June 2026
Featuring
Chris Galeski, Wealth Advisor, Morton Wealth
Mikey Taylor, Mayor of Thousand Oaks & CEO of Commune Capital
If you have been watching housing prices and wondering whether the new executive order restricting institutional investors is the fix everyone is hoping for, you are not alone. The frustration is real, and the concern for affordability is legitimate.
In this episode of Financial Commute, Chris Galeski sits down with Mikey Taylor, Mayor of Thousand Oaks and CEO of Commune Capital, to examine what the data actually says about who owns single-family homes, why the ban on institutions is unlikely to move the needle on prices, and what the real barrier to housing affordability in California looks like.
0:00 – Cold open: should institutions be banned from buying single-family homes?
0:39 – Welcome and introducing Mikey Taylor, CEO of Commune Capital and mayor of Thousand Oaks
2:04 – The real data: institutions own just 1-3% of single-family homes
3:56 – Two different economies: pre-2022 vs. post-2022 homeowners
7:24 – Unintended consequences: where does institutional capital go next?
8:26 – Undersupply is the core issue, not who owns what
10:42 – The state's push for multifamily: why going vertical is now the only option
12:36 – The Builder's Remedy: what happens when cities fall out of compliance
15:54 – Renting vs. buying: when the monthly delta is too big to ignore
17:11 – Final take: the ban is good messaging but won't move the needle
Should institutions be banned from buying single family homes?
The policy direction is broadly supported by both Chris and Mikey, but the impact on affordability is expected to be minimal. Institutional investors own roughly 1 to 3 percent of single family homes in the United States, and the executive order limits future purchases rather than forcing divestment. Freeing up a small share of homes in markets where institutions are already concentrated, primarily in the South and Midwest, does not create a meaningful supply shift in high-cost markets like California.
Why is housing so unaffordable in California right now?
The core issue is decades of undersupply. California has been unable to build homes at the pace population and demand require because of permitting costs, environmental regulation, land scarcity, and local resistance to density. When interest rates dropped to near zero, prices surged. When rates rose sharply in 2022 and 2023, prices did not correct downward proportionally. The result is a market where monthly costs have outpaced purchasing power for most buyers who did not lock in before 2022.
What percentage of single-family homes do institutional investors actually own?
Approximately 1 to 3 percent nationally. Total investor ownership, which includes individuals and mom-and-pop landlords alongside large institutions, is closer to 20 percent. Institutional ownership is also geographically concentrated in Sun Belt markets, not in California, where the affordability conversation is most urgent.
What is the Builder's Remedy in California housing law?
The Builder's Remedy is a provision that applies when a city falls out of compliance with its state-mandated housing allocation targets, known as RHNA numbers. When a city is tagged as non-compliant, developers can bypass certain local zoning restrictions, including height limits and density caps. A city with a 45-foot height cap on apartment buildings could face a developer proposing a ten-story project. It is the state's mechanism for compelling cities that had been ignoring housing mandates to take meaningful action.
Is it better to rent or buy in Southern California right now?
The monthly math currently favors renting in most of Southern California. Renting a home can cost 40 to 50 percent less per month than carrying a mortgage on the same property at current rates. Mikey Taylor argues this is a concerning trend because homeownership functions as a forced savings mechanism and has historically been one of the most reliable paths to building wealth and financial stability over a lifetime.
Will California home prices go down?
Mikey Taylor expects a correction, though not a collapse. Prices rose when purchasing power expanded as rates fell, but they did not fall proportionally when rates rose again. Demand has softened because fewer buyers can afford to qualify at current payment levels. California is too structurally undersupplied for a dramatic price collapse, but the combination of reduced demand and elevated prices relative to monthly carrying costs suggests a correction is more likely than a sustained plateau.
Housing affordability has become one of the most pressing financial concerns for a wide range of Americans, and the policy conversation has not always kept pace with what the data shows. This episode is worth listening to for anyone who wants a grounded, evidence-based view of what is actually driving the crisis and what the institutional ban is and is not likely to accomplish.
At Morton Wealth, we believe good financial decisions start with an accurate picture of what is actually happening. If questions about real estate, housing exposure, or how current market conditions affect your plan are coming up for you, that is exactly the kind of conversation we are here for.
Watch Previous Episodes
Disclosures: Information presented herein is for discussion and illustrative purposes only and is not intended to constitute financial advice. The views and opinions expressed by the speakers are as of the date of the recording and are subject to change. These views are not intended as a recommendation to buy or sell any securities, and should not be relied on as financial, tax, or legal advice. You should consult with your finance professional, accountant, or tax professional before implementing any transactions or strategies concerning your finances.
