I think this is a fair point: say I sign a 5 year lease (no idea what industry norm is), I am presumably getting a discount over whatever the month-to-month or daily rate for rent would be, and accepting the risk that I need to find a way to use the property to make money throughout the lease period.

If I'm the building owner, i probably debt financed the building, and I'm taking on the risk that i can get enough cash flow from tenants to pay my mortgage.

If I'm the mortgage holder (this is my basic understanding) I've turned rue mortgage into some kind of security and sold that to an investor who is taking on the risk that the property owner will pay the mortgage. And there may be shareholders or other parties taking on the risk that whoever owns the securities will remain solvent and pay their pension or whatever.

So it's not super obvious where and how the buck should stop. I own an condo that I rent out. Guaranteed I am in the hook for it - i have no recourse for a tenant that doesnt pay other that maybe an eventual eviction, and the bank will make me sell it if I dont pay my mortgage. I'm the weakest point in the chain above, and that's why I'll have to be responsible. I suppose in exchange for that I'm exposed to more upside than the bank or the bondholders. But it's not clear to me that I'm the one beneficiary who should bear all the risk.