Management at all levels across all SV tech companies personally own homes whose value depends on centralization.

Are real estate holdings that much of a factor? Office leases seem more common than a purchase that generates equity, at least at medium/small companies, and some larger ones too that may have a headquarters but also lease in peripheral sites.

In that sense, I'm wondering if the push to get back in the office is more about "Damnit we're locked into a 10 year lease on this space, we're sure as hell not going to let it go empty, get those workers back in these seats!"

I don't know, it's a vague speculation that sometimes feels like a conspiracy theory when I dwell on it.

But I've worked at a couple VC funded SV startups and it wasn't exactly unusual for our investors to show up in the office and see how things are going, get a tour, have meetings. I doubt it's a contractual obligation of any sort, but there's clearly pressure to have a staffed office both local and impressive to the investors.

This left me assuming the VCs on Sand Hill Road would hold substantial real estate in the area, both commercial and residential. You're far more willing to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at high-risk investments if you can be confident they'll be throwing most of that money at office leases in the area, and salaries spent on rents and/or inflated bubble mortgages in the area. Especially if you can be confident all your investing peers on Sand Hill are doing the same, further inflating the bubble. The businesses will probably flop, but most that money just comes back through the real estate side provided you keep it all concentrated locally.

Ah, yes, that's true: If the companies are paying leases to properties owned by their investors, that changes things a bit. (For the investors though, not the companies)