[AnthonyMouse]

> For who and in what way though?

For anyone who wants an accurate accounting.

Suppose the building is supposed to be worth $20M, has an existing $10M mortgage and is actually only worth $10M. The landlord comes to you and wants to borrow another $5M against the building. Pretty important to the lender at this point that they're not overvaluing it, right? Or the same if they go to a different bank trying to refinance an existing mortgage they're already underwater on when using an accurate accounting.

[grebc]

Commercial borrowers have to pay for a valuation report by a bank approved valuer.

[AnthonyMouse]

Then why does anybody care if they rent out some of the units for a lower rent?

[grebc]

You keep asking the same question and the answer is the same in all these.

You don’t like it. We get it.

No one is doing anything illegal. If the bank thought a customer couldn’t pay, they’d get foreclosed, end of story.

[AnthonyMouse]

It's not a matter of whether I like it. It's a question of why the bank, unless required to do so by some kind of absurd perverse regulatory incentive, would do something which is not only harming others but also increasing the default risk for the bank by reducing the income of a borrower who, if they can't make the payments, will cause the bank to have to write off millions of dollars by foreclosing on an underwater building.

[grebc]

Harming others is a stretch.

You’re also assuming every vacancy has this pigeon holed financial setup. A LOT of commercial property is freehold.

I’m honestly at a bit of a loss that people feel they can tell others what to do with their property because it’s vacant. That’s not how society works, and it won’t change to that either.

[em-bee]

if the society decides that they don't want properties to stay empty, then that's exactly how it works. and yes, it will change to that if people want it. german cities are already discussing options how to motivate owners to fill their properties through various incentives including legal ones.

[PaulHoule]

... who therefore agree with the assumptions of this broken system.

[grebc]

Broken how? The owner/bank are fulfilling their obligations. You just don’t like the outcome.

[BrenBarn]

When people are fulfilling their obligations and most other people are not happy with the outcome, that usually means the definition of "obligations" is wrong.

[grebc]

Way to change the goal posts to suit.

[BrenBarn]

Not sure what you mean. The goal is a good society. Allowing certain individuals to keep certain things they currently have was never any part of my goal. (I can't speak for others in the thread of course.)