There's been a lot of talk about limiting big institutional players like Blackstone from purchasing residential properties as a fix for skyrocketing housing costs. But here's the thing—according to market analysts and housing experts, it's way more complicated than that.

The policy sounds appealing on the surface. Everyone's frustrated with housing affordability. Yet the data tells a different story. Institutional investors actually account for a relatively small slice of residential purchases compared to individual buyers and owner-occupants. Even if you completely banned them tomorrow, you'd barely move the needle on home prices.

What's really driving costs? Supply constraints. Land availability. Construction labor shortages. Rising material costs. These structural issues existed long before institutional money got aggressive about real estate.

Think of it this way: whether you ban one category of buyer or not, if there are only 500 homes available in a market where 1,000 people want to buy, prices stay brutal. The real solution requires tackling zoning restrictions, speeding up permitting, and ramping up housing supply—unglamorous stuff that doesn't make headlines but actually works.

So while the policy might feel like action, experts suggest it's more political theater than economic solution.