One Million Homes Owned by Companies: 4% of the Stock, but 40% of the Market

One Million Homes in Corporate Hands: The 4% That Carries the Weight of 40%

There is a figure that reassures and another that alarms, both stemming from the same registry. In Spain, around one million homes are registered to companies, not individuals, which equates to approximately 4% of the total housing stock. This data, published by El País, has become the latest battleground in a long-standing war: who is to blame for the current cost of rent.

The answer depends on the denominator used. And here, statistics begin to resemble those surveys that conclude Spain eats well because of abundant harvests.

A 4% Calculated on the Entire Stock, Not Just What's Circulating

The percentage is obtained by dividing that million homes by the total number of residential properties in the country: those occupied by owners, those already rented, second homes, and vacant properties. Four out of every hundred. On that aggregate, the figure is almost anecdotal.

The problem isn't the number itself, but what is done with it. None of these homes compete with each other; the apartment where a family lives is not and will not be on the market, and neither is one rented to a stable tenant entering this year's available supply. Lumping them all together flattens the result into uselessness. It's the real estate equivalent of calculating the average temperature of a hospital by including both healthy and sick patients.

The 4% That Could Be 40% of What's Rented Out

The housing stock that actually circulates is minuscule compared to the total. In that narrow market, the most aggressive calculations suggest that these same homes owned by companies could represent up to 40% of the sales and rental supply, with some even arguing this figure is conservative. The math isn't far-fetched: if only a small fraction of the housing stock changes hands each year, it's enough for large property owners to concentrate their activity within that fraction to dominate it.

And therein lies the arithmetic trap that serves both sides. The same data allows one to claim that companies are irrelevant (4% of the total) or decisive (40% of what's offered). Each side chooses the denominator that suits them.

Vulture Funds or Asset Holding Companies?

The published data does not distinguish, and that is the biggest flaw in the issue. A company might own a home for reasons unrelated to speculation: a lawyer's office, a clinic, the headquarters of a family business, or an individual who, for tax and inheritance reasons, registers their home under a corporate entity.

The curiosity lies in how these units are counted. A building with a notary's office on one floor, a dental clinic on another, an administrative office above, and a dermatologist on the top floor adds four or five registry entries to the million without anyone playing Monopoly with the land. At the other extreme, also lumped into the same category, are large holders with portfolios of hundreds or thousands of apartments. One figure helps to gauge the phenomenon: 178,000 people own more than ten homes in Spain. Many end up transferring their assets to a company because it is more efficient fiscally and operationally, inflating the statistics without any real change in the market.

The name that always appears is the same. BlackRock, according to circulating counts, is a shareholder in 71 Spanish Stock Exchange companies. This doesn't automatically turn every rented apartment into an operation by a fund, but it fuels the suspicion that the market is decided in offices to which the tenant has no access.

How Much Would It Cost to Expropriate a Million Homes?

A lot, and not just in money. The Constitution provides for expropriation for reasons of social interest or justice, but with two conditions that practically change everything: fair compensation (justiprecio) and legal guarantees. A million homes at market price is a bill that no public budget can assume, and to that, we must add a million judicial proceedings, appeals, and conflicting appraisals.

The argument usually made against it is not the cost, but the precedent. If housing is expropriated today, anything else could be expropriated tomorrow, and those with capital would think twice before investing it here. The response from the other side is equally simple: vacant apartments or those held by large portfolios are not going anywhere, and corporate money doesn't starve under a bridge.

Building More: Solution or Mirage?

This is the most repeated proposal in any conversation about rental prices, and also the one least supported by historical data, according to part of the analysis. When Spain was building at full throttle, in 2007, prices didn't fall: they skyrocketed. More construction doesn't always miccionan more affordable housing.

The counter-argument is that the market then was not free: it was rescued, intervened, and supported with public money, and the demand for a basic necessity is inelastic, as one can forgo a second car but not a roof over their head. Others point out that the problem isn't how many homes exist, but how many are kept out of the market awaiting a better moment.

With 4% or 40% on the table, with expropriations that no one dares to seriously quantify, and with a housing stock that circulates drop by drop, a question remains that no report answers: if all vacant homes and all those held by large owners were suddenly put into circulation tomorrow, would the price drop, or would ownership simply change hands at a different pace?