According to Zillow.com, “American renters paid a total of $485.6 billion in 2017,” and nmhc.org, states that in 2018, the largest rental apartment owner was the corporation MAA which owned 99,972 rental units. Additionally, the 2015 American Housing Survey, indicated that there were “nearly 48.5 million rental units in the United States.” All of this combined, serves to demonstrate that the rental property business is absolutely huge in regards to not only the units so available, but the monies to be garnered from the renting of properties. Further to the point, property owners are well aware of all the tax advantages that owning rental property entails, such as: mortgage interest deduction, depreciation of said property, deduction of property taxes so paid, as well as the expensing of repairs and upkeep. All this in a construct in which most rental properties will usually increase in value at a higher rate than inflation, along with the landlord being able to raise rents typically at a rate that is favorable for their investment, and of which to buy rental properties, does not necessitate having all of the cash available, but rather often involves a considerable amount of leverage being negotiated and approved for, which can thereby be intelligently utilized for the owner’s benefit, especially when their credit is impeccable.
One might argue that the consolidation of rental properties into fewer hands might be beneficial for those that rent, in the sense that cost savings so generated, from economies of scale would thereby trickle down to renters, in addition to the fact that landlords with deep pockets would have a stronger tendency to keep their properties in pristine condition. Regrettably, that probably will not occur, for the one thing that those that own a lot of anything do not desire to see happen, is to have to battle against ruthless competition in which there is essentially a “race to the bottom”, thereby impacting profits, safety, and cash flow. Rather, big conglomerate landlords, would in all candor, prefer to have markets in which they have enough force and strategic position to essentially dictate the prices of the rents so being charged, by utilizing sophisticated algorithms, surveys, demographics, feedback, as well as at a minimum, an implicit understanding with other big players, that to undercut one another, serves no good purpose, or, even better, they will strategize to simply corner the market, wherever so possible.
The bottom line is that in a day and age when housing prices have never been more expensive and of which it is an absolute truth that people need a place to stay, that landlords see this market as an opportunity that will further separate those that are fortunate enough to own their own property and then some, in contrast to all those that can’t afford to, and probably won’t ever, thereby leaving these people susceptible to what the market will bear for their rental needs, of which, that market as it consolidates will desire an ever greater percentage of a given person’s income. As they say, “you can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin them once,” of which, all those that have to rent, are by definition, almost never in the driver’s seat of demanding much of anything from a given landlord, and therefore pretty much have to accept the best deal that they can get, and when that market is controlled by a local oligopoly, or similar, the rich will get richer, and an ever-higher percentage of a common laborer’s paycheck will go to cover that rent.