Two reports are due at two years and again at ten
What the document says“(A) the impact of the ownership by large institutional investors of single-family homes on housing availability and affordability for renters and homebuyers; and”
The section requires the Comptroller General to report to the two committees two years after the prohibition takes effect and again at ten years on the effect of large investor ownership on housing availability and affordability and on how well the section reduced their demand and expanded home ownership. On the same schedule the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, consulting the Treasury, the Rural Housing Service, the Loan Guaranty Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, must report on whether the definition of a large institutional investor should be adjusted, the financial effect of the section, and any legislative recommendations. Congress states its sense that the section is meant to expand the number of single-family homes available to individuals and that further study should take that into account.
What the document actually says“(A) the impact of the ownership by large institutional investors of single-family homes on housing availability and affordability for renters and homebuyers; and”
The report must weigh what large investor ownership does. It looks at whether homes are there to be had. It looks at whether renters and buyers can pay for them.
Two reports are required, from two different bodies. Each comes twice, at two years and at ten. The clock starts when the ban takes effect.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.