5 ms·

I suggest this „someone“ to be whoever would have profitted if these offices were full. We need to stop privatizing gains and socializing losses.

engineer_22 5y ago
REIC's own a lot of office space. A lot of shares of REIC's are owned by retail investors, 401ks, state pensions, etc. Our economy is highly networked.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Correct. The fact remains we should not socialize losses. Insurance and reinsurance exist.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    If a single named security falls through the floor because they couldn't pivot from B&M to E-comm, there is no insurance that is going to pay out for an investor's loss (securities fraud aside). Likewise, if you made a bet that's going sour (office space), you are going to eat that loss.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Agreed. "Insurance" in the financial market is hedging.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        Words mean things! Insurance is when you pay someone else to manage the risk, hedging is when you do it yourself. Excuse my pedantry. Agreed that hopefully funds invested in office investment vehicles did not overexpose themselves in reaching for yield (because, heh, offices are sure things, right?), but, you know...
        tomrod 5y ago
        > Words mean things! Do they? I've always found connotation to be an intimate and flexible concept, and serves as a limiting factor for true communication. Wittgenstein agrees, I think :) I can pay a hedge fund to hedge my risk.
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    I'm not aware of the mechanics of how that works. I have a state pension account from a previous job. Does my state pension manager buy an insurance policy? Please explain.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      If you're willing to pay, you can get basically anything insured. https://www.pbgc.gov/ https://www.pbgc.gov/ as an example, but a bad one since it (to my understanding) socializing pension fund default.
- gowan 5y ago
  do you mean REIT (real estate investment trust) which have special tax treatment in the us?
mc32 5y ago
Uhhh: >” A market correction would probably slap [banks] in the face without knocking them out. Instead, more of the bill will fall on equity holders, not least pension funds and insurers which, in their hunt for returns in an era of low interest rates, have been loading up on property for years. The sooner they admit that losses are coming, the sooner they can try to limit the damage.” So holders of that debt...
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> We need to stop privatizing gains and socializing losses Nobody here is advocating this. The article is about measuring how the costs and benefits could get allocated in various scenarios.
johnp271 5y ago
Weren't the two COVID bills passed by congress, each > $1trillion, a socialization of the losses incurred by folks? Wasn't the point of the $1400 (or whatever) checks and extended unemployment benefits intended to make up for losses incurred due to COVID?
engineer_22 5y ago
Doesn't the office tenant profit while they are occupying the space? They profited more by having more employees and filling more space. (butts in seats, a common measure of corporate size/growth) The building owners built the buildings to suit the demand of their tenants. The office tenant is paying someone else to take care of the details of managing real estate, which is a task requiring real managerial skill and should be compensated. The tenant is willing to pay for this because they do not want to spend time and resources dealing with it themselves, their time is worth more doing something else. So who should pay? The property owner/manager? They are wholly dependent on the commercial real estate industry for their profit. The tenant who was previously dependent on property owner/manager to provide space? Is the tech industry to blame for making WFH a viable alternative, should tech share in the cost? Should the pensioner invested in corporate bonds fairly take a haircut? EDIT: Not arguing your point, but there is some nuance that should be brought to light.
- version_five 5y ago
  I think this is a fair point: say I sign a 5 year lease (no idea what industry norm is), I am presumably getting a discount over whatever the month-to-month or daily rate for rent would be, and accepting the risk that I need to find a way to use the property to make money throughout the lease period. If I'm the building owner, i probably debt financed the building, and I'm taking on the risk that i can get enough cash flow from tenants to pay my mortgage. If I'm the mortgage holder (this is my basic understanding) I've turned rue mortgage into some kind of security and sold that to an investor who is taking on the risk that the property owner will pay the mortgage. And there may be shareholders or other parties taking on the risk that whoever owns the securities will remain solvent and pay their pension or whatever. So it's not super obvious where and how the buck should stop. I own an condo that I rent out. Guaranteed I am in the hook for it - i have no recourse for a tenant that doesnt pay other that maybe an eventual eviction, and the bank will make me sell it if I dont pay my mortgage. I'm the weakest point in the chain above, and that's why I'll have to be responsible. I suppose in exchange for that I'm exposed to more upside than the bank or the bondholders. But it's not clear to me that I'm the one beneficiary who should bear all the risk.

engineer_22 5y ago

REIC's own a lot of office space. A lot of shares of REIC's are owned by retail investors, 401ks, state pensions, etc. Our economy is highly networked.

tomrod 5y ago
Correct. The fact remains we should not socialize losses. Insurance and reinsurance exist.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  If a single named security falls through the floor because they couldn't pivot from B&M to E-comm, there is no insurance that is going to pay out for an investor's loss (securities fraud aside). Likewise, if you made a bet that's going sour (office space), you are going to eat that loss.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Agreed. "Insurance" in the financial market is hedging.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      Words mean things! Insurance is when you pay someone else to manage the risk, hedging is when you do it yourself. Excuse my pedantry. Agreed that hopefully funds invested in office investment vehicles did not overexpose themselves in reaching for yield (because, heh, offices are sure things, right?), but, you know...
      - tomrod 5y ago
        > Words mean things! Do they? I've always found connotation to be an intimate and flexible concept, and serves as a limiting factor for true communication. Wittgenstein agrees, I think :) I can pay a hedge fund to hedge my risk.
- engineer_22 5y ago
  I'm not aware of the mechanics of how that works. I have a state pension account from a previous job. Does my state pension manager buy an insurance policy? Please explain.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    If you're willing to pay, you can get basically anything insured. https://www.pbgc.gov/ https://www.pbgc.gov/ as an example, but a bad one since it (to my understanding) socializing pension fund default.
gowan 5y ago
do you mean REIT (real estate investment trust) which have special tax treatment in the us?

mc32 5y ago

Uhhh: >” A market correction would probably slap [banks] in the face without knocking them out. Instead, more of the bill will fall on equity holders, not least pension funds and insurers which, in their hunt for returns in an era of low interest rates, have been loading up on property for years. The sooner they admit that losses are coming, the sooner they can try to limit the damage.” So holders of that debt...

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> We need to stop privatizing gains and socializing losses Nobody here is advocating this. The article is about measuring how the costs and benefits could get allocated in various scenarios.

johnp271 5y ago

Weren't the two COVID bills passed by congress, each > $1trillion, a socialization of the losses incurred by folks? Wasn't the point of the $1400 (or whatever) checks and extended unemployment benefits intended to make up for losses incurred due to COVID?

engineer_22 5y ago

Doesn't the office tenant profit while they are occupying the space? They profited more by having more employees and filling more space. (butts in seats, a common measure of corporate size/growth) The building owners built the buildings to suit the demand of their tenants. The office tenant is paying someone else to take care of the details of managing real estate, which is a task requiring real managerial skill and should be compensated. The tenant is willing to pay for this because they do not want to spend time and resources dealing with it themselves, their time is worth more doing something else. So who should pay? The property owner/manager? They are wholly dependent on the commercial real estate industry for their profit. The tenant who was previously dependent on property owner/manager to provide space? Is the tech industry to blame for making WFH a viable alternative, should tech share in the cost? Should the pensioner invested in corporate bonds fairly take a haircut? EDIT: Not arguing your point, but there is some nuance that should be brought to light.

version_five 5y ago
I think this is a fair point: say I sign a 5 year lease (no idea what industry norm is), I am presumably getting a discount over whatever the month-to-month or daily rate for rent would be, and accepting the risk that I need to find a way to use the property to make money throughout the lease period. If I'm the building owner, i probably debt financed the building, and I'm taking on the risk that i can get enough cash flow from tenants to pay my mortgage. If I'm the mortgage holder (this is my basic understanding) I've turned rue mortgage into some kind of security and sold that to an investor who is taking on the risk that the property owner will pay the mortgage. And there may be shareholders or other parties taking on the risk that whoever owns the securities will remain solvent and pay their pension or whatever. So it's not super obvious where and how the buck should stop. I own an condo that I rent out. Guaranteed I am in the hook for it - i have no recourse for a tenant that doesnt pay other that maybe an eventual eviction, and the bank will make me sell it if I dont pay my mortgage. I'm the weakest point in the chain above, and that's why I'll have to be responsible. I suppose in exchange for that I'm exposed to more upside than the bank or the bondholders. But it's not clear to me that I'm the one beneficiary who should bear all the risk.