Because they also hold shares in the companies that rent offices
You know this isn’t true, right? Like, you know that?
Comment on [deleted]
Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 months agoBecause they also hold shares in the companies that rent offices.
None of these businesses have given up their office spaces. They’re also likely on very long term contracts. Not using them is wasting money.
SCB@lemmy.world 5 months ago
meyotch@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
Never heard if REIT?
SCB@lemmy.world 5 months ago
C’mon man. You’re being serious?
meyotch@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
Yes. It’s a legitimate investment vehicle that people with money use to diversify their holdings. What’s with the incredulity? Rich people act in their own interests, news at 11
WarmApplePieShrek@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 months ago
And banks! If you own bank stocks, you own mortgages. If you own the S&P, you own bank stocks.
KevonLooney@lemm.ee 5 months ago
But companies are owned separately. Reducing office costs would increase the value of the renting company while decreasing the value of commercial real estate, regardless of their ownership.
Investors owning both real estate and the companies renting that real estate are not colluding. One investor who owns 90% stocks and 10% real estate is not going to help out another investor who owns 90% real estate and 10% stocks.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Because they also hold shares in the companies that rent offices.
Source?
HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I agree with you, but want to point out that not using offices is just perceived as wasting money. They don’t actually lose any money if the office is used or not, they might even save money on utility costs and supplies. It’s just sunk cost fallacy.