President Donald Trump's proposed ban on "large institutional investors" purchasing single-family homes may unintentionally impact private investment firms of ultra-rich families, known as family offices. While the proposal primarily targets Wall Street landlords and private equity firms, family offices could be affected depending on the definition of a "large institutional investor."\n\nAccording to a survey by Campden Wealth and RBC Wealth Management, three-quarters of family offices in North America invest in real estate, with an average allocation of 18%. Residential properties constitute just under a third of these family offices' real estate holdings.\n\nThe potential consequences of Trump's proposal depend on the yet-to-be-revealed definition of a large institutional investor. Vicki Odette, a partner at Haynes Boone, noted that recent congressional and government agency focus has been on the number of homes owned rather than total assets or investment strategy. For instance, a 2024 Government Accountability Office report defined institutional investors as those owning over 1,000 properties of four units or less. The "Stop Predatory Investing Act," introduced in March, defines "disqualified single-family property owners" as taxpayers with 50 or more single-family residential rental properties.\n\nOdette stated that many wealthy families, particularly those who made their money in real estate development, could inadvertently fall into these categories. While family offices generally favor multifamily housing and commercial developments, some, especially in the Southern U.S., possess substantial portfolios of single-family homes in suburban or rural areas.