I'm not EMG, nor do I have a fancy MBA. But it seems the easiest way to "cut costs" would be to close one (or more) of the regional offices that's barely being used, is having trouble hiring, and isn't a major "talent hub". It seems the solution is to actually OPEN remote and close physical locations. Am I missing something on why it's so important to keep the offices and force them to be used? How does that save us any money??
8 replies (most recent on top)
That would make sense. But I am also wondering if they are incentivized to keep the office. I remember reading in the local San Antonio news article about some tax abatement they lost a while back. It was for bringing people into the area in the office, which would revitalize the area. It didn’t happen because of the pandemic. Maybe they are getting similar incentives now. Either way I feel like USAA and other companies are just running themselves into the ground.
Just imagine if USAA closed some of their offices and turned them into housing for homeless vets
There are several office locations that we own, not lease!
Often they are in multi-year lease agreements that they can’t exit quickly. It would have to be a strategy they decided on years ago in order for it save money today.
That would require the use of common sense.
Also, the building are assets. Which is why we can say we are worth XX billions.
Employees are costs. Add in retirement and other long term benefits. Yes, they want to hold assets and do away with long term costs.
Mercury just sold space in Florida because they went mostly remote in 2021! Why are we so backwards!?!?
Just read that State Farm is shedding LOTS of office space in Texas as most of their employees work from home now.
That would make too much sense…