One in every six California homes is now owned by investors

LOS ANGELES – Investors now own approximately one out of every six single-family homes in California, according to a new data analysis. With 1.3 million investor-owned properties, California trails only Texas (1.4 million) for the highest number of such holdings in the country, ahead of Florida’s 1.1 million.

These investor-held properties account for 17% of the 7.6 million single-family homes across California. This figure sits just below the national average of 18%.

Wyoming recorded the highest rate of investor ownership at 31%, while Minnesota saw the lowest at 9%.

The footprint of investors in the housing market is expanding rapidly. In the third quarter of 2025, investors accounted for 34% of all U.S. home purchases, a sharp increase from the 18.5% average recorded between 2020 and 2023.

The trend has become a focal point in Washington. The Trump administration has signaled plans to restrict large "institutional" investors from purchasing residential real estate to address growing concerns over housing accessibility.

The Wall Street Housing Myth: Why Policy Scapegoating Won’t Solve America’s Affordability Crisis

The escalating debate over U.S. housing affordability has found a convenient villain in Wall Street, yet a closer look at the data suggests this narrative is a significant oversimplification. Recent analysis reveals that institutional investors—defined as those owning 1,000 or more properties—account for a mere 2% of the total investor-held housing stock. The reality is that the vast majority of competitive pressure in the residential market stems from "mom-and-pop" retail investors: individuals and small-scale entities managing a handful of rental units or vacation homes.

This data exposes a fundamental political paradox. On one side, critics argue that excessive government regulation has stifled construction, creating a chronic supply deficit. On the other, populist rhetoric blames corporate "predators" for cornering the market. Both arguments, however, carefully sidestep an uncomfortable economic truth: neither policymakers nor incumbent homeowners actually want home prices to fall. While politicians frequently campaign on lowering the cost of consumer goods, advocating for a reduction in home values remains a political third rail. To do so would be to advocate for the devaluation of the primary asset held by the majority of the American electorate.

Consequently, recent policy maneuvers—such as the Trump administration’s proposals targeting institutional landlords—should be viewed more as strategic populism than structural reform. By focusing on an unpopular and statistically small group of corporate owners, the government can perform a public show of grievance without threatening the equity of millions of small-scale investors and middle-class homeowners.

Ultimately, the U.S. housing crisis is not merely a failure of supply and demand. It is the result of a deeply entrenched financial and political ecosystem that incentivizes the treatment of residential real estate as a high-yield investment vehicle rather than a fundamental necessity.

The housing affordability crisis is placing a heavy burden on Vietnamese-American communities, particularly in major hubs like Orange County’s Little Saigon and San Jose. Soaring property values have made the quintessential American Dream—owning a first home—increasingly unattainable for young families. Beyond the loss of stability, this lack of homeownership stifles broader economic mobility; for many Vietnamese entrepreneurs, home equity serves as the primary source of capital used to launch small businesses, from nail salons to phở restaurants. As outside investors crowd the market and drive up rents, the financial strain falls hardest on our newest immigrants and low-income families, threatening the very foundations of the community.