Random: way back I played world of warcraft, quit after the second expansion. Fired it back up for kicks a few years later and they had done an item stat adjustment. All my items were like… 80% reduced in stats. It was called a “stat crunch” or something to that effect.
Almost seems like we need a real-life one of those.
If you’re not moving in the foreseeable future, have a stablish job, and a fixed rate mortgage, property crashing doesn’t immediately or directly affect you.
So there’s a decent number in the “let it burn” camp.
There needs to be a reset, but I also don't see a strong driver for prices to drop in the most in demand areas--supply simply has not kept up with demand for decades... I don't see this changing until boomers start to die of and there are bigger demographic changes (i.e. an aging population like Japan).
There are so many abandoned commercial buildings throughout some of the Boston suburbs. From what I understand, people keep the rents high to increase the value of the building so they can borrow against it, and leave the buildings unoccupied. I hope this changes soon
Where would one read about how the system works here? I’m not understanding why a lending body would lend against the theoretical value of a buildings rents
rather than the actual
maximum monthly rents over the last ~3 years.
Hoping that this leads to lower rents in many places in the U.S.. Coupled with a multifamily construction boom, there should be a glut of nice, new apartments for rent.
IMHO the problem is the majority of new multifamily construction is rentals only. Rentals ran by international firms suck the life out of communities, as people cannot be part of a local community when rent hikes can force them to move every couple of years.
> Rentals ran by international firms suck the life out of communities, as people cannot be part of a local community when rent hikes can force them to move every couple of years.
You can't believe that only international firms... raise rent? That's extremely ridiculous.
A lot of these projects are financed with rent projections as part of their valuation to lock in loans and attract investors. So lowering rent wouldn’t be an option as it would make the problem worse.
I think the most likely outcome is that the various investment banks and their lenders will come to agreements on loans. If the problem gets too big the various governments will bail them out, but most likely a few will buckle and have their projects picked up by others with no real change happening.
If you want cheaper rent you’re going to need political intervention.
> A lot of these projects are financed with rent projections as part of their valuation to lock in loans and attract investors
I would like to see proof of this. All the commercial backed mortgages I have been privy to come with debt service coverage ratios, which can trigger default if total cash flow is not as expected.
Some rent is always more than no rent. Lenders aren’t fooled by property owners earning less money, but advertising higher than market rate rents to prospective tenants.
The only question is if the lender wants to trigger the default and take over dealing with the property, and many times they don’t, and prefer to renegotiate the terms of the loan.
Extend and pretend is the name of the game. If the lender triggers a default they will be stuck with the property and have to take the large balance sheet loss. Its generally better for them to pretend everything is fine until the property owner cant make the payment and even then its usually better to renegotiate than it is to take the hit. There isnt a clearing mechanism that would force the loss to occur and the property to resell at new market value.
Thats really the danger of low rates, it slows down market clearing forces and allows zombie companies to persist for a very long time.
This depends on how hard it is to increase rent later. A lot of these projects are funded on a mix of low interest loans and investor money. Sometimes mixed with own funds. This poses two issues right now, one is that low interest rates is hard to come by, the other is that investors can now get close to the 5-7% returns by going with much safer options.
Low rent being better than no rent is a consumer perspective to the financing of these projects. What they sell isn’t actual income, it’s projected income and returns and if you lower rent those change. When they change investors are less likely to repeat business, which means your primary business (which isn’t to supply housing but to sell investments) goes down. So it’s much better to simply wait things out, at least for a 2-5 year period. If you have liquidity you can even bet on outlasting competition and buying their projects cheap.
Banks on the other hand aren’t fooled, but they’ve also loaned you so much money when the interest rates were basically 0. Interest rates that you didn’t lock down because it might go lower. Now that your loans are suddenly millions, if not billions, more expensive than projected you probably can’t pay and if you can you certainly don’t want to. So you work out deals with the banks out of mutual interest in keeping the “pretence” going because what you’re both making money off is the flow of money.
You’re going to see something similar happen in the green energy industry unless governments up their tariffs.
In the past, political intervention in such matters has always led to bailouts and unnecessary regulations that disproportionately affect the general consumer instead of the actual parties of interest.
Occupancy rates for MFDs that used RealPage are still below the historical failure thresholds. The only problem lower rents would create is reducing the return for investors.
If the government only bails out small landlords, that's fine, otherwise it'll open up the market to complete capture by large investors.
Banks aren’t in need of government bailouts here the 1.5T is more for shock value than an actual issue. “$95 billion of the US properties in distress or at risk of becoming so”
If hypothetically 50B in loans goes bad that’s a minor issue spread across the industry.
Whether they're bailed out or not has nothing to do with rent going down. Unless the tenants own it, or the government subsidies it, the cost will pretty much be the same or higher. Even if the new owner gets it at a discount, the taxes higher rates, desire for profit, and overhead will still put it in a similar price range.
Suburban housing is one of the most inefficient ways to build cities.
Suburbs make everything car centric.
Everything is far, services are more complex and expensive to offer, public transport non existent.
I really find suburbs from my experience in Ohio 10 years ago, as an European, an ugly distopia.
And I haven't even got to other serious issues they have like absolute lack of socialization. Very little to no place to gather for local elders, dangerous for kids to walk/bike.
What you find comfortable I find terrible example of humans building golden walls around them at the expense of their own well being.
Cities are efficient in lots of easy to measure ways and inefficient in lots of hard to measure ways. For example, I'd love to see studies that deduct the physical and mental health cost of cities.
> Suburban housing is one of the most inefficient ways to build cities.
First, it's not quite true. Second, the most efficient way to build cities is a camp with bunk beds. I'm personally not looking for the most efficient place to live.
> Suburbs make everything car centric.
And?
The future is already here: Waymo in SF is the first example. In 10-15 years, Waymo (and its competitors) will solve the last disadvantages of car-centric life.
Want to go to a bar? Just press a button on your phone and a self-driving taxi will drive you there (and then back). Not yet old enough to drive a car? Waymo can drive you where needed, with a parent's authorization.
And you won't have to worry about missing the last bus, or to wait for the next one in the rain.
> Everything is far, services are more complex and expensive to offer, public transport non existent.
Public transit will die on its own. It's already stinking like it's been dead for a while.
And services in the suburbs are NOT generally more expensive. Quite the opposite. My favorite example: one mile of Manhattan subway now costs more than 1000 miles of 6-lane freeway.
> What you find comfortable I find terrible example of humans building golden walls around them at the expense of their own well being.
I lived both in normal (not sure why you focusing on very dense ones) cities and suburbs, and I absolutely disagree.
Go to cities like Copenhagen or Amsterdam or many other great cities around Europe you can easily walk or bike through.
I don't want cities built around cars, whether it's waymo or FSD or you like to drive, they are congested hells. What you're describing is distopic hell of people interacting less and less.
Cities should be built around humans, not roads intermitted by buildings with endless parkings and traffic.
Public transit is only dead in US because all planning has focused on cars. Which is also the reason why you have so many hell holes and slums we don't. You can't afford a car, you can't even get to a job if you live in those suburbs.
I have nothing against people wanting to live in their own house, but the endless suburbs I've seen in US are just unlivable, they're again, perfect for people wanting to distance themselves from other human beings as much as possible.
> Go to cities like Copenhagen or Amsterdam or many other great cities around Europe you can easily walk or bike through.
I lived in Amsterdam. It's shit. Transit takes AGES to get you to the destination, so people have to use bikes. Which is NOT fun in winter at 6am in fog or rain.
And Copenhagen has a dirty little secret: it practices harsh population control. It's population is the same size now as in 1970-s. They successfully fended off densification and kept the city from degrading.
> Cities should be built around humans, not roads intermitted by buildings with endless parkings and traffic.
Indeed. We should build around humans, not public transit and bike lanes. And humans vastly prefer individual cars.
