There’s a growing concern in Guilford County that doesn’t fit neatly into partisan politics, easy solutions or even clear definitions – and that’s exactly why local officials say it’s time to slow down, collect some real data and then figure out what’s actually going on.

At the center of that current effort is Guilford County Register of Deeds Jeff Thigpen and his office, which is working with other county staff, planners and outside researchers to understand better how many homes in the county are being bought and owned by corporations – and what impact that might be having on local communities.

The early numbers suggest the issue isn’t a minor one: According to Guilford County Tax Director Ben Chavis, the county’s latest update identified 2,911 corporate-owned single-family residential properties.

Both Chavis and Thigpen say those numbers are only the beginning – and possibly just a rough snapshot of a much more complicated picture.

“We need good data,” Thigpen said. “I’ve got part of the data, and I think that we just need to be able to pull it all together in a format that will help us more efficiently determine it all and then from there understand what the implications and what the meaning of it is.”

Right now, Guilford County is working with Thigpen’s office and looking at models used elsewhere – particularly in Mecklenburg County – where researchers from UNC Charlotte’s Urban Institute helped develop a methodology to track corporate ownership.

One key question is exactly how to define “corporate ownership.”

In Mecklenburg County, one approach was to classify entities that own 15 or more properties as corporate owners.

Thigpen emphasized that number isn’t a policy proposal – it’s just a research tool.

“When I said 15 homes, I was not making a policy,” he said. “What I was doing is making a data distinction in a study.”

That distinction matters, because one of the biggest challenges in this debate is that not all “corporate” owners look the same.

Some are local investors who own a handful of rental homes. Others are large, national firms – sometimes backed by hedge funds – that buy hundreds or even thousands of properties across multiple states.

And the way those larger firms operate is part of what has raised concerns both locally and nationally.

Thigpen described a common model: companies identify target neighborhoods, often using sophisticated data systems, then move in quickly with cash offers that can outbid traditional homebuyers.

“They have cash and so they become cash buyers, and they outbid people who would be normal first-time homeowners,” he said.

After purchasing homes, these companies often renovate them, raise their assessed value and convert them into rentals. In some cases, the rental income itself becomes part of a larger financial product.

“They securitize the rental income into a security investment on Wall Street,” Thigpen said.

That model has been widely documented across the country, particularly in the years following the 2008 housing crisis, when institutional investors began buying large numbers of foreclosed homes. The trend accelerated again during the low-interest-rate environment of the late 2010s and early COVID years.

In Guilford County, Thigpen said the timeline appears similar.

“A lot of it started around 2016 and 2017,” he said. “There was a really hot period up until and into COVID.”

Since then, rising interest rates and broader economic shifts have cooled the pace somewhat.

“I think that’s impacted it,” Thigpen said. “It’s still happening, but I don’t think it’s happening the way it was about three or three-and-a-half years ago.”

Still, the model hasn’t gone away – and, in some ways, it may be evolving.

One newer trend is “build-to-rent” communities, where entire neighborhoods are constructed not for sale, but specifically for long-term rental by large corporate owners.

At the same time, corporate ownership is no longer confined to lower-income areas.

“To be honest, it’s more than that,” Thigpen said when asked about whether the focus is on lower-cost housing. “It definitely includes that, but this has moved into these more mainline spaces that I think we would look in and we would assume everybody owns properties.”

That includes developments like Brightwood Farm in eastern Guilford County, where higher-value homes are also increasingly part of the corporate ownership landscape.

The result, Thigpen said, is that, “We’re kind of all in the same boat.”

That broad reach is part of what makes the issue so complicated.

On one hand, corporate investment can bring capital into neighborhoods that might otherwise struggle to attract it. Some argue that, in certain areas, these investors are improving housing stock and increasing availability.

On the other hand, there are concerns about long-term community stability, affordability and homeownership.

“What does that mean for the local tax base? What does that mean for the values of properties? What does that mean for the schools?” Thigpen asked. “What does it mean for a community when the people who were owning the housing aren’t anymore?”

There are also concerns about how these trends affect individual buyers – especially first-time homeowners.

Local Realtors, Thigpen said, have been raising red flags.

“They’re seeing a couple with two children who want to buy a house and then all of a sudden they’ll have a competing buyer, who has a bundle of cash, and they say, ‘I want to buy that,’” Thigpen said.

That dynamic can price out local families, even in markets where the housing supply is already tight.

At the same time, Thigpen noted that Realtors themselves aren’t approaching this as an ideological issue.

“Realtors are not communists,” he said. “They care about their communities; their kids are in the school system; they go and eat at the restaurants.”

In other words, even those who benefit from home sales are starting to question whether the broader trend could have unintended negative consequences.

Nationally, the issue has gained increasing attention from policymakers across the political spectrum.

Even former President Donald Trump has weighed in, briefly raising the idea of pushing large corporate investors out of the residential housing market.

Thigpen, who made clear he disagrees with Trump on most issues, said this is one area where the concern itself is worth examining.

“I have no love for Donald Trump,” Thigpen said. “But he made a statement on this problem and I couldn’t say I disagree with it.”

That kind of cross-ideological concern is one reason the issue is gaining traction.

Still, what to do about it – if anything – remains an open question.

Thigpen is adamant that he has no dog in the fight or any solutions – or even knows whether a solution is needed.  He said his mission is all about gathering good and accurate data.

Some have floated the idea of limiting how many homes a single entity can own. But Thigpen cautioned that jumping to solutions without solid data would be premature.

The goal, instead, is to build a comprehensive, localized dataset that can show not just how many homes are corporately owned, but where they are, how that ownership has changed over time and what effects it may be having in specific neighborhoods.

That work is still ongoing, and Thigpen said it could take a couple more months before the county has a clearer picture.

“We’re probably a couple of months from really being done the way I want it,” he said.

Importantly, he stressed that this effort isn’t about pushing a predetermined agenda.

What happens after the data is known will be up to elected officials – and, ultimately, the public.

“If we go to these communities and they say, ‘For my community, it’s a really good thing,’ do we want to change that?” he said.

On the other hand, if the data shows instability, declining conditions or barriers to homeownership, that might lead to a distinctly different conversation.

“If we see that they’re run down – and people are moving in and out and that it translates into additional costs for our schools – that’s a problem,” he said.

For now, Guilford County leaders are still in the question-asking phase.

But with many corporate-owned homes already identified – and more likely to be uncovered as the data improves – it’s clear that whatever the final conclusions are, this is no longer a fringe issue.

As Thigpen put it, once the data is in place, “Then we’ll be cooking with hot oil.”

About