Then why rent only to employees? Just buy some real estate and rent it out.

Make money that way in general and use it to fund the foundation.

> sends your money back to yourself

There is no such thing. Money is fungible, it has no label saying where it came from. If you rent the same property to other people (for more money) and then use that extra money to pay higher salary to the employees the end result is exactly the same.

I see, thanks. That makes sense.

Why don't all companies do this, then, I wonder? It seems like companies offering people an opportunity to work in SF, plus affordable housing, would be a huge attraction?

I once worked for a startup that happened to have owned some property in downtown SF right at about the cusp of things really taking off in the latest bubble. We didn't use the space and ended up renting it out to a couple other companies.

The rent we charged was a couple times what our payments on the property were -- and quickly going up. At one point the rent we were receiving was greater than our own revenue. We joked about taking our investment dollars and buying up commercial property around the Valley instead of doing our main business.

I believe our board forced us to sell it in order to liquidate the cash rather than go in for another round...I can only imagine what it's worth today.

Distracts from core business, lock in with employees could be an issue, risk if housing market drops away, etc.

Same reason many big businesses contract out cleaning and similar services rather than have dedicated staff performing those functions.

Sure, but then why does it make sense for IA to do this?

My question is, why is IA doing this and no one else - what makes them different? Or are other companies doing it and I haven't heard about it?