UMich regent donates $30M days before "reopen" decision -- he is largest landlord in Ann Arbor. Wow!

[Anonymous]

I worked for him years ago. Cold guy who had difficulty relating to the staff although they were very dedicated and wanted to engage him. Ron believes in a tiny sliver of ultra wealthy lording over the serfs. Though his two children are very nice.

[Anonymous]

I have a student at Michigan. Not sure why Weiser, who seems like a total jerk, would care if classes are remote or if students living in dorms come back. 70%+ of classes ARE remote, yet the vast majority of undergrads (most of whom live off campus after freshman year) would have signed their leases in the fall (mine signed in November) and so were both legally obligated to pay up and quite likely to show up in town. If his only interest is in off-campus student housing, he could have had his legal team sue all who wanted to break their leases for a helluva lot less than $30million.

Also, the head of The Univ of Michigan is an immunologist (MD/PhD). Do I think his plan was perfect? NO, definitely not. But he’s clearly not a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s a real estate guy - he’s leveraged out the wazoo, even if he is a billionaire. If his real estate assets stop producing rent, the entire house of cards will fall.

It’s also not just about the housing. He probably owns a ton of commercial RE too, which is already being slaughtered. He likely can’t juggle defaults on both commercial and residential RE.

If schools didn’t reopen, He’d lose a ton of properties to the banks and would go into an asset fire sale. The value of university-owned real estate would also plummet, including income producing RE.

Here is a clue for you. If you have to build six or seven assumptions into your theory, it is a BS theory. Look up Occam's razor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the $30M was to help with the additional costs of keeping kids and staff safe on campus (like testing, ppe, extra cleaning supples...). I'm fine with that.

lol. Did his PR team find this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a student at Michigan. Not sure why Weiser, who seems like a total jerk, would care if classes are remote or if students living in dorms come back. 70%+ of classes ARE remote, yet the vast majority of undergrads (most of whom live off campus after freshman year) would have signed their leases in the fall (mine signed in November) and so were both legally obligated to pay up and quite likely to show up in town. If his only interest is in off-campus student housing, he could have had his legal team sue all who wanted to break their leases for a helluva lot less than $30million.

Also, the head of The Univ of Michigan is an immunologist (MD/PhD). Do I think his plan was perfect? NO, definitely not. But he’s clearly not a fool.

Let me guess, you're also a landlord? You think a university trustee is going to sue and send bill collectors after thousands of university families who refuse to pay for an apartment they're not checking into?

And define quite likely. Because totally remote for the fall would have all but guaranteed a very large percentage would NOT pay him, and as someone up thread already said, real estate kingpins are all over-leveraged. The house of cards would tumble if 10 to 25% of families said piss off, we aren't paying -- let alone 50 to 60%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a student at Michigan. Not sure why Weiser, who seems like a total jerk, would care if classes are remote or if students living in dorms come back. 70%+ of classes ARE remote, yet the vast majority of undergrads (most of whom live off campus after freshman year) would have signed their leases in the fall (mine signed in November) and so were both legally obligated to pay up and quite likely to show up in town. If his only interest is in off-campus student housing, he could have had his legal team sue all who wanted to break their leases for a helluva lot less than $30million.

Also, the head of The Univ of Michigan is an immunologist (MD/PhD). Do I think his plan was perfect? NO, definitely not. But he’s clearly not a fool.

Let me guess, you're also a landlord? You think a university trustee is going to sue and send bill collectors after thousands of university families who refuse to pay for an apartment they're not checking into?

And define quite likely. Because totally remote for the fall would have all but guaranteed a very large percentage would NOT pay him, and as someone up thread already said, real estate kingpins are all over-leveraged. The house of cards would tumble if 10 to 25% of families said piss off, we aren't paying -- let alone 50 to 60%.

Please provide any factual citation for this supposed "house of cards" you keep referencing.

[Anonymous]

https://news.umich.edu/30m-gift-to-establish-the-elizabeth-weiser-caswell-diabetes-institute-at-the-university-of-michigan/

The gift was announced June 15 and is for diabetes research. A gift of this size takes months to finalize; it was almost certainly already in motion before the pandemic began.

I’m not saying that he couldn’t have tried to leverage the reopening decision in the final stages of closing the gift—e.g., “I’ll sign the papers by x date only if I’m confident about the university’s fall plans—but it’s highly unlikely that the gift was conceived, cultivated, and closed as part of some quid pro quo around reopening.

All of that said, I don’t feel bad for Michigan. You take $30M from a guy with direct Trump ties in this environment, you can’t complain when people draw their own conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a student at Michigan. Not sure why Weiser, who seems like a total jerk, would care if classes are remote or if students living in dorms come back. 70%+ of classes ARE remote, yet the vast majority of undergrads (most of whom live off campus after freshman year) would have signed their leases in the fall (mine signed in November) and so were both legally obligated to pay up and quite likely to show up in town. If his only interest is in off-campus student housing, he could have had his legal team sue all who wanted to break their leases for a helluva lot less than $30million.

Also, the head of The Univ of Michigan is an immunologist (MD/PhD). Do I think his plan was perfect? NO, definitely not. But he’s clearly not a fool.

Well either the president of MIchigan is a fool (no football and 20% of the classes on campus), one the president of Notre Dame is a fool (football with 80% of the classes on campus). Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Please provide any factual citation for this supposed "house of cards" you keep referencing.

Re:

Anonymous wrote:He’s a real estate guy - he’s leveraged out the wazoo, even if he is a billionaire. If his real estate assets stop producing rent, the entire house of cards will fall.

It’s also not just about the housing. He probably owns a ton of commercial RE too, which is already being slaughtered. He likely can’t juggle defaults on both commercial and residential RE.

If schools didn’t reopen, He’d lose a ton of properties to the banks and would go into an asset fire sale. The value of university-owned real estate would also plummet, including income producing RE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really seeing this one

If campus remained empty, wouldn't that hurt smaller landlords, allowing him to gobble up even more properties at depressed prices? A billionaire like this basically finds ways to make money somehow no matter what.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He’s a real estate guy - he’s leveraged out the wazoo, even if he is a billionaire. If his real estate assets stop producing rent, the entire house of cards will fall.

It’s also not just about the housing. He probably owns a ton of commercial RE too, which is already being slaughtered. He likely can’t juggle defaults on both commercial and residential RE.

If schools didn’t reopen, He’d lose a ton of properties to the banks and would go into an asset fire sale. The value of university-owned real estate would also plummet, including income producing RE.

Here is a clue for you. If you have to build six or seven assumptions into your theory, it is a BS theory. Look up Occam's razor.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a student at Michigan. Not sure why Weiser, who seems like a total jerk, would care if classes are remote or if students living in dorms come back. 70%+ of classes ARE remote, yet the vast majority of undergrads (most of whom live off campus after freshman year) would have signed their leases in the fall (mine signed in November) and so were both legally obligated to pay up and quite likely to show up in town. If his only interest is in off-campus student housing, he could have had his legal team sue all who wanted to break their leases for a helluva lot less than $30million.

Also, the head of The Univ of Michigan is an immunologist (MD/PhD). Do I think his plan was perfect? NO, definitely not. But he’s clearly not a fool.

Let me guess, you're also a landlord? You think a university trustee is going to sue and send bill collectors after thousands of university families who refuse to pay for an apartment they're not checking into?

And define quite likely. Because totally remote for the fall would have all but guaranteed a very large percentage would NOT pay him, and as someone up thread already said, real estate kingpins are all over-leveraged. The house of cards would tumble if 10 to 25% of families said piss off, we aren't paying -- let alone 50 to 60%.

I’m definitely not a landlord, but I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that someone here thinks it’s perfectly fine to bail on your roommates and on a lease (my kid’s landlord rents out two houses in town...doubt his actions influenced anything).

All of my kids’ friends are back in Ann Arbor, for better or worse, and that was the plan for them all
along. Many have no in-person classes. I’m sure they think that it beats being home with Mom and Dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a student at Michigan. Not sure why Weiser, who seems like a total jerk, would care if classes are remote or if students living in dorms come back. 70%+ of classes ARE remote, yet the vast majority of undergrads (most of whom live off campus after freshman year) would have signed their leases in the fall (mine signed in November) and so were both legally obligated to pay up and quite likely to show up in town. If his only interest is in off-campus student housing, he could have had his legal team sue all who wanted to break their leases for a helluva lot less than $30million.

Also, the head of The Univ of Michigan is an immunologist (MD/PhD). Do I think his plan was perfect? NO, definitely not. But he’s clearly not a fool.

Let me guess, you're also a landlord? You think a university trustee is going to sue and send bill collectors after thousands of university families who refuse to pay for an apartment they're not checking into?

And define quite likely. Because totally remote for the fall would have all but guaranteed a very large percentage would NOT pay him, and as someone up thread already said, real estate kingpins are all over-leveraged. The house of cards would tumble if 10 to 25% of families said piss off, we aren't paying -- let alone 50 to 60%.

So you think if only 10 to 25% of families don't pay landlords will fold, but you think landlords won't sue to make people pay. Ok