Institutional investors are listing significantly more single-family rental homes for sale following passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, but economists and real estate professionals say the legislation is unlikely to dramatically reshape the national housing market.

New data from Parcl Labs show listings of single-family rental homes owned by institutional investors have more than doubled since early February — climbing from 4,166 homes on Feb. 1 to 9,447 homes this month.

Those properties represent about $3.1 billion in total asking price.

The ROAD to Housing Act defines institutional investors as owners of 350 or more single-family homes — well below the industry’s traditional benchmark of 1,000 homes.

While the law does not require investors to sell existing properties, it restricts future purchases of existing homes while allowing exceptions for categories including build-to-rent developments.

Parcl Labs estimates investors covered by the law own roughly 589,000 homes, or 3.9% of the nation’s approximately 14 million single-family rental homes.

Those firms account for about 40% of net selling by large institutional investors so far this year, researchers said.

Still too early to tell with national inventory

Despite the surge in investor listings identified by Parcl Labs, Mike Simonsen, chief economist at Compass, said the trend has yet to noticeably affect most housing markets.

“I’ve been tracking inventory and it has been flat across the country,” he told HousingWire. “So, we haven’t seen a giant flood to move the needle nationally. And if you think about it, the number of homes that institutional investors own is still pretty small overall.”

Instead, Simonsen expects any meaningful changes to occur in markets where institutional landlords have amassed particularly large portfolios.

“It could be a place like Tampa or maybe suburban Atlanta where there has been some density,” he said. “I haven’t seen an uptick in a place like Tampa myself, and maybe that’s just because overall the actual numbers are pretty small on that side. Right now, Tampa has significantly fewer homes available than a year ago.”

According to Parcl Labs and multiple other sources, Atlanta has far and away the highest density of institutional investor single-family homeownership — roughly doubling No. 2 Dallas-Fort Worth.

The top six metros — Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston and Tampa  — account for 36.8% of all homes owned by institutional investors with portfolios exceeding 1,000 homes.

Large-scale institutional ownership emerged after the 2008 housing crash, when private equity firms purchased thousands of foreclosed homes in markets including Atlanta, Phoenix and Las Vegas

Today, the nation’s largest landlords — Progress Residential, Invitation Homes, AMH, Tricon, FirstKey, Amherst and VineBrook — have sold 3,180 more homes than they have purchased since Jan. 1, according to CNBC.

They still collectively own roughly 400,000 homes.

VineBrook has reportedly been the most aggressive seller, with nearly 1,900 homes — about 10% of its portfolio — currently listed for sale with a combined asking value of $285 million.

Will owner-occupant buyers benefit?

Whether more institutional listings and other effects felt from the ROAD to Housing Act translate into additional homeownership opportunities remains an open question.

“I am suspicious that it really moves the needle for owner occupants,” Simonsen said. “Those people that were in those homes are renters not because they wanted to be, but generally because they can’t buy. It’ll be interesting to see what trend emerges. Does that go from an institutional investor to another investor and stay as an investment property?

“I think that’s probably a pretty common path for those getting unloaded. You go from an investor that owns 1,000 properties to one that owns a dozen.”

Still, he believes localized opportunities could emerge if investors decide to rebalance portfolios.

“There could be a handful of markets, like ZIP codes, parts of suburban Tampa or parts of suburban Atlanta, where supply moves up more quickly than expected, and therefore there’s some price impact,” Simonsen said. “It’d be fascinating to see if there are price opportunities — below-market purchase opportunities. Some of those may exist for a little window if there are a handful of companies that have to rebalance a portfolio here and there and unload some of the properties.”

Parcl Labs’ pricing data suggest institutional sellers are already becoming more aggressive, with 54% of institutional investor-owned listings currently having price reductions.

Since early May, average markdowns among institutional sellers have widened from 3.1% to 4% of asking price.

Dallas broker sees broader market forces at work

In Dallas-Fort Worth — one of the nation’s largest markets for institutional ownership — Tasha Penson, owner of The Onyx Realty Group, said she has not yet seen evidence that the legislation itself is driving more institutional listings.

“Are [institutional owners] transitioning because of the ROAD to Housing Act or are they transitioning just because the cost of maintenance and taxes and insurance are making it less affordable to maintain those properties?” she said. “So far, we’re seeing homes on the market, but not necessarily an uptick from the institutional investors, the corporate owners. We have a lot of small- and mid-size investors here, as well.”

Penson said several factors will determine whether homes unloaded by investors ultimately become owner-occupied.

“It’s really going to depend on if they’re positioning those [homes] to be owner-occupied,” she said. “What is the condition of the home? How are they pricing the home, or are they just portfolioing them and trying to get other investors to purchase them? We also have to keep mortgage rates in mind — buyers are really waiting for those rates to come down to buy for their owner-occupied use.”

Agents should focus less on competing with institutional investors and more on helping sellers navigate a more competitive market, Penson added.

“It really comes down to the consultation and positioning the property from the beginning, meaning pricing it right from the beginning because we don’t want to have to chase the market,” she said. “Offer a well-executed home that’s move-in ready and be negotiable on the terms because price is not always the best overall deal.

“We have to stay in constant communication with our sellers — let them know what the feedback is, let them know how the market is performing and what has sold around them. That’s not just right at the beginning, it’s throughout the process.”

Build-to-rent continues gaining momentum

While purchases of existing homes may slow, industry observers expect institutional capital to continue flowing into build-to-rent communities, one of the law’s key exemptions.

AMH has developed more than 14,000 rental homes across 180 communities since 2017, while Invitation Homes expanded its presence this year by acquiring Atlanta-based homebuilder ResiBuilt.

“I think the build-to-rent is a function of affordability,” Simonsen said. “Until we have a few more years where incomes can rise faster than home prices, then we start to get affordability back, and affordability swings back in favor of purchase versus rent. But right now, for potential new buyers, in most places, the cost advantage is to rent.”

Penson said agents will need to become even more knowledgeable as build-to-rent communities expand.

“I think this is where agents’ value comes into play,” she said. “As we see more and more build-to-rent communities come about, we as agents need to pay attention to where they’re being built, who is moving into those communities, and the pricing for that. We just have to stay more aware and more knowledgeable of what the market has available so that we’re able to guide our clients in the right direction as related to homeownership versus rentals.”

Both experts agreed the ROAD to Housing Act signals a broader policy shift toward addressing housing supply.

Whether it meaningfully expands homeownership opportunities; however, will likely depend on broader national patterns, policy decisions and trends that emerge from institutional ownership hot spots.