A recent presidential executive order targeting corporate acquisition of single-family homes to alleviate housing costs has been met with skepticism from financial experts. The core argument against the order suggests it misidentifies the primary drivers of housing market challenges, potentially leading to unintended consequences and market instability rather than resolving the affordability crisis.
Misguided Policy Focuses on the Wrong Culprit in Housing Market
On January 22, 2026, President Donald Trump issued an executive order intending to reduce housing expenses by prohibiting large corporations from acquiring single-family residences. However, Jina Yoon, the Chief Alternative Investment Strategist at LPL Financial, articulated concerns that this directive may be misdirected. She argues that the prevailing narrative of "Main Street versus Wall Street" is not entirely supported by the data, indicating that individual investors, rather than major corporations, are the predominant force in the single-family housing market.
Yoon's analysis revealed that despite a record 30% of single-family homes being purchased by investors in the first half of 2025, a significant majority—approximately 80%—were acquired by "mom-and-pop" investors. In contrast, large institutional entities hold only a minor share, about 2–3% of total single-family homes, with their investments concentrated in specific urban centers such as Atlanta, Phoenix, and Charlotte. Consequently, a nationwide prohibition on corporate buyers would barely affect the vast number of individual investors, including small landlords and property flippers, who are key contributors to the competitive housing landscape.
Beyond the quantitative data, Yoon points out that the executive order fails to address fundamental issues exacerbating the housing affordability crisis. These include persistent supply shortages, restrictive zoning regulations, and elevated mortgage interest rates. Furthermore, she anticipates a "loophole effect" where the order, by restricting purchases of existing homes but exempting new constructions, might inadvertently steer institutional capital towards "Build-to-Rent" developments. This shift could paradoxically accelerate the growth of entire communities managed and owned by the very corporations the policy aims to restrain, thereby potentially undermining the goal of increasing homeownership.
The current lack of specific details in the order, which delegates the codification of a ban to Congress and the definition of key terms to the Treasury Department, has created considerable unease in financial markets. Yoon warned that this ambiguity could lead to heightened volatility for publicly traded REITs and real estate investment firms, reflecting a general sense of investor uncertainty regarding the future market landscape.
From a journalist's perspective, this situation underscores the complexities inherent in policymaking, especially when aiming to address deeply rooted economic issues. The intention behind the executive order—to make housing more accessible and affordable for average citizens—is undoubtedly commendable. However, the expert analysis presented by Jina Yoon highlights a critical disconnect between the policy's target and the actual dynamics of the market. It reveals how a well-intentioned measure, if based on an incomplete understanding of market forces, can not only fail to achieve its objectives but also introduce new forms of market distortion and instability. This case serves as a poignant reminder that effective solutions require a nuanced understanding of the problem and a careful consideration of all potential ramifications, rather than simplistic responses to complex challenge