Comment

Comment by Triesault

> Interesting, but It doesn't answer why a bank would hold a completely vacant building for 15 years.

I had the exact same question before I fully read the article.

This is answered in the article in the "Extend and Pretend" section.

> "And so long as the operator can afford to keep losing $140k per year on the building… they can!"

> [...]

> "The only sticking point here is that the building operator is still losing $140k per year. But remember that, if he gives up, he loses the $4 million he’s already put into the building. Even if he ended up paying $140k per year for 10 years before things turned around, losing $1.4 million is still better than losing $4 million."

Extending the article's example to a scenario where the building was vacant for 15 years, it means the operator was willing to lose $140K per year. In the 15 year scenario, the operator lost $2.1 million ($140K * 15 years) which is still better than losing the $4 million if the operator walked away from the investment.

> Anything that makes owning an empty building a bad investment in all circumstances.

In the final section "This Sucks, What Could We Do About It?", it mentions how adding a vacant store font tax would end up creating more foreclosures. This is the side effect of the financialization of real estate.

parent Triesault 10 months ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton