But thats a lot of power over rent cost 'normalization' given they can set the prices on a large # of units and pretty much all real estate is driven by "comparables in the area/market" thats an awful lot of "comparables"
Also these are basically fake numbers.
Unit could be an entire complex with hundreds of actual apartments.
---
EDIT:
They dont own any direct units, apparently, but they own a large percentage of the companies, developers, funds that do.
It a far more nuanced issue and hard to get a true understanding of, as money is the grout that fits everything together - its hard to see how it all works.
>But thats a lot of power over rent cost 'normalization' given they can set the prices on a large # of units and pretty much all real estate is driven by "comparables in the area/market" thats an awful lot of "comparables"
If their ownership is a drop in the bucket on a national level, then what you're proposing would only make sense if they're heavily concentrated in a few cities. Is there evidence this is happening?
>Unit could be an entire complex with hundreds of actual apartments.
Dividing the total asset value by the number of units gets you around 300k, which seems in the price range for a single family home. That doesn't entirely rule out what you're describing is happening, but if it is the effect must be low.
Also these are basically fake numbers.
Unit could be an entire complex with hundreds of actual apartments.
---
EDIT:
They dont own any direct units, apparently, but they own a large percentage of the companies, developers, funds that do.
It a far more nuanced issue and hard to get a true understanding of, as money is the grout that fits everything together - its hard to see how it all works.