They don't, probably. Totally different business models. The conspiracy theory is idiotic. VCs aren't in business to make the relatively flat world of rent. They're looking for that 100x return.

Or, you know, just like the whole point of being a VC is diversifying so much that you catch the one 100x return, they've also diversified their capital also into more stable returns as well so they're not so feast or famine.

Yes, diversifying to catch the 100x, but that's still investing in startups. Doing a corrupt rent pass-through with general partners' money will never generate a 100x.

I mean, I've literally seen it. If you have to pay rent for office space anyway, it might as well go back to you. And I'm sure there'd be internal issues at the fund if someone was doing this and charging above market rates, but otherwise, what's the harm?

What you're describing sounds much more like VCs with offices subletting that space to startups they're funding until the startups grow big enough to get their own space than the more conspiratorial "VCs own the property management companies your startup is leasing from."

In any case, what you're talking about is renting office space -- the linked article is reporting on renting residential space. There's no evidence I can find to suggest that Silicon Valley style VC funding is secretly behind Essex Property Trust, AvalonBay Communities, or other residential REITs.

No, they're not subletting. They own these buildings, and don't use them for their regular VC job.

And they also own residential rental property out here too.

I can't speak to the sv, but this isn't an unsubstantiated meme in Boulder.

I think you are missing the point, VCs, the corporate entities DJF, Sequoia etc are not landlords. But their millionaire/billioniare founders and partners almost certainly are.