6,000 SFR – A survey of 14 institutional single-family rental and build-to-rent firms shows capital is getting frozen: 80% say the policy outlook has worsened, 70% say uncertainty has disrupted or halted acquisitions or development plans, and collectively the group has de
By the time lawmakers finished rewriting the latest version of a federal “ban” on institutional homebuying, the damage had already started showing up inside deal rooms and construction schedules.
A ResiClub survey of institutional SFR and Build-to-Rent firms finds that policy uncertainty isn’t just a headline issue—it’s actively stopping projects. In the past six months. 80% of firms said their outlook for deploying capital into SFR/BTR deteriorated sharply. including 50% who said it has “decreased significantly.” The same uncertainty is now reshaping what firms buy. what they build. and where they place bets on new housing supply.
The numbers are stark. Seventy percent of SFR and BTR firms said uncertainty has either significantly disrupted or completely halted acquisition or development plans. Four out of five reported delaying at least 100 homes because of policy or regulatory uncertainty. In aggregate. the surveyed firms said they have delayed or decided not to move forward with 6. 000 single-family homes—whether through Build-to-Rent or Fix-to-Rent strategies—due to policy and regulatory uncertainty.
That pullback is happening while Washington debates how far restrictions on institutional ownership should go—and how quickly the rules must bite.
ResiClub surveyed 14 institutional SFR owner/operators, developers, and investors between April 28 and May 26, 2026. The final respondent pool included only institutional or large operators that own at least 100 single-family rentals and build-to-rent developers. Half of respondents reported portfolios of more than 1,000 SFR homes. ResiClub excluded respondents that either did not meet criteria or whose eligibility could not be verified. Not every respondent answered every question in the survey, so totals vary by question.
Within the survey results, policy risk is now central to investment decisions. Eighty percent of firms said current or proposed policy measures are “significantly” influencing investment decisions. Sixty percent said they are unlikely to increase SFR exposure over the next 12 months given the current policy environment.
When the conversation turns from uncertainty to outcomes. firms don’t sound confident that the restrictions would be limited in scope. Ninety percent of respondents said restrictions on institutional SFR investment would reduce housing supply. expecting either a slight or significant decrease in overall supply. And 70% rated the current level of policy/regulatory risk for institutional SFR investment as high, including 60% who selected “very high.”.
Some firms are also preparing an escape route—moving capital elsewhere if institutional SFR investment is restricted or banned. Eighty percent said they would redirect capital into other real estate sectors (office, data centers, student housing, multifamily, etc). The remaining 20% said they’d redirect capital to non-real estate sectors.
The policy fight, and why the market can’t price it in
The question on the table is whether the federal government should stop large institutional investors from buying additional single-family homes. The sequence began with President Trump’s announcement on January 7. when he said he was taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes and called on Congress to codify it.
On January 20, he went further with an executive order directing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop backing purchases by large institutional investors, while explicitly promising a build-to-rent exemption in whatever ban Congress ultimately passed.
By February 19, the White House reportedly settled on defining “large investors” as entities owning 100 or more homes.
Congress, however, wrote a different line into the legislation. On March 2, Tim Scott (R-SC) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, setting the threshold at 350 homes. The Senate passed it 89–10 in March.
But industry alarm focused on a key catch: while build-to-rent was technically exempted—along with purchases of homes that require major repairs—institutional landlords would be required to sell those homes acquired through the exemptions to individual buyers within seven years of purchase. The National Association of Home Builders withdrew support. A bipartisan group of 76 House members signed a letter calling the selloff rule a measure that would “effectively halt the production of Build-to-Rent housing nationwide.”.
Then came the House rewrite last month.
What the House changed last month—and what firms are waiting for
In May, the House made several changes to the Senate version. Under the House bill. institutional SFR landlords—defined by the bill as entities that control 350 or more single-family homes—would be allowed to keep the homes they already own. The bill would still “ban” large institutional investors from purchasing additional single-family homes, except through designated exemption pathways.
The most consequential change removed the seven-year selloff. Under the House version. build-to-rent is a clean exemption: institutional investors can build single-family rentals (Build-to-Rent) or buy newly constructed homes for rental and hold them indefinitely. with no forced disposition clock. Fix-to-Rent/Renovate-to-Rent is similarly freed from the selloff requirement.
The House also changed the renovate-to-rent standard. Under the Senate bill. an institutional renovate-to-rent purchase required the investor to spend at least 15% of the purchase price on improvements. The House version drops that numerical floor. instead requiring only that the home fail to meet structural or core system elements of local building codes. or minimum property standards for conventional mortgage financing.
For firms deciding whether to buy or build now, the remaining uncertainty is where the final version lands in the Senate and whether the selloff clock returns or stays gone.
Where the fight heads next
ResiClub reports that congressional insiders it spoke with say there is a 70% chance the housing bill passes this year—and does so without the proposed seven-year selloff requirement on homes acquired through the exemptions. Those same insiders also said there is roughly a 30% chance that nothing is signed into law at all this year.
In that in-between period, the survey shows paralysis is already embedded in the SFR and BTR industries. Policy uncertainty has significantly disrupted or completely halted acquisition or development plans for 70% of firms. Four out of five delayed at least 100 homes. And collectively, they reported delaying or deciding not to proceed with 6,000 single-family homes.
Institutional players are still small—but the pockets matter
The housing debate often frames institutional investors as a fast-growing force. Yet even when their presence rises, it remains a small slice of the broader single-family home market.
At the height of the Pandemic Housing Boom. large investors—those owning at least 100 single-family homes—reached an all-time high of 3.1% of home purchases in Q2 2022. according to John Burns Research and Consulting. Since mortgage rates spiked and capital markets shifted. their share has fallen to around 1.0% of transactions over the past three years.
ResiClub adds that the math isn’t as favorable since the market shifted and rates spiked in mid-2022.
The survey results also align with the idea that “small nationally” can still mean “meaningful regionally.” Institutional landlords represent a tiny slice of the nationally aggregated single-family rental market. but regional pockets—particularly in growth markets such as Atlanta. Dallas. Phoenix. Tampa. Jacksonville. and Charlotte—show their share as notably higher.
The practical takeaway is that the freeze documented in the survey doesn’t have to be nationwide to be felt. For the firms involved, uncertainty is already translating into postponed deals and delayed construction across thousands of single-family homes.
A market stuck waiting for the rules
Put the survey figures next to the legislative timeline and a clear picture emerges: firms are not just reacting to the idea of restrictions. They are responding to what the rules might become, and how quickly they might change.
When 80% of firms say policy measures are significantly influencing decisions—and 70% say uncertainty has already significantly disrupted or completely halted acquisitions or development plans—the delay becomes measurable in home counts, not just investor sentiment.
And as lawmakers continue to move through the next stage of the process. the survey suggests the central challenge for the housing industry isn’t simply whether a ban arrives. It’s whether investors can trust that the “exemptions” and timelines will end up protecting the kinds of projects they’re underwriting—before construction costs. financing conditions. and demand assumptions get locked in behind them.
institutional homebuyers single-family rentals build-to-rent SFR BTR housing policy Fannie Mae Freddie Mac Tim Scott Elizabeth Warren 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act policy uncertainty investment decisions housing supply
So basically nobody wants to build houses now. Cool.
I don’t even get it, they say it’s a “ban” on institutional homebuying but sounds like it’s the government freezing everything? My cousin said investors are already out anyway.
Wait are they talking about that federal ban like for landlords? Because if they stop buying, that’s gonna jack up rent right? But also maybe if no one buys, rents go down… idk. Either way 6,000 projects is wild.
“Policy outlook has worsened” sounds like they’re blaming politics for construction delays again. Like lawmakers “finished rewriting” the ban and then somehow that messed up schedules immediately. Meanwhile people still can’t find a starter home, so it’s just more waiting. 100 homes delayed… wonder where those permits ended up, because it feels like everything’s stuck.