> No, I was originally talking about SFH properties as that was what the first post by 'TeckPerspecc' in the thread was talking about. Then when 'Guvante' responded and pivoted to units (not relevant to the original discussion of SFH), I pointed out that the article did not support their successive claims that the 'vast majority', '74%', or '>50%' of units were owned by institutional investors.

Not quite. He quoted the article about units. Your first response only talked about properties:

> This is what I mean about left-wing science denialism. Try even reading your own article

> 1. "According to the RHFS, individual investors were the biggest group in the rental housing market in 2015, accounting for 74.4 percent, or 16.7 million rental properties, followed by limited liability partnerships (LLPs), limited partnerships (LPs), or limited liability companies (LLCs) (14.8 percent);"

Perhaps you intended to also address units, but if so you forgot or accidentally lost it on an edit or something.

He responded again noting that the article says institutional investors own more than 50% of units. You then responded accusing him of blatantly misrepresent the article, again quoted the numbers from it on properties but also at least this time also gave numbers for units.

> What has happened is both you and the other commentator have repeatedly mis-stated the numbers in the article

OK, first of all since I have only posted once (before this comment) on this matter it is not possible that I have "repeatedly" misstated anything. I have at most misstated something once.

Second of all, here's the first sentence of the article:

> Institutional investors own a growing share of the nation’s 22.5 million rental properties and a majority of the 47.5 million units contained in those properties.

It is making four independent claims:

1. The nation has 22.5 million rental properties,

2. Those 22.5 million properties contain 47.5 million units,

3. Institutional investors own a majority of those 47.5 million units,

4. The share of rental properties owned by institutional investors is growing.

I do not agree with them on #3. From Table 1B they have individual investors at 47.3% of units and trustees for estates at 3.3%, which together is 51.1% and trustees for estates cannot reasonably count as institutional investors. Several of the others that they are also apparently including when they say institutional investors own more that 50% are also things I would not count as institutional investors.

Nevertheless, Guvante's claiming that the article says institutional investors own a majority of units is not a misrepresentation of the article, because the article in fact says that.

That the article's assertion is based on a completely stupid definition of "institutional investor" does not make Guvante's of the article a misrepresentation.

What should have happened in the discussion is this:

1. Guvante should have used properties, not units, or explained why he thought switching to units was more relevant. Or he should have just been more careful in reading, because I think he may have mixed up properties and units.

2. You should not have accused him of not reading the article right before immediately quoting a part of the article that had nothing to do with his claim.

3. When he then, correctly, pointed out that the article did in fact support his claim, you should have realized your mistake in #2, probably apologized for saying he hadn't read the article, pointed out that the article is apparently using a completely idiotic definition of "institutional investor", and pointed out that under a more reasonable definition of "instututional investor" it is at most around 40% of units (and could be much lower...40% comes from assuming that of the 11 categories they give all of those that are likely to have some institutional investors are all institutional investors).