- Posts: 881
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 10:50 pm
Jantra wrote: They will effectively have the lease at cost (of acquiring from the developer) rather than a landlord adding a mark up. If they were going to move then it makes sense to keep the rent down
I'm not sure it really works that way because you need to think of the opportunity cost. If they can lease it out to someone else, they presumably will get a market rent. So if they let it to themselves, in effect, they are forgoing a market rent... the fact that they own it doesn't change that.
Moreover, when insurance or pension firms own assets, they like to diversify risk. Not own too many assets let to one client (in case that client goes bust). And if possible, let to clients who have different profiles of risk from each other (so, e.g. a mix of public and private sector). Owning an asset let to yourself.. you aren't really diversifying your risk. Suppose L&G get into some financial difficulty and want to sell some assets.. well the asset that L&G is also a tenant of will be worth less because its covenant is now less good because the tenant (L&G) is in trouble.
So from a financial fundamentals perspective, probably doesn't make much sense to rent to themselves, right? You forgo a market rent (so don't avoid a 'mark up' as you suggest).. and your asset risk is less diversified...
Now there may be other benefits from being your own landlord.. more flexibility... fewer cashflow issues... And perhaps an accountant can think of others? How does it interact with the tax system?