Mom-and-Pop Investors Own Far More Homes Than Big Investors—and May Benefit Most From Crackdowns

As Congress debates limitations on large real estate investors in the single-family housing market, some experts are pointing to the benefits enjoyed by "mom-and-pop" smaller investors, too.

Language in the bipartisan 21st Century Road to Housing Act—one of the most comprehensive housing reforms in decades—adds scrutiny to institutional investors in the housing market. This language broadly limits owners of more than 350 single-family homes and aims to force them to sell. That includes single-family rental companies.

The language has been controversial, with several large groups including the National Association of Home Builders and the Mortgage Bankers Association opposing it. Some members of the House, which must approve the new language, are openly critical.

But limiting large investors has been a priority of President Donald Trump, even as the definition of these large investors varies by bill. And polls show large investor limits are popular with voters, too.

Quiet dominance of the mom-and-pop shop

Realtor.com® senior economist Jake Krimmel said that, by raw numbers, mom-and-pop investors with 10 or fewer properties own a lot more than the large institutional investors the bill targets.

These investors accounted for 53% of single family investor purchases overall from 2015 to 2025. But their share grew steadily over time—49.1% of buys in 2021 to 61.3% of buys in 2025. Last year, they bought eight times the houses that investors with over 350 homes did, Krimmel said.

"Washington seems to have an appetite for going after landlords and investors with the stated intention of helping homeowners and boosting homeownership," Krimmel said. "But it's present-day renters who would get caught in the crossfire."

Data from the American Enterprise Institute tells a similar story. It found that as of June 2025, almost 80% of the housing stock in investor hands belongs to operations with no more than nine properties. That's about 9 million units.

That's 10.8% of the overall housing stock. For comparison, only about 0.9% of the housing stock, or about 800,000 units, is controlled by companies with over 100 homes. Edward Pinto, co-head of AEI's Housing Center, said these smaller investors benefit from important tax protections.

The popular sentiments against large institutional investors "are often based on incomplete or misleading interpretations of the data," Pinto said.

Yale School of Management reached a similar conclusion in its own analysis. Small investors can claim mortgage interest deductions, 1031 like-kind real estate exchanges to defer capital gains taxes, and lower effective property tax rates than owner-occupiers in 23 states.

"One unintended consequence is that a ban might make it easier for mom-and-pop investors to buy starter homes, further limiting inventory of homes for sale and leading to higher prices paid by first-time homebuyers," Yale researcher Cameron LaPoint said in a January post.

Silver linings

Still, large investor activity tends to drive up prices in the neighborhood, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis said in research last year, before Trump's executive order drew attention to the investor ban. The Fed surmised this is because these investors, who have deeper pockets, can buy and fix up dilapidated houses. Mom-and-pop investors don't have the same effect.

The Cato Institute notes the Trump administration was quick to dismiss curtailing mom-and-pop shops. But targeting large investors is "scapegoating," it said.

But that doesn't mean change is afoot. Congress has considered crackdowns on investors before, but backed down. Noted Krimmel, "a war on landlords can inadvertently turn into a war on renters."

That's because many of those who rent these single-family homes can't afford to buy. With personal financial situations, lending standards, and a tight housing market, they're likely to be the ones priced out. Others rent by choice.

"Politically, some sort of a ban is probably a nonstarter," Krimmel said. "Individuals should have the right to invest in an asset class as potentially valuable and stable as real estate."