Photo illustration by Israel Meave | President Donald Trump has outlined a plan to make homeownership more accessible to Americans, promising to restrict large corporate buyers from the single-family home market, among other measures.

On Jan. 7, President Trump announced on Truth Social a proposal to restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes.

The plan came into clearer view Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where Trump outlined four policies his administration is pursuing in a bid to make homeownership more affordable. Each had been previously mentioned by him or his administration in recent weeks, part of a broader push to address affordability generally — a hot-button issue with voters heading into the midterms.

 

Limited local impact

Keller-Williams Fresno Co-Owner Joanna Odabashian said that Fresno does not resemble the investor-heavy markets that are often noted in national headlines. She added that anything that pushes toward more homeownership is a positive.

“I don’t feel like we have that many large institutional investors,” Odabashian said. “I would like to see homeownership in the Fresno area be 60 or 70% one day. If this is something that helps, then awesome.”

According to CivMetrics, a website that provides public data, Fresno’s homeownership rate was 52% at the fourth quarter of 2024.

Odabashian acknowledged that when investors do enter the bidding process, they often make it harder for more traditional buyers to compete, especially those relying on financing.

“I think that it can be a disadvantage when you’re going up against somebody who doesn’t need financing, and they’re all cash and a quick close,” she said. “I think it is tough to go up against an investor.”

Fresno Association of Realtors (FAR) President-elect Jason Farris, agreed with Odabashian in that Fresno hasn’t really been impacted by institutional investors as much as other cities across the country.

“I don’t think limiting institutional buyers would have any type of real, immediate impact in our region.” Farris said, noting that issues with supply and construction costs continue to be the main problem with housing.

 

Trump’s broader agenda

In addition to targeting institutional investors, Trump has recently floated other affordability-related proposals aimed at boosting homeownership.

In his remarks, Trump stressed the need to lower interest rates on home loans and credit cards in order to give aspiring homebuyers more financial flexibility to save up for a down payment on a home and more purchasing power when it comes time to buy.

“We can drop interest rates to a level, and that’s one thing we do want to do,” said Trump. “That’s natural. That’s good for everybody. You know, the dropping of the interest rate, we should be paying a much lower interest than we are.”

White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said the administration is exploring ways to allow Americans to use funds from their 401(k) retirement accounts to help make a down payment on a home.

However, a survey by retirement planning platform Boldin found significant skepticism about Trump’s broader plan to open 401(k)s to alternative assets like real estate, cryptocurrency and private equity. Nearly half of respondents — 48 percent — opposed the idea, while only 34 percent supported it. Even more telling, 80 percent said they were unlikely to invest any portion of their 401(k) into such alternative assets, with concerns about liquidity, volatility and higher fees compared to traditional investments.

Trump noted that he has directed the federal government to buy $200 billion in mortgage bonds, a move he said would help reduce mortgage rates. Trump said earlier this month that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have $200 billion in cash that would be used to buy mortgage bonds. However, some economists have said such a move would likely have only a minimal impact on mortgage rates.

 

Advocate celebrates proposal

Lynisha Senegal, the founder of Fresno-based Vision View Business Formation Center, shared her positive reaction to Trump’s proposal on institutional investors on Facebook.

“This is big! Let’s just say we all have been heard. Affordable housing has been a challenge for years. After the pandemic, it became overtly predatory. I sounded the alarm on global institutional investors buying up massive real estate and gentrifying communities,” she wrote. “They were buying out businesses (I was asked twice to sell Vision View to these well-funded machines), college dorms, mobile home parks and forcing families into homelessness. But it feels incredible to see this news. One voice plus another will make change. Keep raising your voices. This is a massive win for our country.”

Groups call for supply-side solutions

In response to Trump’s proposal, the National Association of Realtors (NAR), pushed for a collaborative and data-driven approach that is focused on expanding housing supply instead of limiting market participation.

In his Truth Social post, Trump said, “people live in homes, not corporations.” NAR Executive Vice President Shannon McGahn said the group shares Trump’s goal of improving affordability and first-time buyer access while supporting policies that increase housing availability across the country.

 

Institutional activity declining

Data from the California State Library shows that Fresno County has a higher percentage of rental properties owned by larger landlords — not necessarily institutional, Wall Street investors — than many coastal areas. About 7.1% of certain residential parcels in the county are owned by property holders with at least 10 homes.

JD Home Rentals, one of the largest operators, has a notable footprint in Fresno neighborhoods. JD Homes is currently involved in a lawsuit with the city of Fresno over tenants at one of their properties growing marijuana plants.

Even though it is widely seen as positive to keep investors away from buying homes, their presence isn’t seen as a dominant threat across California compared to other states across the country.

Ryan Lundquist, a certified residential appraiser and housing analyst based in Sacramento, said the major buying wave by corporate landlords largely ended years ago.

“Over the past 10 years, it’s been more of a drop in the bucket in terms of their activity,” Lundquist said. “Today, the institutional funds are pretty much dormant, not really doing too much here.”

He said that many of the largest corporate landlords built their portfolios in the years following the housing crash, when prices were depressed and inventory was abundant.

As a result, he believes a federal ban on large investors would have little immediate impact in markets like Fresno, where buyers are rarely competing directly with institutional funds.

“Right now, there would be almost no impact in California, because these investors simply aren’t buying,” Lundquist said.

 

Complex role of investors

Odabashian offered a more balanced view of the role investors have played over the years and past housing cycles, even saying that some of them had made positive impacts.

“There have been times where the institutional buyers have helped out and even gone in and rehabbed homes and made things better,” she said, recalling the period when large portfolios of foreclosed homes were purchased, renovated and rented to residents who had lost access to traditional financing.

Farris also saw that this could be true in some older neighborhoods that need to be improved.

“There’s homes in these older neighborhoods that need to be fixed up,” he said. “They’ve got older electrical systems, failing plumbing systems and roofs that are leaking. So, yes, you do get companies that come in and buy those and fix them up. They’re in business. They need to make a profit.”

 

Supply constraints tops challenges

Odabashian, Lundquist and Farris said affordability is determined more by economic forces than by the presence of corporate landlords. Rising construction costs, limited housing supply and rapid price growth during the pandemic years continue to weigh on buyers.

“Prices rose incredibly fast,” Lundquist said, adding that regulatory hurdles and development fees make it difficult to build homes quickly enough to meet demand. “We definitely have not kept up with enough supply through the years in California.”

Competition among everyday buyers still remains intense. Odabashian recently represented a client who faced more than 20 competing offers on a home in the Clovis area.

As federal policymakers debate how to define and regulate large investors, Fresno’s housing market continues to show that buyers outnumber homes. For Odabashian, the long-term focus remains on expanding access to homeownership, regardless of who else is in the market.

“I believe that owning a home and helping people own homes is the best way that we can help them create generational wealth,” she said. “I’m always encouraged about the market, because I believe in it and I believe in making homeowners.”