Hacker News Reader

Comment by gingerrr | Hacker News Reader

To whom? Yes to Westfield's bottom line, but both you and another commenter have replied this as if it has self-evident corollaries.

Why is the difference meaningful to anyone who isn't the corporation already planning on exiting the market? Would be a helpful exposition to better understand what you're both trying to indicate with pointing out that 2 different things are different.

edit: I'm asking bc the article doesn't really explain that either and I'm not sure why this means anything beyond Westfield couldn't find a buyer at the price they wanted, or thought this was the simplest/fastest way to divest

View on HN

> To whom? Yes to Westfield's bottom line

> Why is the difference meaningful to anyone who isn't the corporation already planning on exiting the market?

> have replied this as if it has self-evident corollaries

They are sort of self evident for locals and folks who have dealt with any form of real estate in CA. But happy to explain.

It matters to cities. Foreclosed assets go for lower price than before and thus reduce property tax revenue (which is based on the value the property was purchased for).

It matters to consumers. As a consumer in the bay area, I know WestField SF will be neglected. Meanwhile WestField in San Jose, even after it changes hands, will continue to thrive.

> As a consumer in the bay area, I know WestField SF will be neglected.

I guess this one was too self-evident, as that feels like it was a truism even before the foreclosure considering the overall direction the entire area has already been headed for over a decade and the stores within the mall that have already closed. Do you see the foreclosure itself having had a unique impact on these feelings? To me, public sentiment has already been very negative.

> Foreclosed assets go for lower price than before

Makes total sense! Wasn't thinking what happens after the next sale re: property taxes, good point.

Thanks for explaining!

> Do you see the foreclosure itself having had a unique impact on these feelings? To me, public sentiment has already been very negative.

Unfortunately, these things are self-perpetuating.

> Thanks for explaining!

Mp!

selling: "we are not the right owner for this asset"

foreclosure: "the current owner, the world's expert on making this location profitable, concluded it can't be done"

You can argue that it's reductive, obviously that's true but this is the "self-evident" optics people are responding to. (Not the GP but HTH.)

Ah ok, I may have been trying to look too deeply then if they were just alluding to the noxious side effects of any write-off.

I guess this seemed like the obvious next step for them, to me. Considering recent store closures, operational costs have to be close to outpacing revenue at this point so waiting for a potential buyer wouldn't make sense while losing money daily. Especially not when you already planned to divest of the asset - you'd save yourself trouble and time and write off the loss.

So I got curious about what other ramifications I was missing - like maybe those replies were insinuating the foreclosure was an first trickle of a broader collapse in commercial real estate, or something else that wasn't just "SF downtown bad" again.

Thanks for clarifying!

It wouldn't matter if the mall still had some anchor tennants and traffic was good but neither is the case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com