I understand all of that, but an investment company owning a property does not mean that individual homeowners can't own them. There's a leap in logic here wher

I understand all of that, but an investment company owning a property does not mean that individual homeowners can't own them. There's a leap in logic here where its assumed any company owning residential real estate = everyone is forever a rentier. That's a separate claim worth backing with some evidence (e.g. investment companies buying properties -> increased home prices across geographies -> no one can afford a home), which I haven't seen and the article doesn't provide