A does not ALWAYS lead to B, but if the area has a scarcity of housing, then it will. Here's the basic logic in my head: We'll say the total cost of available

A does not ALWAYS lead to B, but if the area has a scarcity of housing, then it will. Here's the basic logic in my head: We'll say the total cost of available housing in an area is H. These investors now own 0.2H They will then do one of 2 things: Either put the housing back on the market for more than they paid (they are investors after all). We'll say they want to make P% profit. So the cost of the housing that was .2 * H is now .2 * H * (1 + P/100) = .2 * H + P * H / 5. So now the total cost of available housing has gone up, meaning that any housing difficulties are now worse. The other alternative is even more bleak. The investors buy the housing, and then hold on to it (without renting it) in hopes of making something higher than P% at a future date. We now have 0-20% less housing on the market, which means that housing difficulties are now worse. No matter how you slice it, injecting investors (i.e., middle men) into a scarce market will only ever increase cost or scarcity.