As much as I try - very hard - to see the rationale of this line of reasoning, I am still baffled by how these people (watch sellers, real estate owners and the like) are willing to take the loss "in instalments" as it were.
It may be different for outright sales, but for leases: if the flat stays vacant at the sum you want, you're missing out on the possibility to at least recoup part of the loss by renting it at a lower price.
Is it something psychological (like a kind of "then the object is devaluated forever in my mind") to such a level that it makes the owners blind to this simple maths or am I missing out on something else here?
Cheers,
Fabrizio

: Yesterday, a friend and I were talking about the market for
: rental apartments, in the major US cities, post-COVID. Lots of
: units are empty, as residents flee the cities. On the question
: of why some landlords / property owners won't just lease out
: units at lower prices, my friend said, "Some people just
: can't come to terms with the fact that they have suffered
: losses". They will keep the apartment at a rate of $3,000
: per month, rather than lowering the rent to $2,200, and taking
: the paper loss.

: So too, when we see a dealer holding on to an Autavia with the
: $25,000 price tag, when the market has taken that particular
: watch to $15,000 . . . they just won't take the loss and move
: on.

: Jeff

: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++