Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Selling Its Headquarters To Raise Funds
PolygamousRanchKid writes with news the Nokia is looking to generate some cash by selling its headquarters and leasing it back from the new owner. The sale price for the 48,000 sq. meter building is €170 million.
"The struggling mobile phone company has operated in the glass and steel building in Espoo near Helsinki, known as Nokia House, since 1997. The sale is another step towards reducing costs and concentrating on its core business. Nokia has spent almost a third of its cash reserves in 12 months, and in October had about €3.6bn left in the bank to turn itself into a smartphone manufacturer capable of competing with Apple and Samsung."
I wonder if they are doing this for
Tax Reasons: In the U.S. Real Estate Investment Trusts have favorable tax treatment – which is why the owner of the building and the occupier of the building is almost never the same, or for
Financial Engineering reasons: a one time transaction to raise cash and is good window dressing for the financial statements. Better than taking out a mortgage, but it’s only a one time, stop gap measure.
I was one of a series of consultants they did not listen to with regard to Open Sourcing Symbian and what was, and was not, still of value in Symbian at that late date. Much of what they really valued - like the Symbian kernel - wasn't really business-differentiating in the eyes of the customer and nobody wanted it any longer, but yet they spent Billions on it.
Their destiny is to become a patent troll or to have their assets bought by one. What a shame.
Bruce Perens.
Why of course they are selling the headquarters. Why would Microsoft need it when they already have a headquarters? All they just want the patents software(nokia maps) talent and factories. They already have all the bureaucracy and buildings they need.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Microsoft charged money for their software, and Nokia is history.
There is still a big feature phone market out there. One option would be cutting back everything but feature phones and be profitable in that market. From what I remember Nokia made some rock solid feature phones.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
Finland's GDP was US$189.4 billion in 2010 v's Apple's revenue of US$156.508 billion in 2012. Hard to compete when you rival's revenue exceeds your own countries' GPD.
Industry titan hits tough times and sells HQ. Apple is doing well now, but you have to wonder if we might see the new "mothership" on the block at some point.
I seem to remember a comany called SGI that went into the real-estate biz to subsidize themselves... how did that work out for them?
they put Navteq up for sale?
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.
You mean the company that single handedly set the web back at least five years and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior and the company that is being run into the ground by the 8th largest shareholder of the previously mentioned company?
Gee, I wonder why anyone would hate them.
This is SLASHDOT. We are BIAS.
Its not bias of slashdot!? that has made Microsoft Windows Phone and that Nokia Strategy as popular Marmite covered spiders. Nokia twinning themselves *exclusively* with an OS that late; with less features and incompatible with its predecessors, with no viable upgrade path, with proprietary software...on hardware made in china; with less features than its predecessors or the competition at the cost to real peoples jobs, its market value, revenues; market share; brand value....only for it being replace with the latest suitor HTC [with the pattern repeated as Microsoft become their own OEM]. Has become a patent troll with Microsoft...while devaluing those patents to anyone who would have bought them.
I'm just barely touching the surface of what is perhaps a decline of company on an unrepresented scale. I find it insulting to an nth degree that anyone would try to pass anything, anyone saying anything against this is, as emotional, although I suspect the thousands of newly unemployed probably aren't loving them right now.
A Microsoft asked a Nokia to carry him across a river. The Nokia refused because it was afraid of getting stung by the Microsoft. But the clever Microsoft argued that if it stings the Nokia then they would both drown. So the Nokia agrees and carries the Microsoft into the river. Halfway across the Microsoft stings the Nokia dooming them both. In its dying breath the Nokia asks the Microsoft why it did such a thing. The Microsoft replies "it is my nature".
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
It "reduces costs" on the VERY short term, as you get an influx of cash and then essentially have to pay it back plus the holding company's profit margin. A desperate company will try this at some point, hoping against hope that this allows them to stay in business long enough to turn it around.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I'm sorry, did I say that out loud?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Seen how much money Microsoft is making out of Android?
What money!? There is loads of nominal amounts listed around the internet, Thinks hinted at of what has happened behind closed doors. We know a lot of deals have been struck we just can only speculate at what they are. The reality is I suspect very little actual money has changed hands.
There is still a big feature phone market out there.
Elop destroyed it by saying they were crap. In fact the OS set to replace symbian on these featurephones, the linux based "Meltemi" was cancelled make of that what you will. Samsung [featurephones]...and well "Value Android" are replacing these. I think you will be astonished at how powerful these value androids are...Check out the Huawei Ascend G330 look at the specs http://www.gsmarena.com/huawei_ascend_g330-4966.php.
Apple is doing well now
Apple had had billions wiped off its value; Its market share is declining; The launch quarter figures for its most profitable product the iphone, and its new product the iPad is already being overtaken by Android...again. There last product launch the mini, was disappointing.
I do not own any Nokia shares - and I thank the man upstairs for granting me the wisdom for keeping myself away from Nokia as far as I can.
Back to the main stuff ---
I still do not understand the rationale of Nokia's BoD hiring a M$ mole to run Nokia.
What's so special of that M$ mole in the first place?
I mean, look at Nokia now, versus the Nokia before that M$ mole took over.
Nokia was in a decline - yes, a decline, before the M$ mole was hired.
After that mole took over, Nokia took a nose dive.
No longer a decline, but a nosedive.
For how many quarters already Nokia has posted a loss?
Because of that M$ mole, Nokia has run out of cash - and now, even its HQ building has to be sold to raise some.
Man ...
As I have said - I just do.not.understand !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Congress could sell the Capitol building to aid in reducing the deficit
the fact of the matter is that for every vendor making money off of Android at least a dozen have come and failed.
Show me these facts. The irony in reference to this post is Asus and Sony are now profitable since they dropped Windows. Samsung I believe is making out like gangbusters. Lenovo; ZTE; Huawei doing great. Stop spreading this ill informed garbage.
Oh your making a point about your beloved Apple making lots of profits...I'm afraid Apples pursuit of profits is already hurting Apples market share, which didn't work out well last time...they became Microsofts Bitch. They are already irrelevant.
California was going to try to sell and lease-back a few buildings, but they bailed out before they did the deed...
I'll try that one - the ruling forced Microsoft to survive on the merits of their products rather than strong arm tactics to force business partners to submit to their wishes. No innovation allowed that would circumvent their leverage of Office into every other aspect of business computing.
There was lots of innovation going on and lots of excitement about what could be done with a microcomputer. Microsoft uniquely understood the power of cross platform capabilities (that's exactly where they started - porting software to the myriad platforms out there). When they suddenly realized they had created their own platform, everything shifted to protecting it. They would "partner" with countless software companies like the old days, modify the product to be Microsoft only, release it to the masses stripping away any cross platform capability and made the original technology irrelevant.
That was the death of any threats against Microsoft for several years.
Most of the stuff on
Google makes more from iOS than they do from Android.
and Apple basically just prints money
I bet you can't show me current figures to support your claim. Ignoring the indirect benefits of not having another vendor dominate the smart-phone market, when you want make money from advertising on mobile, or the intangible benefits it brings like heavily promoting its brands Google; Chrome; Android; Nexus; Gmail; Play; Wallet; Google+ etc. I suspect the direct benefit from taking a cut from every sale on play as it continues to be launched; inproved; expanded.
As for Apple printing money...absolutely, but as the tablet; phone market continue to mature its pursuit of profit over marketshare. Is looking increasingly shaky, but hey they learnt last time they did this right....
There are some advantages to leasing rather than owning, though. Owning is not free, and can be more expensive than leasing Leasing can give more agility, you can (usually) grow and shrink more easily, being saddled wit a 5-year lease or so, rather than a 30-year mortgaqge. Leasing avoids some risk if you sign a favorable lease, you don't have to worry about cost fluctuations, paying for unexpected repairs, or whether the lease pays for the cost of operating. You don't have to become an expert in constructing and operating buildings, you don't need staff for all that. If you're actually profitable, you can make money doing what your company does, and hopefully make a better return on investment than you can running the building. It's classic capitalism, do what you do efficiently and trade (using money) for what others are good at. Though, none of that means it is necessarily wise in this case, when Nokia already has the building, and seems to only be using the money to invest in losing more money.
...and has been criminally convicted for anti competitive behavior...
Not to nitpick too much, but the court decision was not criminal and therefore not a "conviction". It was a civil anti-trust suit.
E pluribus unum
Some good points, but I've yet to see an instance where a company sold their buildings to a holding company so that they could grow or shrink or move elsewhere more efficiently. I've only ever seen it as a short term cash grab.
Even if you owned the buildings, you (as a company) probably did not build them, nor do you necessarily have to have a crew to maintain them. All that can be contracted out. Moreover, you can sell a building with a 30 year mortgage and still recover some equity, whereas getting out early from a 5 year lease may be more costly.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Exactly how did MS set the web back 5 years?
Oh.. that 5 year span when NOTHING improved on IE? That piece of time between the death of Netscape and the advent of tabbed browsing (and RSS feeds) on Firefox? The lack of innovation certainly WAS Microsoft's fault. Not only that, it was their plan - eliminate everything else so they didn't have to spend money on competition.
People used IE in the early 2000s because it came with the computer. Microsoft had won the desktop wars and with it, everything else. The era of being cross platform was gone. Everyone clicked the Big Blue E to get on the Internet and nobody was going to PAY for Netscape. IE was the logical choice as most people thought Microsoft was the only source for computer software. Under threat of never seeing your precious Word and Excel documents again, they were right.
The ability to stifle innovation (including their own) came from two things; Microsoft Server Extensions and tolerance to really bad code, both of which were a good thing in a way. The big problem with Netscape at the time is they were trying really hard to be W3C standards compliant and, except for the addition of Java to Netscape, things moved very slowly. Microsoft grew impatient with the W3C and leapt out way ahead with Server Extensions, those little addons which made the browser much more like a client-server relationship instead of the stateless relationship originally intended with browsers. Front Page made it easy to activate complex tasks by moving the heavy lifting to the server and calling it with a simple trigger in HTML.
Of course, Server Extensions brought many new capabilities never before seen on a browser, something the W3C couldn't keep up with and it was never Microsoft's intention to standardize them (as in go through a standards committee to define and publish the technology). The problem was that all these sites were "IE Only". Microsoft was VERY close to ensuring anyone not using a totally Microsoft technology chain on the Internet saw a blank screen. In other words, they nearly owned the Internet.
IE's tolerance for bad coding was good for IE users as it rendered pages with broken code pretty well. Microsoft handed out a lot of free copies of Front Page to create this broken code which would render with unexpected results on other browsers. Front Page (and plain bad hand coding) made anything other than IE look illiterate. That's the price of sitting around on your hands. Microsoft was there to take it all away in a long series of brilliant chess moves... and then everything went thud for a while.
It actually functioned rather well when it was novel, but nothing moved in terms of real technical advances unless Microsoft was threatened by some shred of competition which was quickly squashed. The next software patch would allow IE to do the same thing for free but for Windows only. Otherwise, Microsoft pretty much sat on their asses and took their sweet old time releasing anything new. Innovation was dead as long as nobody dared try to use anything else.
Most of the stuff on
Yes, their market share has gone down because the market has expanded with tons of shitty Android phones flooding the market not because they are selling less phones and tablets.
LOL and that is the point. Android had great phones at every price range...apple have only one phone, and its poor value..and its killing them. You need to recheck your links [those that aren't behind paywalls] I don't think you read them they include quotes like "now held over 12 percent of the Chinese smartphone market." and "It also claimed that the Ascend P1 and Ascend D1 had become best selling handsets in China, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada"...a market Apple is being outsold 21:1 by Android. Calling these phones cheap, is a mistake they are great phones, and the words you're looking for is "good value"
As I said these Android phones are very profitable for those companies. If you can find evidence to the contrary I would love to see it :). Like I say even HTC are still making profits from Android, even with the Windows handycap.
It really is painful to see such a fantastic nerd friendly company hit bottom like this. I really would like them become a phoenix and raise from their ashes, but I'm not seeing it in the cards. But you know, if they would only ship an updated version of their famed N900 I'd certainly be willing to send another $600 their way, and I'd be willing to wager so would a few other million people as well. Hope those 170 million Euros will keep Nokia alive long enough to come to its senses.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
It looks like if I waited much longer to buy it, I wouldn't be able to. Apparently if you stick around long enough you will live to see a respectable version of Symbian. And that makes the situation even more tragic, because just as Symbian is (almost) caught up, they decide to kill it and hitch their cart to Microsoft, the most laughable non-innovator of the last decade. Predictably, this has failed, and now my only wonder is whether this new phone will outlive Nokia, like some artifact from before its shameful marriage of desperation with Microsoft, when it still had something to be proud of.
Microsoft does this to every business partner. They always have. If Nokia was fool enough to trust Microsoft, there will be no tears shed. The more reasonable answer is Nokia officers dropped the ball and got paid well for dancing with the Microsoft. The "only" losers were the employees and their stockholders.
You see, we leased this back from the company we sold it to, and that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account.
Everyone applauds.
Netscape 4 and later were a steaming pile of dung. That was the problem. IE from version 3 onwards was quite useable. It was only after IE 5 came out and Netscape basically folded that development froze seemingly forever.
So, they are in the sad company of their neighbors in Keilaniemi, like Kone and Fortum, who have also sold their headquarters to real estate conglomerates years ago and stayed on as tenants. Of those, only Neste Oil still owns their HQ.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
Nokia is selling featurephones like hotcakes, they just don't run that ugly OS called Symbian. No Linux either, but who says that everything under the sun should run Linux?
Just because you don't see these phones sold on the perennially screwed U.S. market does not give you an excuse to repeat misinformation.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
You're right, but it's, like, something to try before going under. A responsible CEO will try it. Of course, a responsible CEO wouldn't have been in the position in the first place, but never mind...
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
There was Opera "between the death of Netscape and the advent of tabbed browsing (and RSS feeds) on Firefox".
This won't reduce costs, day to day costs will increase as they will now be leasing the building and the new owners will want to profit from doing so, it will just give them a temporary injection of cash.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Perhaps because you can't sell phones with an English GUI ?
aaaaaaa
Better browsers were out for quite some time before firefox started gaining traction, and most of that was not because firefox was a better browser but because ie was a massive security hole and people were getting owned with drive by exploits on a regular basis.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Which at the time was not free, and could not render many of the broken sites designed specifically for ie... The fact that it was the sites that were broken and not the browser didn't matter to users, they blamed the browser.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
People used IE in the early 2000s because it came with the computer.
I'm an IT guy, I used IE because it was better than anything else available at the time. Most other "people" clearly thought the same thing.
most people thought Microsoft was the only source for computer software. Under threat of never seeing your precious Word and Excel documents again, they were right.
Crap. People used MS because it was the one of the only producers of user friendly software that wasn't a pile of steaming dog turd. Firefox, Apple and Google showed that if you produce quality products, people will use them.
Innovation was dead as long as nobody dared try to use anything else.
Jesus fucking Christ, if innovation died then where the fuck did Apple and Google and Facebook come from? The biggest IT companies around all came to power during your so called period of innovation-death. Good luck with that hypothesis...
The only thing they can do now is make Android phones, in a marketplace dominated by Samsung.
Their Linux OS efforts are now so far behind, and with the sale of Qt, not likely to pick up speed, that they can't take the risk of trying to introduce another "burning platform" to the mix. Apple are not going to license them iOS, and Windows Phone is obviously a no-go (does the N9 *still* outsell all their Lumia lines?)
The board are likely not able to mentally process the idea that the only way forward for Nokia is as a minority player in the smartphone market. They've been so used to dominating the mobile phone market, that anything that isn't domination just doesn't sound good enough. Windows Phone is their only hope for domination, because it's the only thing that can significantly differentiate them from all the Android phones out there.
Honestly, they should go for Android ASAP. Nokia still has brand recognition - they are still the iconic phone brand that people think of, still the most recognisable default ringtone in the world, still have a reputation for quality. They should leverage their ability to build decent hardware, slap Android on it, get out there in the market (Android is the *largest* high end mobile market), and fight for their survival.
Alas, they've become lazy. They don't want to fight - they didn't have to for so long. Instead, they are King of the Windows Phone market. Whoopee-do.
Opera cost money and Netscape put out the abortion known as NS4, nuff said.
I'm sorry AC but the other guy is right, hell I was a big NS fan and even I had to put up with IE for a few years because there just wasn't anything out there. Sure you could get a free version of Opera...if you didn't mind 30% of your browser to be a giant flashing adbar, but those of us on limited bandwidth connections really didn't want to pay the bandwidth for opera's ads.
And again look at the numbers, when FF came out people started jumping and then Chrome made even more run away, the second anything better came along we bailed. i know I was one of the first ones using the Moz Suite, followed by FF before it was even called FF and now I'm on a Chrome variant, I honestly don't even know what version of IE comes with Win 7 because I haven't ever fired it up.
You can't blame "The big bad M$" if nobody else is making a decent product, and at the time there really wasn't any decent product that competed. This is the same way MS Office took off BTW, WordPerfect ruled the roost until they didn't bother putting out a Windows version until nearly 2000, before that they put out a badly ported DOS version which crashed and ran like shit. people didn't buy MS Office because they liked it, they bought it because they liked having their work done without 3 crashes making them start from the top multiple times.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
There are only two phone companies: Samsung and Apple. All others will disappear soon.
Jesus fucking Christ yourself, buddy. Apple, Google and Facebook was disruptive to Microsoft and only had a choice to face an uphill battle against it or partner with it. There were innovators and practically every one of them had to battle Microsoft in one way or another. Hell, Microsoft even viewed newspapers and television as competition. I'm an IT guy too with the difference that I also saw the strengths of things NOT Microsoft.
It's pretty well documented that Microsoft leveraged three things because of their popularity; (1) strong armed business partners into doing whatever Microsoft wanted under threat of getting thrown off the gravy train, (2) tied their software together so, to the end user, it appeared everything would fall down if anything non-Microsoft was introduced to the system and (3) was actively replicating functions other innovators were coming up with and releasing it en-masse to be Windows only, suppressing many innovators, large and small.
At some point, the "popularity" of Microsoft shifted from having desirable products to "people" being fearful of exiting their ecosystem. By "people", I mean people who didn't know any different. Microsoft products were getting very shoddy and expensive, and they didn't care. I can't tell you how many eye rolls I've spent on board meetings where mentioning something that didn't come from Microsoft sent them scurrying in terror. They all thought email was Outlooking, the Internet was the Big Blue E and the only possible computer to buy was anything Windows because they needed to print Word documents. The real innovations were happening elsewhere and it took 10 years before the frustration of being stuck in Microsoft world came to the surface.
Ha... I said "surface".
Most of the stuff on
You are badly informed. The update to the N900 is the N9 (Wikipedia, price comparison). It has been available on the market for over a year now.
You will not get anything better than this from Nokia anymore as the development teams are sacked. There will be no more official software updates for the N9, but the fan community picks up the ball because the OS (MeeGo, a Debian derivative) is quite hackable. I have installed the whole GNU and Qt developer toolchains and can develop both live on the device and cross-compiling to ARM from my laptop. It's also easy to flash alternative OS like Mer.
Some ex-Nokia developers formed a new company, Jolla, and have demoed their first product just a couple of days ago.
Also, it beg's the question, irregardlessly, I could care less?
This wins.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Opera had tabbed browsing in 2000. I remember because that's why I switched, opening multiple tabs at modem speeds was awesome. Read what you've got on the screen, and by the time you finish, all your other tabs have finished loading. Firefox? Bullshit.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I refute your claim that NS was trying to support standards any more than IE was, and assert that they were trying harder to deviate from standards.
Netscape tried to push their own tag which was needed for overlapping elements in that browser (nothing else worked with z-index), a small violation of the HTML spec, and a huge violation of the CSS spec. They also didn't support any units except px, and sometimes %. Stylesheets wouldn't render at all if you turned off javascript. As others have said, it's an ugly horrible mess of a browser.
IE 5/6 were the best browsers at the time. The problem is when they ran out of competition they quit spending money, disbanded the IE team, and left things to stagnate for years - but without competition why would a company innovate? They are not a hacker group making the internet better for fun, they're a publicly traded company vying for the most market share.
Alas, they've become lazy. They don't want to fight - they didn't have to for so long.
They did fight! They just kept losing. Various Symbian refreshes and many years spent on Maemo/Meego that yielded only marketshare to iOS and Android.
Instead, they are King of the Windows Phone market. Whoopee-do.
Personally i think they should have become the champion of stock Android, with timely updates running the stock OS on well-built and well-engineered hardware, sticking to what Nokia is good at. But even that would be a big gamble and would make them a Nexus competitor. Making some Nokia-specific - but compatible - distribution of Android would probably offer little.
Blackberry 10 licensee? Maybe, but that probably would have been even riskier than Windows Phone.
There's nothing particularly wrong with Windows Phone, it just needs to win mindshare, the name would have been a good start, disassociate it with Windows.
It's really hard to have an intelligent exchange just about anywhere, and you're becoming a poster child as to why.
Ever hear of "embrace, extend, extinguish"? Microsoft built in browser incompatibilities with an object tag for ActiveX to make sure Netscape and Opera performed poorly (Opera sued for that), MSN.com even served a different CSS to Opera visitors to make it look broken, for a while, you saw a blank screen on msn.com unless your user-agent string said MSIE, they extended and broke CSS favoring their own -ms- property extensions, they broke Java in browsers with J/Direct, they created Java development tools that stripped away all the cross platform intentions of Java (Sun sued for that), they planned to extinguish the HTML standard with their own free browser to "cut off Netscape's air supply" (Paul Maritz revealed this in a meeting with Intel), they extended and broke Kerberos to lock out other platforms from Windows 2000, they embraced and extended the AOL IM protocol to make AOL's own IM software stop working, they made a mess out of ISO-9660 with their Joliet extension (so you only see the 8.3 names in other platforms), they told Intel to withdraw VDI and threatened PC makers if they implemented it (look up Steven McGeady's testimony), Bill Gates told Andy Grove to shut down the Intel Architecture Labs driving CPU level Internet technologies without Microsoft's permission, Intel had to kill NSP, kill Java support, stop support for Netscape - all part of their illegal restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs to favor Microsoft and harm everything else, they signed up OEMs for a rebate on installing Windows on PCs in exchange for a fee they had to pay for any PC they sold without Windows, effectively making a PC without bundling Windows more expensive for the OEM to make (anti-competitive and illegal), Microsoft threatened Apple unless they abandoned the ability of QuickTime to play multimedia content on computers (they refused and Microsoft sabotaged QuickTime's functionality on Windows with misleading error messages and technical changes or bugs so that QuickTime software sometimes didn't work properly on Windows), they stuffed an ISO standards body to make OOXML (a compendium of Microsoft proprietary undefined digital glop) a "standard" which only they controlled (instead of the truly available ODF standard), Microsoft had fully developed FUD as a marketing strategy (announcing nonexistent products to head off something a competitor actually made or claiming competitive software will crash Windows), If you’ve bought a new PC lately, it probably came equipped with something called “Secure Boot” (UEFI), a feature which prevents you from running anything but Windows on the PC...
These people aren't very nice, relying on a mix of brilliant marketing, threats against OEMs (Microsoft thought they owned any PC right down to the metal), failings of competitors, vaporware and fraudulent illusions. Sure, Netscape had problems and so did Microsoft. They earned their success with their best office productivity software, but their biggest success came from bending everyone over and fucking them, including the customers. Good competition could have been here a lot sooner.
Most of the stuff on
I remember them building one site in the early 2000's in Espoo, Finland. Soon after it was completed they sold it and leased it back.
They have been doing this for years.
They are not, and have never been, interested in owning their properties. The head office was pretty much an exception.