Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 240 posts

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#221

Post by 6510 »

bdcravens wrote: post #200
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? Come on. How does a comment like this do anything to move the discussion along?

Some of the underlying idea is true (most businesses don't feel confident that remote workers are as efficient as those they can directly supervise), though it was unnecessarily snarky and dramatic. I don't like the idea put forth that employers have a motivation driven by emotion; how you manage your employees is mostly driven by efficiency and profit.

I make an idiotic effort to make work more enjoyable for people under me. Their efficiency is off the chart.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#222

Post by jrs95 »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #100
jrs95 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, the problem with American capitalism is that people with wealth don't have enough of an advantage in business /s

Sorry if I wasn't clear- would you mind explaining how you got that from what I said?

"Didn't save up? You lose your business. Either it goes under or you sell it at fire-sale prices to somebody who has the assets to keep it afloat until things stabilize (possibly the government)."

In this scenario a wealthy person who owns a business can simply keep their business afloat with their personal money, whereas someone with a more modest financial situation would go bankrupt and be forced to sell at pennies on the dollar to...someone who happens to be sitting on a pile of cash. That clearly leads to a consolidation of capital in the hands of the wealthiest people, which most people would consider to be a bad thing. Plus, more rural communities in general are a lot more dependent on middle class small business owners, many of whom are likely already struggling even before a crisis do to a stagnating local economy.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#223

Post by oulu2006 »

CiscoCodex wrote: post #206
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a landlord is his business. If the bookstore and restaurant lose business and can't pay their rent, he is losing business and potentially can't pay his mortgage on the building. Being "in it together" means he's giving them time to repay the back rent instead of evicting them if they can't pay, as he legally could. Commercial lease tenants have far fewer rights than residential ones do. It's easy to spout "rent…

I think the crux is in the wording. For me, being "in it together" means if you're struggling I'll struggle with you. The bookstore is losing business and the landlord, in the spirit of helping out, should lose business as well. Maybe OP is struggling making their own payments because they don't have the rent money. But ultimately it seems the bookstore ends up with the rough end of the deal. The landlord will recove…

Yes, to me being "in it together" means suffering is shared.

I said it was a nice gesture, and it is, but to me in the long run (assuming the book store doesn't go out of business) you still get your pound of flesh, you just get it a bit later, that's not really suffering together.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#224

Post by bawolff »

samsonradu wrote: post #217
leetcrew wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not all landlords are rich and/or have rent as their entire income in normal times. my friend is a "landlord", in the sense that she rents out the spare room in her house to help pay the mortgage. now her entire industry is shut down and her tenant isn't getting paid either. no matter how responsibly they manage their finances, most people can't handle suddenly having multiple sources of cashflow go to zero.

They can always sell their property and rent for a while to weather the storm. Relative to the tenant, at least they have something to sell.

Ah yes, because there are so many people in the market to buy rental properties in a giant economic downturn. Nevermind the reason you are selling is because its impossible to rent out.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#225

Post by oulu2006 »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #191
oulu2006 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice gesture, but not really in it together. In it together would be rent forgiveness. The bookstore and restaurant have lost business, their customers aren't deferring payments with a gradual payback.

Being a landlord is his business. If the bookstore and restaurant lose business and can't pay their rent, he is losing business and potentially can't pay his mortgage on the building. Being "in it together" means he's giving them time to repay the back rent instead of evicting them if they can't pay, as he legally could. Commercial lease tenants have far fewer rights than residential ones do. It's easy to spout "rent…

Please see my reply to CiscoCodex's comment.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#226

Post by viklove »

bawolff wrote: post #145
sporkland wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly curious, but I'm sure it will sound accusatory. They (your tenants) permanently lose the business for the months the economy is shut down. But you as a land lord expect to be made whole just over a longer timespan. How is that in it together? In it together feels like you'd lose some portion of the rent you are charging or all of it and expect some amount of relief from the government. I mostly ask because I…

There is no magic solution here, all parties are going to get somewhat screwed by this. Its not like defering the rent is neccesarily in the best interest (from a purely ecconomic perspective of the landlord). If you defer rent for many months only for tenant to go under when this ends (and lets be real, many tenants are going to go under when this is all said and done), the landlord would be better off being heartle…

Sounds like they're not in it together

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#227

Post by viklove »

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #191
oulu2006 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a nice gesture, but not really in it together. In it together would be rent forgiveness. The bookstore and restaurant have lost business, their customers aren't deferring payments with a gradual payback.

Being a landlord is his business. If the bookstore and restaurant lose business and can't pay their rent, he is losing business and potentially can't pay his mortgage on the building. Being "in it together" means he's giving them time to repay the back rent instead of evicting them if they can't pay, as he legally could. Commercial lease tenants have far fewer rights than residential ones do. It's easy to spout "rent…

Legally he could not evict them, most states have suspended evictions until this crisis resolves.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#228

Post by 8bitsrule »

NotAnEconomist wrote: post #27
charia wrote: post #19

I used to criticize the big tech companies for stockpiling dozens of billions of dollars instead of investing them into their businesses, but it's only now I can see why a move like that was wise. If at all possible, businesses, like people, should keep a rainy day fund. I wonder if all the companies that used their money for stock buybacks are kicking themselves in the foot right now.

Why would they? They're not going to have to re-issue shares at a lower price; they're going to get bailed out by the taxpayers. The conditions for government money should be: 1. All current debt is converted into shares, erasing payback preferences and on-going payments to creditors. 2. Companies must issue new shares as collateral to the government at current market rate, in exchange for the money. 3. Rather than r…

An alternative path: The bailees issue preferred stocks to US taxpayers. In case of failure, the taxpayer collects first. In case of success, they get repaid for their investment.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#229

Post by throwaway3563 »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #119
joe_the_user wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pensions and institutions people need to survive get a bailout. Speculators lose their shirts.

What’s the difference between a worthy investor and a speculator? Is it sort of like the difference between a church and a cult?

Holding duration.

Re: U.S. retailers plan to stop paying rent to offset virus closures

#230

Post by [deleted] »

bawolff wrote: post #145
sporkland wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly curious, but I'm sure it will sound accusatory. They (your tenants) permanently lose the business for the months the economy is shut down. But you as a land lord expect to be made whole just over a longer timespan. How is that in it together? In it together feels like you'd lose some portion of the rent you are charging or all of it and expect some amount of relief from the government. I mostly ask because I…

There is no magic solution here, all parties are going to get somewhat screwed by this. Its not like defering the rent is neccesarily in the best interest (from a purely ecconomic perspective of the landlord). If you defer rent for many months only for tenant to go under when this ends (and lets be real, many tenants are going to go under when this is all said and done), the landlord would be better off being heartle…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN