Subscribe
Over the last few years, there's been growing concern around institutional buyers (namely "Wall Street") buying up too many single-family houses and then renting them out.
But as we spoke about last year, the number of homes owned in this way is actually quite small. The vast majority of homes are owner occupied. And the second largest share of owners is what you might call "small landlords." That is, people who own somewhere between 1-9 homes.
So if the specific concern is that people are out there buying houses and then renting them out, the more fruitful target would be these small landlords. But nobody seems too fussed by them, which leads me to believe that this is an instance of symbolic politics theory. In other words, it's the association with the big bad Wall Street that people don't like.
Whatever the reason, here's the data on the largest single-family house buyers in the US last year (2024) via SFR Analytics:
Here are the metro areas where they transacted:
And here's this same data in heat map form:
The largest buyer was Opendoor, which is a so-called iBuyer. We've spoken about this company a lot on this blog. They don't actually want to hold any of the homes they buy. Instead, they buy, renovate, and then resell as quickly as possible.
The second largest was New Western. They are a wholesaler or "double-close buyer." These buyers want to own for an even shorter period of time and sometimes never actually own the home; instead they just assign their contract. What they're trying to do is buy at a discount and then immediately turn around and sell for a profit.
Note: SFR Analytics believes that New Western's count might be meaningfully understated in the above data. The company uses lots of different LLCs and acquisition strategies and so it's hard to aggregate the data. Assigning a contract also doesn't show up in any county records, so it's kind of impossible to track these. It's just like assigning a pre-construction condominium agreement.
Even still, what this data suggests is that single-family rental funds aren't as dominant as some might think. The overall counts for all of the largest buyers also remain relatively small. Last year, over 4 million existing homes (including condominiums and co-ops) were bought and sold in the US. And this was a nearly 30-year low.
Cover photo by Michael Tuszynski on Unsplash
Here is a chart from a recent Bloomberg article summarizing who owns single-family houses in the US.
As of Q1-2024, about 69% were owner-occupied, about 26.6% were owned by small landlords (1-9 homes), and the rest were owned by what many are now calling "corporate landlords."
The point of this graph was to show that, despite getting a lot of political attention, corporate landlords still own very little. Let's call it sub 4%, excluding iBuying companies like OpenDoor. So how much of a problem is this, really?
My most recent post about Opendoor, the so-called iBuying company, is about how it wants to become the "transaction layer for homes." What that means is they would like to start facilitating third-party transactions between buyers and sellers, and move away (either partially or completely) from actually owning homes for a period of time.
The company is still trying to sell homes that it purchased in Q2-2022, which, as we all know, was a very different kind of housing market. So by doing this, Opendoor would be both reducing the market risk that it takes on and making its business model less capital intensive.
Knowing this, I actually think that "iBuyer" is the wrong moniker for their business. As I see it, the long-term objective is not to just be an iBuyer of homes. The objective is to ultimately facilitate transactions in a capital efficient kind of way. The point of iBuying is/was to seed their two-sided marketplace with sellers.
As we have discussed before, two-sided marketplaces usually always have a chicken-and-egg problem. No sellers equals no buyers, and vice versa. So you have to figure out a clever way to attract one side. Of course, now that Opendoor has sellers, the company can start to aggregate the demand side (i.e. buyers). And that is exactly what it is doing with Opendoor Exclusives.
Exclusives works like this:
The inventory consists of "off-market" homes that have yet to be listed on MLS
The homes are discounted about 2-4%
They are available for 14 days
You can't negotiate the price -- it's first come, first served
If your appraisal comes in lower, Opendoor will price match
And finally, Opendoor will not pay any buyer commissions (which is reflected in the above discount)
As I understand it, if the home doesn't sell, it then gets listed on MLS and all of the normal terms and practices would apply. But before that happens, the key objective is to facilitate a quick transaction in one of two ways.
The first way is for the seller to request an offer from Opendoor's network of buyers. In this scenario, Opendoor never needs to own the home or perform any improvements (which is usually what it does when it iBuys). It is an intermediary earning some sort of take.
The second way is for Opendoor to do its usual thing and make an instant offer to buy the home. But here's the thing. With enough buyers on its platform and by creating a sense of urgency (hey, here's a lower price!), presumably the idea is that it may never need to close on a number of these homes. It just needs to find another buyer within 14 days.
If it works, this could be an interesting business.
Over the last few years, there's been growing concern around institutional buyers (namely "Wall Street") buying up too many single-family houses and then renting them out.
But as we spoke about last year, the number of homes owned in this way is actually quite small. The vast majority of homes are owner occupied. And the second largest share of owners is what you might call "small landlords." That is, people who own somewhere between 1-9 homes.
So if the specific concern is that people are out there buying houses and then renting them out, the more fruitful target would be these small landlords. But nobody seems too fussed by them, which leads me to believe that this is an instance of symbolic politics theory. In other words, it's the association with the big bad Wall Street that people don't like.
Whatever the reason, here's the data on the largest single-family house buyers in the US last year (2024) via SFR Analytics:
Here are the metro areas where they transacted:
And here's this same data in heat map form:
The largest buyer was Opendoor, which is a so-called iBuyer. We've spoken about this company a lot on this blog. They don't actually want to hold any of the homes they buy. Instead, they buy, renovate, and then resell as quickly as possible.
The second largest was New Western. They are a wholesaler or "double-close buyer." These buyers want to own for an even shorter period of time and sometimes never actually own the home; instead they just assign their contract. What they're trying to do is buy at a discount and then immediately turn around and sell for a profit.
Note: SFR Analytics believes that New Western's count might be meaningfully understated in the above data. The company uses lots of different LLCs and acquisition strategies and so it's hard to aggregate the data. Assigning a contract also doesn't show up in any county records, so it's kind of impossible to track these. It's just like assigning a pre-construction condominium agreement.
Even still, what this data suggests is that single-family rental funds aren't as dominant as some might think. The overall counts for all of the largest buyers also remain relatively small. Last year, over 4 million existing homes (including condominiums and co-ops) were bought and sold in the US. And this was a nearly 30-year low.
Cover photo by Michael Tuszynski on Unsplash
Here is a chart from a recent Bloomberg article summarizing who owns single-family houses in the US.
As of Q1-2024, about 69% were owner-occupied, about 26.6% were owned by small landlords (1-9 homes), and the rest were owned by what many are now calling "corporate landlords."
The point of this graph was to show that, despite getting a lot of political attention, corporate landlords still own very little. Let's call it sub 4%, excluding iBuying companies like OpenDoor. So how much of a problem is this, really?
My most recent post about Opendoor, the so-called iBuying company, is about how it wants to become the "transaction layer for homes." What that means is they would like to start facilitating third-party transactions between buyers and sellers, and move away (either partially or completely) from actually owning homes for a period of time.
The company is still trying to sell homes that it purchased in Q2-2022, which, as we all know, was a very different kind of housing market. So by doing this, Opendoor would be both reducing the market risk that it takes on and making its business model less capital intensive.
Knowing this, I actually think that "iBuyer" is the wrong moniker for their business. As I see it, the long-term objective is not to just be an iBuyer of homes. The objective is to ultimately facilitate transactions in a capital efficient kind of way. The point of iBuying is/was to seed their two-sided marketplace with sellers.
As we have discussed before, two-sided marketplaces usually always have a chicken-and-egg problem. No sellers equals no buyers, and vice versa. So you have to figure out a clever way to attract one side. Of course, now that Opendoor has sellers, the company can start to aggregate the demand side (i.e. buyers). And that is exactly what it is doing with Opendoor Exclusives.
Exclusives works like this:
The inventory consists of "off-market" homes that have yet to be listed on MLS
The homes are discounted about 2-4%
They are available for 14 days
You can't negotiate the price -- it's first come, first served
If your appraisal comes in lower, Opendoor will price match
And finally, Opendoor will not pay any buyer commissions (which is reflected in the above discount)
As I understand it, if the home doesn't sell, it then gets listed on MLS and all of the normal terms and practices would apply. But before that happens, the key objective is to facilitate a quick transaction in one of two ways.
The first way is for the seller to request an offer from Opendoor's network of buyers. In this scenario, Opendoor never needs to own the home or perform any improvements (which is usually what it does when it iBuys). It is an intermediary earning some sort of take.
The second way is for Opendoor to do its usual thing and make an instant offer to buy the home. But here's the thing. With enough buyers on its platform and by creating a sense of urgency (hey, here's a lower price!), presumably the idea is that it may never need to close on a number of these homes. It just needs to find another buyer within 14 days.
If it works, this could be an interesting business.
Smaller landlords control much more of the US market. And at the end of the day, a house owned by a small landlord versus a corporate landlord doesn't change the supply-demand balance of a market. It still represents an available home.
The first and more important problem to solve is overall housing supply. Because that does change the supply-demand balance of a market. And once again, there's no shortage of data to support the finding that increased supply tends to moderate rental growth.
For the record, I also dislike using the term home to refer to single-family houses. Home is not a housing type. It is simply a place where people live permanently. So whenever I see a title like "US homes," I get confused, because I don't actually know what they're referring to.
If you read the article, it would appear they're only talking about single-family houses. But implying that these are the only kind of home feels to me like an anachronism.
Smaller landlords control much more of the US market. And at the end of the day, a house owned by a small landlord versus a corporate landlord doesn't change the supply-demand balance of a market. It still represents an available home.
The first and more important problem to solve is overall housing supply. Because that does change the supply-demand balance of a market. And once again, there's no shortage of data to support the finding that increased supply tends to moderate rental growth.
For the record, I also dislike using the term home to refer to single-family houses. Home is not a housing type. It is simply a place where people live permanently. So whenever I see a title like "US homes," I get confused, because I don't actually know what they're referring to.
If you read the article, it would appear they're only talking about single-family houses. But implying that these are the only kind of home feels to me like an anachronism.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
