Core Viewpoint - The proposed legislation by Trump aims to prevent large landlords from acquiring additional existing single-family homes, which could help stabilize housing prices during a potential market downturn [1][22]. Group 1: Impact of Legislation - Only 6.3% of single-family rentals (SFRs) are owned by landlords with 100 or more properties, meaning the proposed ban would primarily affect a small segment of the market [2]. - Mom-and-pop landlords, who own 82.6% of SFRs, are the dominant force in the rental market and would not be impacted by the proposed legislation [2][12]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - The single-family rental market has seen a rise in institutional investors since 2011, driven by low borrowing rates that allowed them to purchase homes out of foreclosure [7][8]. - In 2022, major SFR landlords began selling properties at significant profits and shifted their focus to building new rental developments rather than purchasing existing homes [9][12]. Group 3: Build-to-Rent Trend - Build-to-rent developments have become increasingly popular, featuring common amenities and lower operational costs compared to older scattered-site homes [10]. - Major landlords are now acquiring entire build-to-rent developments, with significant investments made in this area since 2022 [15][19]. Group 4: Major Players in the Market - The largest single-family rental landlords include Progress Residential with nearly 100,000 SFRs, Invitation Homes with 97,036 SFRs, and Blackstone with 62,000 SFRs [11][15][17]. - These landlords have shifted strategies, moving away from scattered-site acquisitions to focus on building or purchasing new developments [12][16][19].

Financial Data and Key Metrics Changes - For the full year 2025, the company achieved same-store NOI growth of 2.3%, exceeding the midpoint of guidance, driven by 2.4% core revenue growth and 2.6% core expense growth [14] - In Q4, same-store NOI grew 0.7% year-over-year, supported by 1.7% growth in core revenues and a 4% increase in core expenses [14] - Core FFO for Q4 increased 1.3% year-over-year to $0.48 per share, while full-year Core FFO rose 1.7% to $1.91 per share [20] Business Line Data and Key Metrics Changes - The company reported a blended rent growth of 1.8% in Q4, with renewal rent growth at 4.2%, offsetting a 4.1% decline in new lease rates [15] - Same-store average occupancy for the year was 96.8%, at the high end of guidance [14] Market Data and Key Metrics Changes - The company noted that supply levels in core markets, particularly Florida, Texas, and Arizona, have been slightly elevated but are beginning to decrease [26] - The company is seeing healthy demand for single-family housing, with lead volume remaining strong [26] Company Strategy and Development Direction - The acquisition of ResiBuilt Homes enhances the company's in-house development capabilities, allowing for better control over cost, product quality, and delivery pace [12] - The company aims to deliver attractive same-store NOI growth, allocate capital thoughtfully, and maintain a strong balance sheet while expanding housing options [10][11] Management's Comments on Operating Environment and Future Outlook - Management emphasized the importance of housing affordability and the company's commitment to providing well-maintained homes for families [7] - The company expects to achieve $0.14-$0.20 of incremental AFFO per share growth over the next three years, with operational enhancements contributing to this growth [16] Other Important Information - The company ended the year with $1.7 billion in total liquidity and a net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio of 5.3 times [18] - The Board of Directors authorized a $500 million share repurchase program, with $100 million already executed [19] Q&A Session Questions and Answers Question: What are the expectations for same-store blended rent growth? - Management indicated that the mid-2% blended rent growth aligns with guidance, noting that it is premature to draw conclusions based on early-year performance [24][25] Question: Can you comment on the Institutional Investor Ban and its implications? - Management expressed optimism about discussions with policymakers and emphasized the importance of clarity in regulations affecting the industry [29][30] Question: What factors are leading to a slower pipeline with homebuilders? - Management noted strong relationships with homebuilders but indicated a cautious approach to future transactions due to cost of capital considerations [73][75] Question: Can you provide more details on expense growth assumptions? - Management explained that property tax growth is expected to be consistent year-over-year, while insurance costs may see increases due to market conditions [41][44] Question: How will the ResiBuilt platform assist in growing the build-to-rent platform? - Management highlighted that ResiBuilt will serve as a general contractor and will continue to work with third parties while exploring opportunities for internal projects [78][79]

Invitation Homes (NYSE:INVH) Q4 2025 Earnings call February 19, 2026 11:00 AM ET Speaker13Welcome to the Invitation Homes fourth quarter 2025 earnings conference call. All participants are in listen-only mode at this time. Should you need assistance, please signal a conference specialist by pressing the star key followed by zero. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Scott McLaughlin, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ...

Management attributes the current demand for single-family rentals to a significant affordability gap, noting that renting in their markets is approximately $12,000 cheaper annually than owning. The acquisition of ResiBuilt marks a strategic pivot toward in-house development, intended to provide greater control over cost, product quality, and delivery pace compared to third-party partnerships. Performance in the fourth quarter was characterized by a 'tale of two cities' in leasing, where strong 4.2% r ...

Core Viewpoint - Trump's proposal to ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes has raised concerns and skepticism within the real estate investment industry, with some industry leaders not overly worried about its potential impact [1][2]. Group 1: Industry Reactions - Todd Henderson, head of real estate for the Americas at DWS, believes that Trump's proposal may eventually exclude institutional buyers who focus on newly built homes, which are crucial to the single-family rental (SFR) market [2]. - Shares of major SFR companies, including Invitation Homes and American Homes 4 Rent, fell by approximately 7% and 9% respectively following Trump's announcement [4]. - Blackstone Real Estate Income Trust, which holds about $11 billion in SFR investments, also experienced a decline in share prices, but analysts suggest that the market reaction may be excessive and could present a buying opportunity [5]. Group 2: Market Dynamics - The SFR industry has shifted its business model away from competing with individual homebuyers, focusing instead on acquiring homes directly from builders [3]. - Investors currently own a small percentage of the total single-family homes in the U.S., with those owning 10 or more units holding about 3.4% and larger investors with at least 1,000 units controlling just 0.73% of the inventory [8]. - The SFR industry emphasizes its role in supporting renters and facilitating pathways to homeownership, indicating a commitment to the housing market [9]. Group 3: Legislative Uncertainty - Trump's call for congressional action to formalize the SFR ban introduces complexity and uncertainty, with reports suggesting that proposed legislation may not progress quickly [6][7]. - Henderson anticipates that any new rules would likely exempt builders and buyers of new SFR homes, allowing major investors to continue selling existing portfolios without significant changes to the industry [7].

Core Viewpoint - President Trump's announcement to ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes has sparked discussions about its potential implications and feasibility [2] Group 1: Institutional Investor Impact - Large institutional investors, defined as those owning at least 100 single-family homes, currently hold about 1% of the total single-family housing stock in the U.S. [3] - Certain regional markets, particularly in the Sun Belt, have a higher concentration of institutional ownership, which could lead to significant effects if a ban is enacted [6][4] - The institutional presence in markets like Phoenix and Atlanta has established a robust ecosystem for single-family rentals, making it easier for these firms to operate [5] Group 2: Home Prices and Market Dynamics - A forced sell-off of institutional holdings could lead to increased downward pressure on home prices in specific neighborhoods already experiencing corrections [7] - Institutional buying has decreased significantly since the Pandemic Housing Boom, dropping from 3.1% of home purchases in Q2 2022 to around 1% currently [10][11] - If a ban were to be enacted, it would reduce housing demand that currently accounts for about 1% of total U.S. homebuying activity [9] Group 3: Homebuilding and Development - The proposed ban could negatively impact U.S. homebuilding, especially if it includes restrictions on build-to-rent developments, which currently represent about 8% of total U.S. single-family housing starts [14][12] - Institutional landlords have shifted focus from purchasing existing homes to building new single-family rentals, with a significant portion of acquisitions coming from in-house homebuilding units [16] - The current rate of new single-family home completions is about 1 million annually, which is still below historical averages, indicating a supply issue rather than a demand problem [17] Group 4: Tenant Implications - Most institutionally owned homes are currently occupied, and a forced sell-off could displace thousands of tenants who may not be able to afford to buy their homes [18] - A significant percentage of tenants in institutional rentals, approximately 85%, would not qualify to purchase the homes they currently occupy [19] - The assertion that institutional ownership is the primary cause of housing unaffordability is challenged, with arguments suggesting that policy failures are the root cause of the housing crisis [19]

Core Viewpoint - The proposal by President Trump to restrict large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes aims to improve housing affordability for individual Americans, particularly younger families [1][2]. Group 1: Proposal Details - The initiative seeks to bar major institutional investors, such as private equity firms, from acquiring additional single-family homes, which have been linked to rising property prices and rents [2][3]. - Trump plans to push for immediate action on this proposal and will discuss it further at the World Economic Forum in Davos [2]. Group 2: Market Reaction - The announcement led to a significant backlash in the stock market, with shares of firms involved in single-family rentals experiencing sharp declines [3]. - Blackstone's stock fell by as much as 9.3% intraday, closing down around 5-6%, while Invitation Homes saw a drop of up to 10%, ending approximately 6% lower [4]. Group 3: Industry Impact - Other related stocks, including American Homes 4 Rent and various homebuilders, also faced steep declines, indicating investor concerns over potential disruptions in the rental housing sector [5]. - Although institutional investors own only about 3-4% of single-family rental properties nationwide, their impact is more significant in certain markets, particularly in the Sun Belt [5]. Group 4: Expert Opinions - Some experts suggest that the overall impact on housing prices may be limited, as smaller investors might fill the gap left by institutional buyers, and broader issues like low housing supply remain unaddressed [6]. - The proposal aligns with criticisms from housing advocates and some bipartisan lawmakers who have previously suggested similar restrictions [6].

Core Viewpoint - President Trump's announcement to ban large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes aims to address the housing affordability crisis in America, sparking significant market reactions and debates about the implications for homebuyers and the housing market [1][19][22]. Housing Affordability Crisis - The U.S. is experiencing its worst housing affordability crisis in decades, with median single-family home prices reaching approximately $410,000, which is five times the median household income [2]. - Monthly mortgage payments for a median-priced home have risen to $2,570, necessitating an annual income of at least $126,700 to qualify for conventional loans, leaving only 6 million out of 46 million renters able to meet this threshold [3]. Impact of Institutional Investors - Large institutional investors, including private equity firms and real estate investment trusts, have been accumulating residential properties, with companies like Blackstone managing over $1 trillion in assets [5]. - Institutional investors owned up to 300,000 single-family homes by 2015, a significant increase from virtually none in 2011, although they represent only about 1% of the national market [6][7]. Market Reactions - Following Trump's announcement, stocks of major single-family rental companies, such as Invitation Homes and Blackstone, saw declines of 7% and over 4% respectively, indicating immediate market concerns regarding their business models [8]. Economic Considerations - Research indicates that high concentrations of institutional investment can lead to increased rents and home prices in affected neighborhoods, particularly in lower and middle-income areas [9]. - Some economists argue that the housing affordability crisis is rooted in a fundamental shortage of housing supply, with millions of units needed, and that banning institutional investors could reduce overall investment in the housing market [10][15]. Political Context - Trump's proposal aligns with Republican strategies ahead of midterm elections, addressing voter concerns about housing affordability, with 70% of Americans feeling that living costs are unaffordable [17]. - The proposal has the potential for bipartisan support, as Democrats have also suggested measures to limit corporate ownership of housing [18]. Future Implications - The specifics of how the ban would be implemented remain unclear, including whether it would apply retroactively and how "large institutional investors" would be defined [12]. - The ongoing discussions about housing affordability are expected to continue influencing economic and political dialogues through 2026 and beyond, as homeownership remains a critical aspect of the American Dream [22].

Strategic Themes & Growth - The company is committed to innovation, disciplined external growth, and exploring long-term opportunities to unlock value[14] - The company has experienced three distinct phases of growth since its founding and is in the early days of its third phase[16, 18] - The company has delivered superior NOI growth since its 2017 IPO, with cumulative same-store NOI growth of +60.7% compared to +36.7% for AMH, +19.4% for National Multifamily, and +50.0% for Invitation Homes[23] Customer Experience & Satisfaction - The company has a cumulative all-time Google/Yelp rating of 4.09/5.0 and an average of 4.74/5.0 stars on post-maintenance surveys[31] - The company's YTD same-store average resident tenure is ~40 months, with a 97.0% average occupancy rate and >78% average renewal rate[31] Financial Performance & Outlook - The company anticipates FY 2025 same-store property tax expense growth of ≤5.0%, the lowest rate since 2021[233] - The company expects centralization to achieve $0.01 to $0.02 in incremental AFFO growth by 2028[128] - The company projects $0.14 to $0.20 of incremental AFFO per share growth by 2028, on top of baseline growth[236] Portfolio & External Growth - The company expects to sell ~1,400 homes for $500 million at mid-4% caps in FY 2025[174] - The company's JV & 3PM platform is expected to generate ~$85 million in FY 2025E revenue[209]

Industry Overview - The single-family rental (SFR) industry is currently in a strong position, benefiting from robust long-term fundamentals [3] - Demand in the SFR sector is expected to remain strong as the large millennial cohort transitions into prime rental age, coupled with challenging affordability dynamics [3] Company Positioning - AMH has strategically built a portfolio of high-quality assets located in superior locations across the United States [4] - The company maintains a well-diversified portfolio footprint, which supports its competitive advantage in the residential space [4] - AMH's high-quality assets are backed by a robust and efficient services platform, enhanced by ongoing investments in technology [4]