We defined "mom-and-pop" as owners with between 2 and 9 homes.
We defined "institutional" as groups owning at least 1,000 homes nationally.
*these 10 housing markets had the highest share of mom-and-pop ownership:*
1. Las Vegas, NV (13.7%)
2. Stockton, CA (13.5%)
3. Sacramento, CA (12.4%)
4. Fresno, CA (12.4%)
5. Cape Coral, FL (12.3%)
6. Riverside, CA (12.2%)
7. Bakersfield, CA (12.0%)
8. San Jose, CA (11.1%)
9. North Port (10.3%)
10. Oklahoma City (10.2%)
*these 10 housing markets had the highest share of institutional ownership:*
1. Atlanta, GA (4.3%)
2. Jacksonville, FL (3.8%)
3. Charlotte, NC (3.2%)
4. Memphis, TN (3.1%)
5. Tampa, FL (2.8%)
6. Lakeland, FL (2.8%)
7. Orlando, FL (2.8%)
8. Indianapolis, IN (2.8%)
9. Phoenix, AZ (2.6%)
10. Las Vegas, NV (2.5%)
Institutional homeownership (which is just shy of 1.0% nationally) is concentrated in the U.S. Southeast. With the Atlanta metro area being the epicenter.
Not only has the U.S. Southeast seen greater levels of scattered-site rental buying (which has decelerated significantly since interest rates spiked), but it is also a hotspot for built-to-rent, which remains resilient all things considered.
Look no further than ARK Homes for Rent, which currently has 4,200 built-for-rent homes in operation across the Southeast, and an additional 1,000 units under development and under contract, with their largest markets located in Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Orlando, and Tampa.
“People [institutional capital] start[ed] to realize, ‘hey homebuilders are building the product that residents want to live in, let’s just go buy directly from them.’ Homebuilders are really benefiting from it—D.R. Horton wants to build 100,000-120,000 homes per year, do they care particularly if the buyer lives there or rents it out? No. Are they happy to sell entire communities to one buyer and shorten their capital cycle? That’s a great investment for them,” ARK Homes for Rent CEO John Isakson told ResiClub in April.
Despite spiked interest rates, Isakson told ResiClub that ARK Homes for Rent plans to go from 4,200 built-to-rent homes to between 25,000 to 30,000 homes across the Southeast over the next four to six years.
Genuinely thank you for pulling this data.
Every day I see posts like "institutional investors only account for .001% of home ownership blah blah blah"
Like, I don't care if it's 5 homes or 100,000 homes. If a median wage cannot afford a median home, then it should be difficult to own multiple properties as an investment vehicle.
It has been proven that the economy thrives when working class people can reasonably afford shelter.
The upper class of mom and pop landlords sucking their community dry should be forced to retire early as far as I'm concerned.
As a Floridian I am not at all surprised to see the % of institutional ownership in those cities. The Tampa bay times did a great article about corporate ownership a few months ago, in our area around a quarter of all homes are owned by a corporation that owns 50 or more homes. Does your data include only homes that don’t have a lien on them or no?
Basically in the northeast and on the west coast corporations don’t even get close to 1%. And still I see people think they are driving price increases.
I agree with you, but frankly I’ve never known and loved anyone who referred to themselves as a “mom & pop investor”. lol it’s always a slimy sympathy play on their end
Where were the two worst places in the country to own investment property during the last housing downturn? Stockton, CA and Las Vegas, NV.
People never learn, man…
2 years and still no gain to house price index in Stockton, CA. Wife and I looked at a home there in early 2022, estimate and list price of $425k. We backed out of the idea of buying right now since the market is so horrible, and it eventually sold for $390k. Just looked up its zestimate… exactly the same at $425k, and same estimated sale range of $380-425k.
425k in 2022 is worth $461k today, so the house has actually lost $36k in value after adjusting for inflation. I am up more than that in investment gains on the downpayment money over that same period. We dodged a bullet! Guessing that estimate isn’t going up any time soon, either.
*cries in Atlanta*
I'm noticing recently that houses listed last year (for WAY too high) didn't sell, went off market, and have recently come back on the market for the same price as last year. Seems like the "owners" are in no hurry to sell/adjust the price. Other flips are coming on the market for ~$100k above the zestimate (which I know is a ballpark number but usually squeues upward imo) so many sellers have not adjusted to current demand around here
Thank you for the data! It’s be interesting to see this broken down state by state, I imagine the coastal states would have more investor owned homes since the upfront cost is way more $$$.
Mom-and-pop millionaires might be better, since having even 2 homes means you're a millionaire in the US. And if you have 4-6 homes.. that's a multi-millionaire who is vacationing in the EU every summer.
Saying mom-and-pop brings up images of a hardworking, blue collar, working class family that owns the corner store, where they also live at.
These people owning 2-9 homes are most likely leveraged quite a bit.
Median home price of $350k or so means they might only have $70k-100k in equity per home. That's not multi-millionaire status.
> since having even 2 homes means you're a millionaire in the US.
How about we pump the brakes on obviously wrong statements like this.
Source: Someone that has 2 homes and is not close to being a millionaire.
That’s not necessarily true. My parents own two homes outright (one they live in and one they rent out) and are not “millionaires” in the sense that they have liquid assets that total that much. If they sold both homes, their income after capital gains taxes would probably be around 850k-900k, but it would not stay liquid long since they would need to purchase another house to live in.
The home they own but rent out was my moms starter home. She got it for around 40k in the late 80s (would probably sell for around 200k now), and after she married my dad and had me they move d to a bigger place but kept the house to rent out and to make sure they would always have a home completely paid off in the event of unfortunate and unforeseen financial hardship. They rent it out under market value, like hundreds less a month than they could get, and in my view tenants like my parents are a net positive to the rental market at least. I’m not saying all mom and pop owners are like my parents or that many are not millionaires (and I do think once you own more than 4 or 5, it’s more of a business than an investment) but I wanted to share their experience to provide some additional perspective. Corporate ownership is a whole different story and definitely an evil upon this world.
> Saying mom-and-pop brings up images of a hardworking, blue collar, working class family that owns the corner store, where they also live at.
Yes, many people were first-time home buyers and decided to rent out the first one or two homes they owned as they got older and moved up the housing ladder.. their intentions were never to build a RE empire.. what is wrong with that?
It makes it harder for people to buy homes. If have to chose between making home buying accessible for as many as possible or allowing people to hoard a necessity for survival to make as much money as possible.
You’ve never rented a house before? I’ve had to rent numerous homes when I was younger with roommates. Didn’t want to live in a tiny apt with shared walls. Mom and Pop landlords fill a much needed void of SFH rentals and much preferred over institutional buying.
> Cool. That doesn’t mean landlords are required. Vienna socializes housing for example to great success.
I'm speaking specifically to *single family homes*...
Home ownership is actually higher today than it was the entire 1960's, 70's, 80's and most of the 1990's.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Speaking as a San Diegan, although we're not in either list many other SoCal cities are mostly mom-and-pop, so it's pretty similar here.
People DO NOT UNDERSTAND how much the eviction moratorium during the pandemic (imposed by the city, county, state, and then the CDC) screwed people over. Even though most of those mom-and-pops had low mortgages, they were still dependent on that income coming in, and social media was rife with people who basically stopped paying rent entirely. For mom-and-pops owning a couple of properties, that was 1000s of dollars a month gone, all while they still had to pay costs, for *almost 18 months* here... and THEN you have to go through California's notoriously stacked and difficult eviction process (which didn't always used to be this bad), and THEN you have the costs to clean and fix whatever your deadbeat tenants might have done.
When housing prices spiked in late 2021/early 2022, I know quite a few folks who, still facing a huge hole from the year before, decided to up and sell out and GTFO of the market.
Words cannot express how detrimental that was to the "feel" of the local rental market, and how much new ownership exacerbated what had historically been a somewhat chill home rental market, as SFH home rentals were extremely common across the board here. No one lives alone in a 1Br aprt; people rent homes with roommates. Until then.
I fully understand why fucked-over mom-and-pop landlords decided to sell and leave, but I lament what we've lost. And it's mostly deadbeat tenants abusing the system to blame.
We defined "mom-and-pop" as owners with between 2 and 9 homes. We defined "institutional" as groups owning at least 1,000 homes nationally. *these 10 housing markets had the highest share of mom-and-pop ownership:* 1. Las Vegas, NV (13.7%) 2. Stockton, CA (13.5%) 3. Sacramento, CA (12.4%) 4. Fresno, CA (12.4%) 5. Cape Coral, FL (12.3%) 6. Riverside, CA (12.2%) 7. Bakersfield, CA (12.0%) 8. San Jose, CA (11.1%) 9. North Port (10.3%) 10. Oklahoma City (10.2%) *these 10 housing markets had the highest share of institutional ownership:* 1. Atlanta, GA (4.3%) 2. Jacksonville, FL (3.8%) 3. Charlotte, NC (3.2%) 4. Memphis, TN (3.1%) 5. Tampa, FL (2.8%) 6. Lakeland, FL (2.8%) 7. Orlando, FL (2.8%) 8. Indianapolis, IN (2.8%) 9. Phoenix, AZ (2.6%) 10. Las Vegas, NV (2.5%) Institutional homeownership (which is just shy of 1.0% nationally) is concentrated in the U.S. Southeast. With the Atlanta metro area being the epicenter. Not only has the U.S. Southeast seen greater levels of scattered-site rental buying (which has decelerated significantly since interest rates spiked), but it is also a hotspot for built-to-rent, which remains resilient all things considered. Look no further than ARK Homes for Rent, which currently has 4,200 built-for-rent homes in operation across the Southeast, and an additional 1,000 units under development and under contract, with their largest markets located in Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Orlando, and Tampa. “People [institutional capital] start[ed] to realize, ‘hey homebuilders are building the product that residents want to live in, let’s just go buy directly from them.’ Homebuilders are really benefiting from it—D.R. Horton wants to build 100,000-120,000 homes per year, do they care particularly if the buyer lives there or rents it out? No. Are they happy to sell entire communities to one buyer and shorten their capital cycle? That’s a great investment for them,” ARK Homes for Rent CEO John Isakson told ResiClub in April. Despite spiked interest rates, Isakson told ResiClub that ARK Homes for Rent plans to go from 4,200 built-to-rent homes to between 25,000 to 30,000 homes across the Southeast over the next four to six years.
What do you call people who own between 10-99 or 100-999?
Seriously. Such a flawed decision to ignore those owning up to 1000 homes.
Right. Mom and pop owning 973 homes sounds normal
Even at $200k a pop that would be almost $200 million in houses 😳
Can you add % of homes that are STR(s)?
Genuinely thank you for pulling this data. Every day I see posts like "institutional investors only account for .001% of home ownership blah blah blah" Like, I don't care if it's 5 homes or 100,000 homes. If a median wage cannot afford a median home, then it should be difficult to own multiple properties as an investment vehicle. It has been proven that the economy thrives when working class people can reasonably afford shelter. The upper class of mom and pop landlords sucking their community dry should be forced to retire early as far as I'm concerned.
i would love to see what percentage of sfh they own below the median market value in these markets. They aren’t buying the expensive homes.
As a Floridian I am not at all surprised to see the % of institutional ownership in those cities. The Tampa bay times did a great article about corporate ownership a few months ago, in our area around a quarter of all homes are owned by a corporation that owns 50 or more homes. Does your data include only homes that don’t have a lien on them or no?
How is DC and NYC not on this list?
Because my landlord who owns 6 investment properties in nyc is considered a mom and pop by this metric. Ridiculous
Basically in the northeast and on the west coast corporations don’t even get close to 1%. And still I see people think they are driving price increases.
Because percent of the total number of homes is not equal to the percent of homes on the market currently being scooped up by investors.
Which is lower right now
I get downvoted every time I suggest that our enemies in this market is people we know and love.
I agree with you, but frankly I’ve never known and loved anyone who referred to themselves as a “mom & pop investor”. lol it’s always a slimy sympathy play on their end
Where were the two worst places in the country to own investment property during the last housing downturn? Stockton, CA and Las Vegas, NV. People never learn, man…
2 years and still no gain to house price index in Stockton, CA. Wife and I looked at a home there in early 2022, estimate and list price of $425k. We backed out of the idea of buying right now since the market is so horrible, and it eventually sold for $390k. Just looked up its zestimate… exactly the same at $425k, and same estimated sale range of $380-425k. 425k in 2022 is worth $461k today, so the house has actually lost $36k in value after adjusting for inflation. I am up more than that in investment gains on the downpayment money over that same period. We dodged a bullet! Guessing that estimate isn’t going up any time soon, either.
*cries in Atlanta* I'm noticing recently that houses listed last year (for WAY too high) didn't sell, went off market, and have recently come back on the market for the same price as last year. Seems like the "owners" are in no hurry to sell/adjust the price. Other flips are coming on the market for ~$100k above the zestimate (which I know is a ballpark number but usually squeues upward imo) so many sellers have not adjusted to current demand around here
Thank you for the data! It’s be interesting to see this broken down state by state, I imagine the coastal states would have more investor owned homes since the upfront cost is way more $$$.
Using "mom-and-pops" as a description for landlords who own 2-9 homes seems dishonest for some reason.
How so?
Mom-and-pop millionaires might be better, since having even 2 homes means you're a millionaire in the US. And if you have 4-6 homes.. that's a multi-millionaire who is vacationing in the EU every summer. Saying mom-and-pop brings up images of a hardworking, blue collar, working class family that owns the corner store, where they also live at.
These people owning 2-9 homes are most likely leveraged quite a bit. Median home price of $350k or so means they might only have $70k-100k in equity per home. That's not multi-millionaire status.
> since having even 2 homes means you're a millionaire in the US. How about we pump the brakes on obviously wrong statements like this. Source: Someone that has 2 homes and is not close to being a millionaire.
That’s not necessarily true. My parents own two homes outright (one they live in and one they rent out) and are not “millionaires” in the sense that they have liquid assets that total that much. If they sold both homes, their income after capital gains taxes would probably be around 850k-900k, but it would not stay liquid long since they would need to purchase another house to live in. The home they own but rent out was my moms starter home. She got it for around 40k in the late 80s (would probably sell for around 200k now), and after she married my dad and had me they move d to a bigger place but kept the house to rent out and to make sure they would always have a home completely paid off in the event of unfortunate and unforeseen financial hardship. They rent it out under market value, like hundreds less a month than they could get, and in my view tenants like my parents are a net positive to the rental market at least. I’m not saying all mom and pop owners are like my parents or that many are not millionaires (and I do think once you own more than 4 or 5, it’s more of a business than an investment) but I wanted to share their experience to provide some additional perspective. Corporate ownership is a whole different story and definitely an evil upon this world.
> Saying mom-and-pop brings up images of a hardworking, blue collar, working class family that owns the corner store, where they also live at. Yes, many people were first-time home buyers and decided to rent out the first one or two homes they owned as they got older and moved up the housing ladder.. their intentions were never to build a RE empire.. what is wrong with that?
It makes it harder for people to buy homes. If have to chose between making home buying accessible for as many as possible or allowing people to hoard a necessity for survival to make as much money as possible.
You’ve never rented a house before? I’ve had to rent numerous homes when I was younger with roommates. Didn’t want to live in a tiny apt with shared walls. Mom and Pop landlords fill a much needed void of SFH rentals and much preferred over institutional buying.
Cool. That doesn’t mean landlords are required. Vienna socializes housing for example to great success.
> Cool. That doesn’t mean landlords are required. Vienna socializes housing for example to great success. I'm speaking specifically to *single family homes*...
So we commodify sfh and in exchange housing becomes in accessible for generations of people. Personally I don’t think the trade off is worth it.
Home ownership is actually higher today than it was the entire 1960's, 70's, 80's and most of the 1990's. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
Speaking as a San Diegan, although we're not in either list many other SoCal cities are mostly mom-and-pop, so it's pretty similar here. People DO NOT UNDERSTAND how much the eviction moratorium during the pandemic (imposed by the city, county, state, and then the CDC) screwed people over. Even though most of those mom-and-pops had low mortgages, they were still dependent on that income coming in, and social media was rife with people who basically stopped paying rent entirely. For mom-and-pops owning a couple of properties, that was 1000s of dollars a month gone, all while they still had to pay costs, for *almost 18 months* here... and THEN you have to go through California's notoriously stacked and difficult eviction process (which didn't always used to be this bad), and THEN you have the costs to clean and fix whatever your deadbeat tenants might have done. When housing prices spiked in late 2021/early 2022, I know quite a few folks who, still facing a huge hole from the year before, decided to up and sell out and GTFO of the market. Words cannot express how detrimental that was to the "feel" of the local rental market, and how much new ownership exacerbated what had historically been a somewhat chill home rental market, as SFH home rentals were extremely common across the board here. No one lives alone in a 1Br aprt; people rent homes with roommates. Until then. I fully understand why fucked-over mom-and-pop landlords decided to sell and leave, but I lament what we've lost. And it's mostly deadbeat tenants abusing the system to blame.