Housing starts are a forward looking economic indicator, because builders can decide go/no go before laying out significant capital and obligations.
Housing sales are a backward looking indicator, since it takes time for a house to be constructed once begun. Therefore, I would postulate that housing sales prices are not a reliable indicator; once the house is done a builder may sit on it longer to achieve his price, or he may cut it to move out from beneath the inventory obligation.
[A majority of housing sales are individuals moving out or moving up, and those are discretionary, but some are not, as when a worker is transferred somewhere.]
Rentals are, surprisingly, a rear facing indicator, at least at this point in the cycle. Rents aren’t like apples or auto tires, where the price can move in a day. Rental agreements are generally a year’s duration, so any price increase (and they are nearly always increases) is “pent-up” until renewal time.
It will take a lot of new inventory (including unsold houses) to tip this one down. It will happen, eventually, but [as the WSJ article you posted recently showed] many large property managers are finding they can be more profitable letting their occupancy stats slide while jacking up rents to much higher levels.] Eventually that has to catch up with them, but it may not be for quite a while.
Side note: as a landlord I always found there was more wear and tear and increased costs of managing the property during tenant transition. Scratched floors, things that were broken that the tenant learned to live with, new paint, etc… these were all things that made having “a good tenant” a better decision than jacking up the rent and forcing people out in pursuit of a few extra bucks.