|
|
|
|
|
|
by imtringued
1829 days ago
|
|
|
>This is the point - the second sentence does not actually follow from the first. The person who built the building, either the actual builders or the investors, make it available. At this point, it is a normal service-provision kind of relationship you see across the economy. If making it available is such a no brainer, why did they sell the building? If there was no value in selling the land and building to a new owner, developers would just cut out the middleman. The reality is that developers want to build and take profits today, not over 30 years and then build again with no risk of the previous property turning a loss. |
|
|
Rent is incidental to the real profit that you make from owning a building - asset value appreciation. Often developers do cut out the middleman. It's also sometimes a simple matter of where your credit is coming from and what interest you're paying - obviously, high interest rates push you towards a quick sale, etc.
I honestly don't think it should be controversial that rent is a form of rent, that is, a type of income that derives from simple ownership of something, not from any service or product. But you know, here we are.