Fastcompany seems to have invented that headline from whole cloth. For one thing, the study concerned <i>rental</i> properties. Secondly, nowhere in the original SF Chronicle story (<a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/bay-area-housing-power-players/" rel="nofollow">https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/bay-area-housing-p...</a>) can I find a claim about a majority of even rental properties. The story itself begins with "12 [rental property owners] includes some of the region’s major power players in residential real estate, housing tens of thousands of families in nearly 7,000 assessor-defined properties from San Jose to Santa Rosa." Note that the study aggregated nine Bay Area counties, so "tens of thousands" of families is relative to a total population of nearly 8 million.<p>The numbers get even muddier because some of these companies have national holdings, and the SF Chronicle mixes large national numbers with smaller regional numbers for effect.<p>The study itself is interesting for how they attempt to algorithmically link property titles with beneficial [corporate] owners, but it seems they felt they needed to juice things up with rhetoric and innuendo to actually sell it. I cancelled my SF Chronicle subscription awhile ago as the paper is hardly any better than FOX News. They really work hard to stick to their narratives, which is a real shame as it's the newspaper of record in SF. (The odd thing is that the <i>comments</i> section to every article almost reads like an actual comments thread from foxnews.com. That is, most of the people engaged enough to comment seem to be at the polar opposite of the political spectrum. Which makes every article doubly useless--the journalists and the commenters lobbing endless non-sequiturs --and also raises some fascinating questions about to whom is the paper actually trying to appeal, etc.)