" Program Promote Neighborhood Stabilization? Examining Outcomes for REO Sales in Florida," In Tackling Vacancy and Abandonment: Strategies and Impacts after the Great Recession Center for Community Progress and the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta and Cleveland.
74. Rohan Ganduri and Gonzalo Maturana. 2022. "Do Property Rehabs Affect Neighboring Property Prices?" SSRN Working Paper.
75. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2022. "Federal Housing Administration Proposes to Adjust Title I Manufactured Home Loan Program Loan Limits Annually," 18 October press release.
76. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2019. "In The Mix."
77. Committee on Financial Services.
78. Kim-Eng Ky, Libby Starling, and Tu-Uyen Tran. 2021. "New property-data tool reveals patterns of investor ownership in the Twin Cities area," Minneapolis Federal Reserve.
79. Dowdall et al.
80. Interview with Esther Sullivan.
81. Dowdall et al., 15.
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid.
84. Crowder Jr. et al