←back to thread

115 points harambae | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hardtke ◴[] No.46208389[source]
One of the issues the article doesn't mention is that these houses are effectively cheaper to purchase for corporate owners. Generally they can borrow money at a lower rate, but the ability of corporate owners to use depreciation on a new purchase to offset profits from previous purchases is more significant. Effectively they are redirecting money that would be paid in taxes into the payments on the new purchase.
replies(8): >>46208556 #>>46208610 #>>46208621 #>>46208767 #>>46209057 #>>46209420 #>>46209989 #>>46210020 #
zipy124 ◴[] No.46208767[source]
This is not true at all. Corporate loan rates are generally pretty damn high, only exceptionally can they borrow for low rates. Mortages however are a special case since they are basically mandated to be low and safe by most governments in exchange for letting banks exist. Or in the US explicitily guaranteed through freddie mac and fannie may.
replies(2): >>46209207 #>>46209251 #
1. roboror ◴[] No.46209207[source]
>This is not true at all. Corporate loan rates are generally pretty damn high, only exceptionally can they borrow for low rates.

Are these companies going to banks and applying for a loan? I'd think they are privately backed and invested in.

replies(1): >>46209944 #
2. Havoc ◴[] No.46209944[source]
Privately backed isn't necessarily cheaper. In fact PE funds often have a big fat bank loan on their books because it pushes down the average cost