‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

The American Religion of Self-Storage Facilities

282 points · 456 comments · pseudolus

  1. epochbtc · · focus · HN ↗
    This article takes the view of the consumer, "Why do so many people pay to store items they almost never use?". But in actuality, the interesting part of this is why is there so much supply of self-storage businesses?

    The answer is: cash flow. Self-storage businesses are the almost perfect solution for someone with a good size (but not enormous) bucket of money that they want to put to work generating cashflow:

    1. Cheap build out (cheap land, cheap facilities) 2. Almost entirely hands-off (no employees, automated entry) 3. Low liability (low risk of customers suing you) 4. Low overhead (just pay for taxes, electricity, minimal maintenance) 5. Reliable monthly cash flow

    The abundant supply of these businesses, I suspect, tends to generate demand: it's easier to pay $80/month to store your junk than spend the time and emotional labor of picking through what you want to keep and what you want to get rid of. That ends up being captive long-term revenue.

    1. jboggan · · focus · HN ↗
      You are missing the biggest benefit of a self storage business - the appreciation of the underlying real estate. When you dig into the financials of the major self storage businesses you'll see they are essentially REITs that have better cashflow. They can pick an up-and-coming area, do a minimal build-out with low annual overhead, and then down the road when the facility would be needing overhauls and maintenance the underlying property has typically appreciated so much that it dwarfs all other associated revenue streams and makes sense to sell and raze the existing structure. Great business model if you have a long enough timeline.

      This is also why some startups trying to revolutionize the self storage model had extreme headwinds - if you are renting the underlying properties and trying to make the storage business profitable you are at an extreme disadvantage to the larger players who can subsidize operating costs with portfolio appreciation.

      1. jaggederest · · focus · HN ↗
        This same concept is also true of McDonalds historically - they own the land, lease it to franchisees, and realize the appreciation themselves. McDonalds are fairly economically valuable, so the capital gains by the time they're cleared and resold as development often dwarfs the value of the franchise fees.
        1. SoftTalker · · focus · HN ↗
          The thing is, they rarely sell the properties. At least from what I've seen. It's all unrealized appreciated value.
          1. c22 · · focus · HN ↗
            Cashflow from renting to a franchisee must be fantastic. You pick the locations and the decor. If the business does well you prosper, but if the business does poorly you're insulated from the downside, the rent is due either way! If the franchisee can't hack it you repossess the building and rent it to some other suc^H^H^Hfranchisee.
            1. epolanski · · focus · HN ↗
              McDonald's is invested in franchisee's success, it wouldn't be a great business otherwise.
              1. yayachiken · · focus · HN ↗
                It's actually hilarious sometimes. The business models that generate most scorn and incredulity on HN are the straightforward ones. They convert labor pretty much directly to a very basic product with a clear demand by society, that can't possibly be profitable, are we sure it's not actually a front for Real Estate or AI or Tax Evasion?
                1. epolanski · · focus · HN ↗
                  I'm sure real estate is the primary business model of McDonald's but franchisees wouldn't be paying the rent and fees if the restaurant model itself wasn't very profitable.

                  Most restaurants in Europe generate an average of 250k in net cash flow per average restaurant, that's few years of work before ROI.

                  1. SoftTalker · · focus · HN ↗
                    It's very easy to lose money running a McDonald's (or any restaurant) if you do not keep a very close eye on all your controllable expenses. Most franchisees need multiple stores to cover all the overhead and actually be profitable.

                    McDonalds's Corp, the landlord, is in a better position but they also don't want to see stores fail, it's bad for their image.

                    1. [deleted] · · focus · HN ↗

                      [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.