PESP’s Pattern of Missing Data and Misleading Analysis

When public policy and advocacy organizations publish research, they’re typically expected to show their work. Yet as Pinpoint has documented over the past year, groups like the Private Equity Stakeholder Project (PESP), regularly release attention-grabbing reports and policy analysis while keeping their underlying data hidden from public scrutiny. A closer examination of the group’s recent publications reveals a troubling pattern of misleading data presentation and analysis, followed by policy recommendations that contradict basic economic principles.

The Missing Data Behind The Headlines

Released this spring, PESP’s Private Equity Multi-Family Housing Tracker exemplifies the group’s problematic approach to research. As Pinpoint outlined in April, while claiming that private equity firms own 2.2 million apartment units, approximately 10% of the U.S. total, PESP failed to:

• Release the underlying database
• Explain their methodology for classifying ownership
• Differentiate between distinct housing categories
• Provide reproducible datasets

Most tellingly, buried in a footnote is the revelation that PESP lumps together fundamentally different types of housing, including student dormitories, senior living facilities, and regulated affordable housing, to reach their dramatic “2.2 million” figure.

Pattern of Selective Analysis

This isn’t an isolated incident, and PESP’s penchant for opacity isn’t limited to their housing tracker. Another example comes from its June 2025 critique of the Opportunity Zones (OZs) program, an economic development tool supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress. OZs were designed to encourage investment in low-income communities, but PESP’s analysis demonstrated similar analytical flaws and data manipulation. As Pinpoint points out, PESP:

• Cites criticism from 2019, before the program was even fully implemented
• Ignores current success metrics showing 313,000 new residential units in OZs
• Dismisses positive results while amplifying outdated negative commentary
• Overlooks cost-efficiency data that contradicts their narrative

Conclusions Before Data

Perhaps most concerning is how PESP’s research consistently appears designed to support predetermined conclusions rather than investigate reality. For example, as Pinpoint has made clear, PESP’s housing market analysis groups unlike properties together to inflate numbers, ignores successful market examples that contradict their narrative, and dismisses evidence of positive investment impacts.

When it comes to policy recommendations, PESP advocates for policies that would exacerbate the very problems they claim to address. As Pinpoint has illustrated, as PESP advocates for rent control despite overwhelming evidence of its harmful effects, it ignores real-world success stories, like Austin, TX, where increased housing construction led to a 22% drop in median rents.

The Broader Implications

PESP’s combination of hidden data, selective analysis, and advocacy for failed policies raises serious questions about its reliability as a source of objective information. Its work consistently displays:

• Lack of transparency: Refusing to share underlying data
• Misleading comparisons: Conflating distinct market segments
• Selective citation: Ignoring current data in favor of outdated sources
• Policy advocacy: Supporting interventions proven to harm housing markets

Looking Forward

Decisionmakers need reliable analysis based on transparent data and sound economic principles. Instead, PESP offers headlines without substance, statistics without support, and conclusions without evidence. Their work appears designed to support predetermined conclusions rather than contribute to meaningful solutions for real challenges and their approach to data and analysis raises serious questions about the reliability of their research and the credibility of their policy recommendations.