Not really - in a rental market, you can't get 'more market share' due to pricing, once your units are rented out 100%. 'market share' in a highly inelastic market like housing is only achievable by long term capital intensive purchasing, building, or upgrading of units.
In this kind of business, in the short-medium term (aka when setting rents), they're usually looking to reduce vacancy rates (aka achieve the highest utilization of their assets), so they'd set their rents to be relative to the market (same, lower, higher) as necessary to achieve their target vacancy rate. Notably, the market itself usually has highly variable seasonal demand and relatively low volume, so it can take months to figure out if you're high/low/just right unless you're managing a LOT of units.
For landlords, vacancies can practically never be zero for very long without problems, for similar reasons why unemployment at zero for very long creates problems - there needs to be some downtime to do things like unit maintenance and upgrades, adjust timing to have availability during peak times for good tenants, etc.
Zero would be ideal from a ROI perspective though.
Attempting to corner the market - in all but the smallest markets - can be VERY expensive and high risk, due to high capital and cashflow costs for housing stock, high workforce
(and household) mobility in the US, and a very diverse set of competitors.
After all, anyone who actually owns housing in the area is a potential competitor if rents get too high, let alone all the small/medium landlords which don't have nearly enough cushion to attempt that kind of maneuver without going almost immediately bankrupt.
So even if all the big corp apartment complexes or whatever were in on it (and the big property management companies too), all the smaller/medium landlords would be unable to even attempt to participate and folks would end up moving to subletting SFH pretty quick.
In this kind of business, in the short-medium term (aka when setting rents), they're usually looking to reduce vacancy rates (aka achieve the highest utilization of their assets), so they'd set their rents to be relative to the market (same, lower, higher) as necessary to achieve their target vacancy rate. Notably, the market itself usually has highly variable seasonal demand and relatively low volume, so it can take months to figure out if you're high/low/just right unless you're managing a LOT of units.
For landlords, vacancies can practically never be zero for very long without problems, for similar reasons why unemployment at zero for very long creates problems - there needs to be some downtime to do things like unit maintenance and upgrades, adjust timing to have availability during peak times for good tenants, etc.
Zero would be ideal from a ROI perspective though.
Attempting to corner the market - in all but the smallest markets - can be VERY expensive and high risk, due to high capital and cashflow costs for housing stock, high workforce (and household) mobility in the US, and a very diverse set of competitors.
After all, anyone who actually owns housing in the area is a potential competitor if rents get too high, let alone all the small/medium landlords which don't have nearly enough cushion to attempt that kind of maneuver without going almost immediately bankrupt.
So even if all the big corp apartment complexes or whatever were in on it (and the big property management companies too), all the smaller/medium landlords would be unable to even attempt to participate and folks would end up moving to subletting SFH pretty quick.