Why are residential investment properties owned by non-professional investors and not large corporations?
"Because the returns are not good. One of the big drivers in Australia is ""negative gearing"": if your investment loses money you can offset losses against your tax on other income. Institutional investors and corporations are in the business of making money: not losing it. Housing market investors are betting that these year to year revenue losses will ultimately be made up in a big capital gain: for which individuals get a huge tax break that is also not available to corporations. Capital gains are not guaranteed. Australia has benefited from 25+ years of economic, employment and wages growth: a result of good government planning, strong corporate governance and a fair slice of luck. If this were to end housing prices would plateau at best and crash at worst. A person who has negative cash flow investments has to sell them urgently if they lose their job. A glut of mortgagee sales and property prices could easily come off 20-30%. Rental yields on residential property in Sydney are about 4% with a capital gain of currently 10% but this has been flat or negative within the last 5 years and no doubt will be again within the next 5. Rental yields for residential property are constrained by mortgage rates: if it significantly cheaper to buy then to rent, why would anyone rent? In contrast, industrial and commercial property gets a yield of about 7% and gets exactly the same capital gain. This is because land is land and if the  price of industrial land doesn't grow at the same rate as the residential land next door eventually one will be converted into the other. Retail rentals are even higher. In addition commercial tenants are responsible for more outgoings and have fewer legal rights than residential tenants. Further, individual residential properties are horribly illiquid and have large transaction costs. While it is possible to bundle them up into property trusts so that units can be sold on the stock exchange it is far more common to do this with office and retail buildings. This is what companies like Westfield and AMP Capital do. Notwithstanding, heavily geared property trusts can get into deep water because of the illiquid nature of property as the failure of Centro  illustrates. That said, there are plenty of companies that develop residential houses and units for sale to owner occupiers or investors because that's where the money is." Your experience is anecdotal (outside Australia things are different). There are many companies and real estate investment trusts (REITs) that own residential properties (as well as commercial in many cases to have a balanced portfolio). They are probably more common in higher-density housing like condos, apartment buildings, flats, or whatever you like to call them, but they are certainly part of the market for single family units in the suburbs as well. What follows is all my own opinion. I have managed and rented a couple of properties that I had lived in but wasn't ready to sell yet when I moved out. In most cases, I wish I would have sold sooner, rather than renting them out. I think that there are easier/less risky ways to get a good return on your money. Sometimes the market isn't robust enough to quickly sell when it's time to move, and some people like the flexibility of having a property that a child could occupy instead of moving back in at home. I understand those points of view even if I disagree with them. "Economy of scale on one side versus ""person monetizing an illliquid asset"" on the other.  Most multifamily rental buildings are owned by professional real estate investors (as well as individuals growing an empire to become a professional real estate investor whom I will count in this group).  The rental difference between a 2000 Sq foot two bedroom apartment and 2000 Sq foot two bedroom standalone house is not large.  The construction cost per square foot for a standalone house is higher than for a multifamily building (of similar height and materials).  Maintenance calls, landscaping, and new roofs, dealing with permits and inspections, etc are much more efficient with multifamily properties.  On the supply side, most single family rentals tend to be the nonprofessional single property owner because they happen to already own the place, and for one reason or another a. Don't want to sell and b. Want to gain cash flow on the asset." As other answers have pointed out, professional real estate investors do own residential investment properties. However, small residential units typically are not owned by professional real estate investors as your experience confirms. This has a fairly natural cause. The size of the investment opportunity is insufficient to warrant the proper research/due diligence to which a large investment firm would have to commit if it wanted to properly assess the potential of a property. For a small real estate fund managing, say, $50 MM, it would take 100 properties at a $500K valuation in order to fully invest the funds. This number grows quickly as we decrease the average valuation to reflect even smaller individual units. Analogously, it is unlikely that you will find large institutional investors buying stocks with market caps of $20 MM. They simply cannot invest a large enough portion of total AUM to make the diligence make economic sense.  As such, institutional real estate money tends to find its way into large multi-family units that provide a more convenient purchase size for a fund. None of the previous answers calls out an important factor to residential property ownership bias towards individual investors. The amount of time spent managing (leasing, maintenance and rent collection) on single properties is much higher, per property, than larger investments. But what is mentioned in passing is the bias towards smaller investments. Fewer individuals have the capital to purchase and engage in the leasing of multi-tenant properties, but they are more likely to have the funds for smaller investments. So the smaller investor can both afford the entry costs, and the time investment, while the larger corporate entities benefit from the opposite proposition.
Talk to almost any large cap CFO or read any corporate finance textbook. McKinsey's Valuation is a great one to own: though yes McKinsey consultants can take a good idea and turn it bad by overdoing it to an extreme.  Why would universal corporate finance principles not apply to large cap tech? Why is having $XXb of unutilized cash for a company with durable cash flow a good thing for equity investors? Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people.  I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners. Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general. "For Non-Resident filers, New York taxes New York-sourced income. That includes: real or tangible personal property located in New York State   (including certain gains or losses from the sale or exchange of an   interest in an entity that owns real property in New York State); services performed in New York State; a business, trade, profession, or occupation carried on in New York State; and a New York S corporation in which you are a shareholder (including   installment income from an IRC 453 transaction). There are some exclusions as well. It is all covered in the instructions to form IT-203. However, keep in mind that ""filing"" as non-resident doesn't make you non-resident. If you spend 184 days or more in New York State, and you have a place to stay there - you are resident. See definitions here. Even if you don't actually live there and consider yourself a CT resident." Some of those could be bubbles since they violate price-rent metric.    maybe or maybe not.   People parking money is not necessarily a bubble if the money stays parked.  I look at overseas real estate and some areas will never have prices anywhere near in line with incomes because they are global markets.  locals couldn't dream to afford to own their own property. My take on this is banks want to bring fear to homeowners to get them to go for fixed mortgage rates which are higher. Also (here in Canada at least) every journalist suddenly is a real estate expert and predicts crashes yet has never written on real estate before. There are also the people that want a crash to happen since they missed the boat on the real estate boom. And not to mention writing country wide predictions is just pointless. Did the real estate market in Manhattan crash in 2008? I actually don't know the answer, but I highly doubt it. That's the foundation of Limited Liability.  There is a corporate veil that protects your personal assets from that of your business.  The corporate veil can be pierced if you do certain stuff and thus your personal assets will get effected.  This allows people to start companies and innovate more and take more risks knowing that they could not be personally liable if the business folds. There are certain situations where you could legally pay yourself rent, but it'd be in the context of multiple business entities interacting, never in the context of an individual renting their own property.  Even if you could, any rent paid to yourself would count as rental income, so there'd be no benefit. Edit: I was hunting for examples where it might be acceptable, and didn't, but I found a good explanation as to why it is not acceptable from Brandon Hall on a BiggerPockets post: To get technical, you will be going up against the Economic Substance   Doctrine which states that a transaction has economic substance if:   (1) the transaction changes in a meaningful way (apart from Federal   income tax effects) the taxpayer’s economic position; and (2) the   taxpayer has a substantial purpose (apart from Federal income tax   effects) for entering into such transaction. By transferring your primary residence into a LLC, you would not be   changing your economic position. Further, you do not have a   substantial purpose for entering into such transaction other than to   simply avoid paying federal income taxes. So it might make sense if multiple people owned the LLC that owned the property you wanted to rent, and there are instances where company X owns holding company Y that owns an office building that company X rents space in. But if you're the sole player in the LLC's then it sounds like a no-go.