|
learnincurve posted:Exactly this, I’m in the UK so I don’t know how American laws work. It meant instead if having to borrow money for a deposit from my parents I just had to promise to keep up on the payments. Ah, there you go. Your parents effectively loaned you the money with the bank serving as an intermediary. learnincurve posted:Warning, you have to know or have somone around you who really knows thier poo poo when it comes to inspecting houses. You also see a lot of very cheap houses that will be shells, don’t be tempted, wait until a better one comes up, you may be out bid on that one but not on the 4th one. Yeah, your housing market is completely different than the US one. Hell, your mortgage market is completely different, IIRC the 30 year fixed rate mortgage isn't a thing in the UK at all. Most places in the US where there are any jobs, a $46k house is going to be a tear-down job, because the lot's worth that much.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
I dont think having middle class parents to loan them money is a reliable economic strategy for the poor working class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Monopthalmus posted:It's made by a bot, guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I unironically like the faucet filling the bath tub one. that's a weird way to spell "adult diaper"
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 12:53
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
I'd also add, for the US at least, that it's much easier to buy a lovely fixer upper if you're related to, or you yourself skilled in, the trades. You can do a lot as an individual in the remodeling arena, but you're going to to be hosed if you need real plumbing and electrical work because you're not eyeballing that poo poo unless you're building Groverhaus part Deux.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Sylink posted:I dont think having middle class parents to loan them money is a reliable economic strategy for the poor working class. No, it’s not, although what I did was different, in essence I took out a second mortgage on my own parents home, but at a fixed rate with no charges for paying it off early which is way better than an actual UK mortgage. The only thing that exchanged between my parents and anyone was paperwork. If this world had any pretence of equality then rent records should be taken into account when applying for a mortgage. Someone who has spent 5 years paying £500 a month to a landlord has already proved that they can afford a £400 mortgage. It really should be as simple as that, your mortgage payments, no matter if it’s on a 100% or a 70% one, will be the same or less than your current rent? On you go :rubber stamp: learnincurve fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:No, it’s not, although what I did was different, in essence I took out a second mortgage on my own parents home, but at a fixed rate with no charges for paying it off early which is way better than an actual UK mortgage. The only thing that exchanged between my parents and anyone was paperwork. In what way is it different? Your parents put up their property as collateral for your loan. Had you, say, lost a leg playing in traffic and become destitute, it's their house the bank would foreclose on when you could not make payments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 13:54
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:No, it's not, although what I did was different, in essence I took out a second mortgage on my own parents home, but at a fixed rate with no charges for paying it off early which is way better than an actual UK mortgage. The only thing that exchanged between my parents and anyone was paperwork. Your parents were (or should have been) cosigners on the loan, since you (they) were putting up their real property as collateral. It's pretty trivial to get a mortgage if you have someone with really good credit as a cosigner who is jointly and severally liable for the debt, putting up something much more valuable as collateral. It's cool that you were able to negotiate better terms than typical, but that's a function of having a really low loan-to-value ratio because your parents probably have a nice house. The other option, having your parents loan you money for a downpayment, is explicitly illegal in the US and would be mortgage fraud, colloquially referred to as the "Headshot" on the Wire, because it's such a slam dunk case and lots of middle income people do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
It was a risky move yes, but part of the agreement was that I took out accident and life insurance, as did my parents. Lawyers on both sides did a lot of arse covering paperwork  One of the big problems the UK has is that boomer buy to let landlords have a massive advantage over the younger generation, fairly obviously they can use their house as collateral to buy second (or more) homes on a 100% mortgage and have the tenants pay it off. Securing a loan on a house is the same principle, but in this case the money went to me and not them so I could buy a property outright to live in and not to rent out. £50k is way way under what a normal buy to let mortgage would be, you are looking at £180k in normal circumstances. Yes it’s a massive risk, you need to know what you are looking at and you need a lot of luck. This new house is in perfect condition, but the auction price reflected that, I was actually the only bidder and paid the reserve price because it was put in a commercial auction by mistake.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
Devor posted:The other option, having your parents loan you money for a downpayment, is explicitly illegal in the US and would be mortgage fraud, colloquially referred to as the "Headshot" on the Wire, because it's such a slam dunk case and lots of middle income people do it. Wait what? Why is this illegal exactly? I literally know no one in my age group that has a house that didn't do this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
CFox posted:Wait what? Why is this illegal exactly? I literally know no one in my age group that has a house that didn't do this. It violates the arms-length transaction (you can't give a loan with favorable/no rates to family member/friend). It is very, very easy to get around though. You can sign a loan agreement with interest rate and effectively ignore it, or you can declare the money as a gift and then pay them back at some point in the future. This assumes you have a good family relationship of course https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2015/11/03/options-for-parents-helping-adult-kids-buy-a-home
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
CFox posted:Wait what? Why is this illegal exactly? I literally know no one in my age group that has a house that didn't do this. Because you're supposed to truthfully declare your net worth and all your other debts on your mortgage application. If your net worth is $30,000 lower than you claim because most of your down payment is really a $30,000 invisible loan, you've committed mortgage fraud. Theoretically, sure, you could just tell the bank about the debt and be in the clear - but nobody ever does, because they know that if the bank learns about their off-the-books debt, the mortgage won't be approved. That's what makes it material misrepresentation and fraud. Gifts, on the other hand, are 100% kosher. If it's your money, free and clear, then it's just fine to use it for a down payment. In practice, you're right, this happens a lot. If a big chunk of mystery money shows up in your checking account before you close, the bank will usually have you and whoever sent it to you give them a letter that says "we both agree that this is a gift with no expectation of repayment." If there's really a handshake agreement for repayment going on, then it's technically a serious federal felony.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Ungratek posted:It violates the arms-length transaction (you can't give a loan with favorable/no rates to family member/friend). It is very, very easy to get around though. You can sign a loan agreement with interest rate and effectively ignore it, or you can declare the money as a gift and then pay them back at some point in the future. This assumes you have a good family relationship of course If you 'gift' it, but it's really a no-interest loan with the expectation of repayment, then that's mortgage fraud And when that article talks about getting a loan from a family member, it means in lieu of the mortgage, not to provide the downpayment. If you are getting a loan to pay for the downpayment, you absolutely need to tell your finance company that you're getting part of the downpayment from a loan, or again, that's mortgage fraud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
I didn't mean 'get around it' in the sense of making it legal, I meant that you get away with it most likely
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:I'd also add, for the US at least, that it's much easier to buy a lovely fixer upper if you're related to, or you yourself skilled in, the trades. You can do a lot as an individual in the remodeling arena, but you're going to to be hosed if you need real plumbing and electrical work because you're not eyeballing that poo poo unless you're building Groverhaus part Deux. reminds me I never read more than the first page of that thread about a moron remodeling his bathroom
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:If this world had any pretence of equality then rent records should be taken into account when applying for a mortgage. Someone who has spent 5 years paying £500 a month to a landlord has already proved that they can afford a £400 mortgage. It really should be as simple as that, your mortgage payments, no matter if it’s on a 100% or a 70% one, will be the same or less than your current rent? On you go :rubber stamp: Do you not have property taxes, insurance and maintenance costs in the UK? Because rent is the most you'll pay, but a mortgage is the least you'll pay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:It was a risky move yes, but part of the agreement was that I took out accident and life insurance, as did my parents. Lawyers on both sides did a lot of arse covering paperwork How much did the accident and life insurance cost you? You said that it took 10 years, so over the course of that 10 years, how much did you pay for the insurance? And you mention the lawyers involved...how much did this cost in legal fees? The point isn't that this is impossible, or isn't even a good deal. The point is more that the barriers to entry are pretty high, but a person from a middle class background might not realize that this isn't an option for everybody. You have to have the money to pay lawyers, buy insurance, pay contractors, etc. And you have to know how to do all those things. So from your description, you got a loan for 50,000, paid 50,000 to contractors. (Along with the price of the lawyers and insuranc). 10 years later, you sold the house for 180,000? So that means you made about 8,000 a year. I mean, that is not a bad deal, but given the amount of capital upfront, the risks of failure or cost overrun, and the amount of time done selecting and overseeing contractors, its not an easy investment. Like, say you didn't take out a loan, and just put the 50,000 you paid out to contractors into a CD for ten years, which would involve no work and no risk, what would have been your return?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:How much did the accident and life insurance cost you? You said that it took 10 years, so over the course of that 10 years, how much did you pay for the insurance? And you mention the lawyers involved...how much did this cost in legal fees? CDs are pretty bad. Long term rates are let's say 3% annually and we assume annual compounding the value after 10 years would be $67,196. A profit of $17,196. This is almost risk free tho so that certainly helps. The stock market over the long term has annual returns of about 7%, turning the $50k into $98,358, or $48,358 profit. For the house I'll assume that 50k loan ended up at 70k all said, add in the contractor so the expenses are $120k with a sales price of $180k netting $60k profit. Annualized over the period given of 10 years that gives us an annual rate of about 4.1%. Picking up 1.1%pts of annual return is certainly nice, but probably not worth all of the risk incurred. With even small chances of failure this can easily become a worse proposition than even CDs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Thought this was pretty interesting, amazon's pushing for getting cheaper goods into its marketplace by opening up to a load of a small businesses in India: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/26/technology/amazon-india-merchants.html India appears to have a lot of small time vendors and businesses just pumpin out stuff and i was curious why they’d never been Capitalism’d and consolidated - probably because the margins were too small? If selling in the west becomes a thing this might kickstart that process - even without consolidation, products being mass sold in the west like this is gonna increase the price of goods and cost of living in the country. Interesting times ahead. mila kunis fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
I am incredibly poor and can’t get a mortgage. My parents are absolutely batshit Insane right wing racist nut jobs who adopted 3 mixed race children in suspicious circumstances. They made me beg, and would only help me via paperwork in case I spent the money on crack. I have never spent any money on drugs in my life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
tekz posted:India appears to have a lot of small time vendors and businesses just pumpin out stuff and i was curious why they’d never been Capitalism’d and consolidated - probably because the margins were too small? If selling in the west becomes a thing this might kickstart that process - even without consolidation, products being mass sold in the west like this is gonna increase the price of goods and cost of living in the country. Interesting times ahead. as i understand it, india and china have very similar potential in terms of massive growth. but where china is a "communist" state under the control of a strong central government, with a high degree of cultural and economic unity, india is a giant cluster of fractured bureaucracy and jurisdictions and standards and it's just a big messy mess of a nation making it much harder to direct and channel growth
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Yeah "investing" in housing can be extremely extremely risky. It's like 20% picking a good house, 20% having the skills to fix it up, and 60% timing the market right. Any idiot can buy a house and make bank on it when the housing market is going through a boom or bubble. But even the most handy frugal house detective can lose their shirt when the market is going down or even stagnant, even if they do everything else right. Retail is actually having a really hard time in my area because everyone is up to their eyeballs in debt because we're in the middle of a prolonged housing bubble. When people are making 20+% gains on housing just over a couple years everyone wants in, which inflates the prices more, which attracts more investors. "get in now while you can! Get in now or be priced out forever!" and everyone does every trick to get their parents to put up their house for the downpayment on an investment condo except their parent's house already has a 2nd mortgage on it which was used to secure a downpayment on a cabin which is being used as collateral for a line of credit to pay the lease on their car which they claimed to fully own when taking out a loan to help their other kid upgrade the house they're flipping to granite countertops. The moment these webs of debt and lies are stressed the slightest they come crashing down, but in their mind its all a smart move because buying anything then selling it a few years later 100% guarantees massive gains. It's not a bubble, it's the new normal, prices can go up 20% a year forever so you're a fool to do anything with your money other than buy houses and condos. But as a side effect no one has any money for retail, everything's invested in housing. And the bubble drives retail leases up because the previously cheap land that 1 story retail building was on is now worth 4x as much because you could jam a 50 unit condo building on it instead. Don't worry the new condo building will have some shiny new retail units on the bottom, but the lease will be 3x as expensive and they are more than ok keeping them empty until they find someone who will pony up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:as i understand it, india and china have very similar potential in terms of massive growth. but where china is a "communist" state under the control of a strong central government, with a high degree of cultural and economic unity, india is a giant cluster of fractured bureaucracy and jurisdictions and standards and it's just a big messy mess of a nation making it much harder to direct and channel growth Yeah, it's possible local laws/state level protectionism and a bunch of random stuff prevented the existence of an Indian Walmart swallowing everything and a bunch of desperate small retailers and direct to market manufacturers constantly cutting each other and selling at super low margins has kept the cost of goods relatively low there for a while. I think Indian consumers are gonna shafted in the coming years though, through a combination of the current pro-business government sanitizing said laws, distribution channels opening up to other markets and a clear path to consolidation. Given the already present level of poverty in the country I wonder how much of an effect this could have on political and social stability there. mila kunis fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Like, say you didn't take out a loan, and just put the 50,000 you paid out to contractors into a CD for ten years, which would involve no work and no risk, what would have been your return?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:But as a side effect no one has any money for retail, everything's invested in housing. And the bubble drives retail leases up because the previously cheap land that 1 story retail building was on is now worth 4x as much because you could jam a 50 unit condo building on it instead. Don't worry the new condo building will have some shiny new retail units on the bottom, but the lease will be 3x as expensive and they are more than ok keeping them empty until they find someone who will pony up. I will never understand this, it's like opportunity cost doesn't exist for commercial real estate owners. AFAIK the owners in these situations are holding-out for the mythical tenant who will accept a long-term lease and can pay the outrageous rent (ie a bank branch), but there are prime-storefronts that have been vacant for years in my not-cheap area and it's unclear how the math works out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I will never understand this, it's like opportunity cost doesn't exist for commercial real estate owners. AFAIK the owners in these situations are holding-out for the mythical tenant who will accept a long-term lease and can pay the outrageous rent (ie a bank branch), but there are prime-storefronts that have been vacant for years in my not-cheap area and it's unclear how the math works out. Someone tried to explain this to me once saying that quite often it's not the building owner who leases the units, it will be a middle man property manager. These huge retail property managers will directly buy or get contracts to manage buildings and they'll do the math and find it's better to leave some spaces empty for years the drop the rents and compete with their other spaces. Quite often building owners own a ton of buildings in the same city too. Maybe 80% of their retail spaces are rented and they're charging insane rents, but they have enough big corporate chains to fill those spaces. If they wanted to they could easily find a tenant if they kept dropping the lease, but then their other tenants across the city would ask for the same. Why am I paying 4k a month for this prime space when you just lowered the rent to 3k a month in a similar location? Which is another huge problem with the consolidation of our economy. When you'd have thousands of buildings downdown owned by thousands of different owners all competing for tenants, higher vacancy rates would depress rents to match quickly. But now those thousand buildings are mostly owned by a few dozen companies, and they're big enough to ride out some empty CRU's if it means keeping rents inflated in the majority of their properties. These same companies who will go on and on about how minimum wage laws and unions distort the market and are bad are totally fine with leveraging their resources to keep rents inflated or even collude with each other to price fix and set minimum leases in the city. This is something that absolutely does happen when the majority of an area's retail spaces are owned by a small enough group of people that can fit into a meeting room. In my city about 80% of office space is owned by one local family, they charge what they want and are fine letting whole floors of office towers sit empty for years if it means keeping the existing floors at a higher rent. Residential has become more and more consolidated, the small time landlord who owns a few buildings is being replaced with a few giants who directly own or have management contracts with hundreds of buildings. My landlord knows the owner of the biggest one, who's also chair or what ever of the local landlord's lobby group. He will scream and bully at any landlord not agreeing to set a "floor" for rents, they want to be an apartment cartel and agree to never lower rents. He literally said that when smaller landlords charge "too little" for rent it hurts all landlords by "distorting the market". Market competition distorts the market. Another key thing to remember is that capital isn't always rational. We like to view capital as this borg-like emotionless horror that only wants to min-max for profit so surely everything they do is out of a detached rational quest for profit. But capitalists are still human, and they will still sometimes do things out of pride, out of ideology, out of stubbornness. Maybe they didn't do the math on keeping their retail spaces empty, but they can afford to keep the space open out of stubbornness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Do you not have property taxes, insurance and maintenance costs in the UK? Because rent is the most you'll pay, but a mortgage is the least you'll pay. Part of the reason BFC will yell at you if you want to buy a house where the downpayment will obliterate all your savings is that you need cash on hand if your furnace goes out/plumbing starts leaking/you discover the previous owner did Groverhaus wiring/etc. It's true that a lot of people put that stuff on a credit card, but if you're coming at this from a "improve your financial lot in life" perspective, you want to avoid that like the plague. And just being able to pay X/mo in rent doesn't mean you have the savings to cover sudden maintenance - you still pay it, but it's baked into the rent instead of being random cost spikes that could range from "$100, whatever" to "holy poo poo that's going to cost how many thousands of dollars?". Haifisch fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
tekz posted:Yeah, it's possible local laws/state level protectionism and a bunch of random stuff prevented the existence of an Indian Walmart swallowing everything and a bunch of desperate small retailers and direct to market manufacturers constantly cutting each other and selling at super low margins has kept the cost of goods relatively low there for a while. I think Indian consumers are gonna shafted in the coming years though, through a combination of the current pro-business government sanitizing said laws, distribution channels opening up to other markets and a clear path to consolidation. Given the already present level of poverty in the country I wonder how much of an effect this could have on political and social stability there. Still, some of the states of India are like, there's one that has 200 million people. There's another 3 that are around 100 million each. Businesses that only managed to get huge in one state there are still dealing with a huge population and economic base.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Another little retail rent tidbit: in your city there's many different almost unrelated retail markets going on at the same time. Different retailers can have vastly different demands for a space. A lot of corporate chains will have entire books filled with various standards and demands they expect in a building/location and they can be inflexible about it. And these spaces that do tend to match what these higher end chains want generally are very expensive, so when they are empty it's not like some local used record store can just fill the space. They could, but rents would need to come way down and why rent to a local ma when you've invested in upgrading your building to attract high end chains? Size is also an issue, different retailers need vastly different sizes of space and not every building can be easily chopped up or joined together as needed. So you can have a situation where lots of vacancy in one type of retail space and extremely low vacancy in other types, and it can take the market many years to catch up because renovations are expensive and who knows what the market will look like by the time they're done? These different markets don't really effect each other's rents either. Just because the department store downtown went out of business and now technically that means there's 50,000 more square feet of unleased retail downtown, that's not going to effect the leases of small high-end boutique storefronts, it's basically an unrelated market and that department store can't really be adapted to other retail uses easily. A huge shake up in my town has been from pot stores though. They rake in cash and don't give a gently caress about how fancy their space is, so suddenly the lower-end of the market which usually saw higher vacancy rates has become tight. At first people were happy to see something, anything, fill up some empty blighted spaces. But now the pot stores are taking up all the lower end of the small retail market meaning there's no space to "incubate" new local retail. Maybe a few years ago you could have found a cheap space to open up your 2nd hand record store, but now you're competing with a pot store that's going to be 10x as profitable as your record store.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Monopthalmus posted:It's made by a bot, guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:How many bathrooms in that CD? I think the discussion was about buying houses for investments. I mean, home ownership has a lot of pluses in terms of a sense of ownership, having a place to live, and also even if you aren't living there, some people will learn a lot of skills repairing it. That CD doesn't have a bathroom, but that also means that CD isn't going to have an exploded Septic System that costs you 2000 dollars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:I will never understand this, it's like opportunity cost doesn't exist for commercial real estate owners. AFAIK the owners in these situations are holding-out for the mythical tenant who will accept a long-term lease and can pay the outrageous rent (ie a bank branch), but there are prime-storefronts that have been vacant for years in my not-cheap area and it's unclear how the math works out. https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/11/27/the-paradox-of-persistent-vacancies-and-high-prices
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:reminds me I never read more than the first page of that thread about a moron remodeling his bathroom It gets so, so much better, because destroying his I-beams and compromising the structural integrity of his bathroom is predicated on  and poo poo about female bathroom needs. It's like opening a new present every 5 or so pages...
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
I'm a middle man selling widgets to US Govt contractors from contractors. The price for buying 1-4 of an item is 867 each. If you buy 5 they are all $293 each This is not uncommon. Capitalism is never completely or even very rational. Gumbel2Gumbel fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Nov 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Gumbel2Gumbel posted:I'm a middle man selling widgets to US Govt contractors from contractors. The price for buying 1-4 of an item is 867 each. no that's what happens when you start failing to meet a MOQ manufacturing tends to be easier and cheaper in bulk, especially considering that it tends to be subtractive rather than additive in nature if I buy a printed wiring board from a supplier, they will fabricate a larger PWB and cut it down to my specifications. they're limited on a minimum size by their machines, so if I give them a board that's a quarter of their minimum fabrication size, I would be charged for the fabrication of the larger board first to satisfy my order as a materials cost, and then additional labor to chop it down to size since the chopping it down bit is pretty minimal and a fixed cost compared to materials, I could have them make 4 boards, using the entirety of their original fabrication, plus the same fixed costs to cut them in quarters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:no that's what happens when you start failing to meet a MOQ If you are a purchasing manager and sign a contract where Total Cost of N units is greater than Total Cost of N+1 units, you have done something wrong. If you're okay with me buying 5 widgets for a total of $1465, you can go ahead and charge me $1465 for 4 widgets and just throw one of them out at your factory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:I'd also add, for the US at least, that it's much easier to buy a lovely fixer upper if you're related to, or you yourself skilled in, the trades. You can do a lot as an individual in the remodeling arena, but you're going to to be hosed if you need real plumbing and electrical work because you're not eyeballing that poo poo unless you're building Groverhaus part Deux. I knew several guys who did this, and it was their way of climbing into the upper-middle-class. Then 2008 hosed them all in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
realistically I don't see any new companies or incubators popping up to take up all this extra office space unless they're massively funded and with companies downsizing/outsourcing/moving things to the cloud the need for additional office space is minimal at best the market is in a bubble unless your property has street name recognition value
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
unless your office needs to be locationally relevant it's easily one of the things a corporation can cut to save a lot of money, I see tons of entire floors in nice buildings in our office parks that have been empty for years now I think most new companies could either adapt to use as minimal office space as possible or possibly do without it entirely intuit the tax management software company runs out of a stripmall office nearby
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Makes me wonder whether WeWork is in fact some kind of weird commercial real estate arbitrage business instead of  co-working
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 15:59
|
|
