Home prices have been a sore point for Americans in recent years. Prices are up more than 50% from before the pandemic, and rents have climbed about 35% over that same stretch.

That’s why the Trump administration is attempting to remedy that through a combination of bringing down mortgage rates, preventing Wall Street firms from buying up houses, and making homeownership feel attainable.

While these policies appear palatable to voters who are about to enter the ballots this year yet again, the “fastest” way to help housing has the potential to make it worse.

Investor Essentials Daily:
The Monday Macro Report
Powered by Valens Research

The White House is attempting to strong-arm the housing market into behaving.

President Donald Trump is attempting to lower housing costs through a combination of bringing down mortgage rates, keeping Wall Street from buying up houses, and making homeownership feel attainable again.

One idea is to have Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ramp up purchases of mortgage-backed securities, pushing mortgage rates lower through extra demand for those bonds. Another is to task the Treasury with defining “large institutional investors,” then lean on Congress to restrict them from buying single-family homes.

It’s a clean message for voters. Housing is a sore spot, and it has been for years. Home prices are up more than 50% from before the pandemic, and rents have climbed about 35% over that same stretch.

However the fastest way to “help” housing can make it worse.

Trump’s housing push is running into the same wall his other pocketbook ideas have hit. When he floated a 10% credit card interest-rate cap, even House Speaker Mike Johnson brushed it off, and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly called it “economic disaster.”

Housing policy has the same problem: It’s easy to sell, hard to execute, and the second-order effects can bite.

Start with the mortgage-backed securities plan. Bloomberg reports the administration has discussed having Fannie and Freddie buy as much as $200 billion in agency mortgage bonds. That sounds huge until you put it next to the size of the market.

There are roughly $9 trillion of agency mortgage bonds outstanding, so $200 billion is a little over 2% of the total.

Analysts think that kind of buying could lower mortgage rates by as much as 25 basis points, about 0.25 percentage point. With a 30-year fixed loan around 6.1%, per Freddie Mac’s weekly survey cited by Bloomberg, that’s real relief at the margin, but it’s not a reset.

The deeper issue is that cheaper money doesn’t create more homes. It pulls demand forward. If rates drop and more buyers rush back in while inventory stays tight, the math points to higher prices, not lower ones.

Housing affordability is a two-variable equation: financing costs and supply. If policy hits one side while the other stays stuck, buyers still lose.

Then there’s the proposal to ban “large institutional investors” from buying single-family homes. On paper, this feels like the most emotionally satisfying idea in the playbook. People picture investment firms showing up with algorithmic bids and deeper pockets, beating families to every listing.

The reality is more nuanced, and it matters for what happens next.

Bloomberg notes that larger institutional investors own less than 1% of the nation’s single-family housing stock, and about 2% to 3% of single-family rentals, suggesting the broad national footprint is smaller than the political heat implies.

Semafor, citing BatchData, puts “corporate landlords and investment firms” at under 5% of the nation’s 87 million homes, while still acknowledging some local markets have much higher shares.

Either way, the bigger housing story isn’t ownership concentration. It’s the shortage. Semafor cites a U.S. housing shortfall between 4 million and 5 million homes. That’s the core constraint: the country needs more units, faster.

This is where Trump’s ban concept collides with homebuilders’ business model. Semafor quotes Pretium co-president Stephen Scherr arguing that the firm buys a “de minimis” number of homes one-by-one on the open market and instead buys most of its homes in bulk from homebuilders.

That kind of buyer can function like a standing order. It reduces the risk of new developments and helps builders move inventory quickly enough to keep starting the next project.

Take away that buyer class abruptly and you risk creating the opposite of what voters want. Builders don’t keep building out of goodwill. They build when they can finance projects, move product, and predict demand.

If policy squeezes one of the most reliable sources of demand, builders can respond by building fewer homes, which tightens supply further.

That doesn’t mean institutional ownership is a non-issue. Local dynamics can get ugly, and public anger is real. It does mean a blunt national ban is a dangerous tool for a supply problem.

Even the executive order route doesn’t solve the implementation challenge. Bloomberg describes Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order as relatively toothless, leaving it to the Treasury to decide what counts as a “large investor” and urging Congress to pass a ban. That’s a lot of legal and political friction for a move with unclear price impact.

This is a tricky issue, and it’s not one that gets solved overnight. The executive order headlines sound great, and they can do wonders to convince voters that Washington is “doing something” on affordability. But the housing market doesn’t respond to slogans. It responds to rates, supply, and confidence.

The cleanest path for the homebuilding industry is a steady decline in mortgage rates paired with policies that expand supply in durable ways.

Bond-buying programs can nudge financing costs, yet their impact fades if supply stays constrained and if markets doubt the purchases will continue. Investor-friendly housing policy is the kind that makes it easier to build, not harder to sell what gets built.

Homebuilder stocks have rallied so far this year, and that rally makes sense if the market is leaning on a “rates down, demand up” story. The problem is that demand without supply keeps affordability strained, and a crackdown on bulk buyers risks slowing construction at the exact moment the country needs acceleration.

For investors, the setup is simple: Watch what actually changes in financing conditions and in building activity, then treat everything else as campaign noise until proven otherwise.

The housing market won’t be fixed by a single order—it will be fixed when the math finally shifts.

Best regards,

Joel Litman & Rob Spivey
Chief Investment Officer &
Director of Research
at Valens Research