3 ms·

edit: wow I can't read, apparently. or scrolled too aggressively when reading, either way they absolutely mentioned it. -- Seems like journalistic malpractice

edit: wow I can't read, apparently. or scrolled too aggressively when reading, either way they absolutely mentioned it. -- Seems like journalistic malpractice that all these recent pieces trumpeting the SF downtown location closing don't also mention that Westfield announced a year and 2 months ago they're selling their entire US mall portfolio by 2024 to focus on Europe. https://smmirror.com/2022/04/french-based-owners-of-westfield-mall-chain-to-sell-american-properties/ https://smmirror.com/2022/04/french-based-owners-of-westfiel...

throwawaywu 3y ago
Selling an asset is much different than shutting down what is a now a liability.
- gingerrr 3y ago
  Where did you read the mall is closing? The final paragraph in the linked article indicates things are staying open, Westfield isn't shutting anything down, just deciding to back out of repaying the remainder of their loan. It's a functional foreclosure, which divests them of their interest much like selling an asset would - do you just mean it's "much different" because of the amount of money they make/lose? Trying to understand the distinction you're making as it relates to this article and their preexisting plans to exit the market.
  - andromeduck 3y ago
    They've lost all their major tennants and defaulting on their loans because of public & employee safety made the business unviable, what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving? The general area has also seen a huge wave of closures including pretty much every anchor tennant with IKEA being the only major business to buck the trend so far. This isn't a just a "business is going okay but we over leveraged" situation.
    - gingerrr 3y ago
      > what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving? The fact that their lender probably wants to squeeze any return they can out of it and they stand to lose far more money leaving it with lights off than at least letting it limp along until they can get someone else on the hook for it, to start. It could be that the lender also writes off the loss and just shutters the mall, but usually properties in foreclosure stay open because they want to claw back as much make-up ROI as possible on an already down position.
      - andromeduck 3y ago
        How is the lender going to deal with rampant retail theft, auto break ins, and near zero traffic owing to general public safety concerns and a lack of anchor tennants to draw traffic? A lot of these buisnesses were largely supported by tourism traffic from asia & white collar work travel buisness and conventions all of which are no longer happening because of public safetey concerns. It's going to take years before the city does anything.
evanelias 3y ago
The middle of the article does directly mention this already. It says "Westfield’s parent company said last year that it planned to sell all of its U.S. malls by 2024 to focus on its operations in Europe." It also links to a prior San Francisco Chronicle article about this.
- gingerrr 3y ago
  fundamental reading comprehension failure on my part, thanks for the correction.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Selling (elsewhere) vs abandoning to lender (SF). There is a huge difference between the two.
- gingerrr 3y ago
  To whom? Yes to Westfield's bottom line, but both you and another commenter have replied this as if it has self-evident corollaries. Why is the difference meaningful to anyone who isn't the corporation already planning on exiting the market? Would be a helpful exposition to better understand what you're both trying to indicate with pointing out that 2 different things are different. edit: I'm asking bc the article doesn't really explain that either and I'm not sure why this means anything beyond Westfield couldn't find a buyer at the price they wanted, or thought this was the simplest/fastest way to divest
  - andromeduck 3y ago
    It wouldn't matter if the mall still had some anchor tennants and traffic was good but neither is the case.
  - inimino 3y ago
    selling: "we are not the right owner for this asset" foreclosure: "the current owner, the world's expert on making this location profitable, concluded it can't be done" You can argue that it's reductive, obviously that's true but this is the "self-evident" optics people are responding to. (Not the GP but HTH.)
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - gingerrr 3y ago
      Ah ok, I may have been trying to look too deeply then if they were just alluding to the noxious side effects of any write-off. I guess this seemed like the obvious next step for them, to me. Considering recent store closures, operational costs have to be close to outpacing revenue at this point so waiting for a potential buyer wouldn't make sense while losing money daily. Especially not when you already planned to divest of the asset - you'd save yourself trouble and time and write off the loss. So I got curious about what other ramifications I was missing - like maybe those replies were insinuating the foreclosure was an first trickle of a broader collapse in commercial real estate, or something else that wasn't just "SF downtown bad" again. Thanks for clarifying!

throwawaywu 3y ago

Selling an asset is much different than shutting down what is a now a liability.

gingerrr 3y ago
Where did you read the mall is closing? The final paragraph in the linked article indicates things are staying open, Westfield isn't shutting anything down, just deciding to back out of repaying the remainder of their loan. It's a functional foreclosure, which divests them of their interest much like selling an asset would - do you just mean it's "much different" because of the amount of money they make/lose? Trying to understand the distinction you're making as it relates to this article and their preexisting plans to exit the market.
- andromeduck 3y ago
  They've lost all their major tennants and defaulting on their loans because of public & employee safety made the business unviable, what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving? The general area has also seen a huge wave of closures including pretty much every anchor tennant with IKEA being the only major business to buck the trend so far. This isn't a just a "business is going okay but we over leveraged" situation.
  - gingerrr 3y ago
    > what makes you think they'll stay open even if they weren't leaving? The fact that their lender probably wants to squeeze any return they can out of it and they stand to lose far more money leaving it with lights off than at least letting it limp along until they can get someone else on the hook for it, to start. It could be that the lender also writes off the loss and just shutters the mall, but usually properties in foreclosure stay open because they want to claw back as much make-up ROI as possible on an already down position.
    - andromeduck 3y ago
      How is the lender going to deal with rampant retail theft, auto break ins, and near zero traffic owing to general public safety concerns and a lack of anchor tennants to draw traffic? A lot of these buisnesses were largely supported by tourism traffic from asia & white collar work travel buisness and conventions all of which are no longer happening because of public safetey concerns. It's going to take years before the city does anything.

evanelias 3y ago

The middle of the article does directly mention this already. It says "Westfield’s parent company said last year that it planned to sell all of its U.S. malls by 2024 to focus on its operations in Europe." It also links to a prior San Francisco Chronicle article about this.

gingerrr 3y ago
fundamental reading comprehension failure on my part, thanks for the correction.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

Selling (elsewhere) vs abandoning to lender (SF). There is a huge difference between the two.

gingerrr 3y ago
To whom? Yes to Westfield's bottom line, but both you and another commenter have replied this as if it has self-evident corollaries. Why is the difference meaningful to anyone who isn't the corporation already planning on exiting the market? Would be a helpful exposition to better understand what you're both trying to indicate with pointing out that 2 different things are different. edit: I'm asking bc the article doesn't really explain that either and I'm not sure why this means anything beyond Westfield couldn't find a buyer at the price they wanted, or thought this was the simplest/fastest way to divest
- andromeduck 3y ago
  It wouldn't matter if the mall still had some anchor tennants and traffic was good but neither is the case.
- inimino 3y ago
  selling: "we are not the right owner for this asset" foreclosure: "the current owner, the world's expert on making this location profitable, concluded it can't be done" You can argue that it's reductive, obviously that's true but this is the "self-evident" optics people are responding to. (Not the GP but HTH.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - gingerrr 3y ago
    Ah ok, I may have been trying to look too deeply then if they were just alluding to the noxious side effects of any write-off. I guess this seemed like the obvious next step for them, to me. Considering recent store closures, operational costs have to be close to outpacing revenue at this point so waiting for a potential buyer wouldn't make sense while losing money daily. Especially not when you already planned to divest of the asset - you'd save yourself trouble and time and write off the loss. So I got curious about what other ramifications I was missing - like maybe those replies were insinuating the foreclosure was an first trickle of a broader collapse in commercial real estate, or something else that wasn't just "SF downtown bad" again. Thanks for clarifying!