I suggest this „someone“ to be whoever would have profitted if these offices were full.
We need to stop privatizing gains and socializing losses.
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.
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.
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.
The fact remains we should not socialize losses.
Insurance and reinsurance exist.
"Insurance" in the financial market is hedging.
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.
https://www.pbgc.gov/ as an example, but a bad one since it (to my understanding) socializing pension fund default.
>” 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...