I agree with you, but want to point out that not using offices is just perceived as wasting money. They don’t actually lose any money if the office is used or not, they might even save money on utility costs and supplies.
It’s just sunk cost fallacy.
That’s correct, and the board doesn’t want to perceive wastage…so whoever is holding the bucket for entering into the lease will be pushing for mandated returns. This is likely the CEO or COO and so holds huge sway and likely ends up in said mandate being implemented.
My last company entered into a new lease during covid, while also making “the way we work has changed” noises. They then spent millions on the refit. And then were shocked that people weren’t coming in to admire their amazing space they’d just spent millions on.
But companies are owned separately. Reducing office costs would increase the value of the renting company while decreasing the value of commercial real estate, regardless of their ownership.
Investors owning both real estate and the companies renting that real estate are not colluding. One investor who owns 90% stocks and 10% real estate is not going to help out another investor who owns 90% real estate and 10% stocks.
Yes. It’s a legitimate investment vehicle that people with money use to diversify their holdings. What’s with the incredulity? Rich people act in their own interests, news at 11
You’re suggesting, with a serious face, that the fact that real estate investment trusts exist means that “rich people own the buildings their companies are in and want return to office to raise the value of those buildings.”
That’s a thing you think is real?
Be honest with me. Did you find out about REITs from a meme?
Your downvotes confirm my theory that you get your world view from memes.
Because they also hold shares in the companies that rent offices.
None of these businesses have given up their office spaces. They’re also likely on very long term contracts. Not using them is wasting money.
I agree with you, but want to point out that not using offices is just perceived as wasting money. They don’t actually lose any money if the office is used or not, they might even save money on utility costs and supplies. It’s just sunk cost fallacy.
That’s correct, and the board doesn’t want to perceive wastage…so whoever is holding the bucket for entering into the lease will be pushing for mandated returns. This is likely the CEO or COO and so holds huge sway and likely ends up in said mandate being implemented.
My last company entered into a new lease during covid, while also making “the way we work has changed” noises. They then spent millions on the refit. And then were shocked that people weren’t coming in to admire their amazing space they’d just spent millions on.
But companies are owned separately. Reducing office costs would increase the value of the renting company while decreasing the value of commercial real estate, regardless of their ownership.
Investors owning both real estate and the companies renting that real estate are not colluding. One investor who owns 90% stocks and 10% real estate is not going to help out another investor who owns 90% real estate and 10% stocks.
Source?
You know this isn’t true, right? Like, you know that?
Never heard of REIT?
And banks! If you own bank stocks, you own mortgages. If you own the S&P, you own bank stocks.
C’mon man. You’re being serious?
Yes. It’s a legitimate investment vehicle that people with money use to diversify their holdings. What’s with the incredulity? Rich people act in their own interests, news at 11
You’re suggesting, with a serious face, that the fact that real estate investment trusts exist means that “rich people own the buildings their companies are in and want return to office to raise the value of those buildings.”
That’s a thing you think is real?
Be honest with me. Did you find out about REITs from a meme?
Your downvotes confirm my theory that you get your world view from memes.