Posts

The Eight P&L Impacts of a Corporate Lease

The Eight P&L Impacts of a Corporate Lease

On many CFO and financial executive’s Urgent Issues or Focus List, real estate often doesn’t make the top ten. Why? I think in part it is because the impact of a real estate decision is spread over many categories of the Profit & Loss Statement. (I won’t get into FASB ASC 842 even though it is one of my favorite topics — for now anyway, keeping watching this space for future posts)

Often financial analysis of a lease decision is based on the rent and operating expense being paid now vs. the rent and operating expense on the new lease. If the impact is acceptable, the company moves forward. Simple enough, right? Perhaps too simple.

Why? Expenses related to a lease are generally as follows:

  1. Rent
  2. Operating Expenses (passed through by Landlord, usually inclusive of Property Tax and Insurance although often further broken out if paid direct by Tenant)
  3. Utilities (not included in charges above)
  4. Repairs and Maintenance (that are responsibility of the Tenant)
  5. Relocation Expense
  6. Furniture, Fixtures, & Equipment — Capital Expense and Depreciation
  7. Technology — Capital Expense and Depreciation
  8. Leasehold Improvements – Depreciation

There can be others of course based on specific uses, although the above are common across most operations.

Any comprehensive analysis needs to consider all of these costs. More importantly, you need to compare not just the current rental rates, but instead the rent amounts actually appearing on the P&L — typically a straight lined value. In today’s market, the SL rate of an old lease can be significantly below the SL rate of a new long term lease.

In addition, look closely at fully amortized leaseholds and other depreciation items that may be coming off of the books at the expiration of the current term. A renewal in an existing space may provide significant savings even when rent increases if the amortized numbers are significant.

The key to correct analysis is habit. Set up a template that works for your business. Many packaged real estate analysis solutions focus on making predictions based on future escalations. What the last roller coaster dip in the economy should have taught us is that projections are simply guesses — and often not good ones.

Instead focus on the certainties of a lease obligation and their impact on your business. You may be surprised after looking at the cumulative effect of all of the categories mentioned above and decide to set real estate priorities a bit higher on your Focus List.

real estate is like poker

CRE 101: If you can’t spot the sucker at the table…

Don’t be so naive to think that just anyone in your company can handle your office or facility lease negotiations. It’s not like leasing an apartment, but more like playing poker against Doyle Brunson (2-time World Series Champ/Hall of Fame). Just like your landlord, Doyle would be plenty nice to you and let you go on believing you belong at the table, but at the end of the day, he’ll have your money…and you’re none the wiser.

In commercial real estate, an institutional landlord’s core competency is to maximize the investment returns on their properties. That’s all they do, every day…and they’re really good at it. Not to mention, they hire teams of professionals to help them fill space at the best possible rates, under the most beneficial terms. A landlord’s entourage includes an army of attorneys, architects, property managers, and real estate brokers – all charged with representing the interests of the landlord.

This representation can include the obvious stuff like the landlord’s broker marketing available space to new tenants, or his real estate attorney crafting language in a lease document. It can also involve not-so-obvious stuff like when the property manager pops in to say hello or strikes up a conversation in the hallway. Yes, he wants to know how the AC is holding up, but he’s really gauging your likelihood of relocation, or whether you’re starting to look around at options. Again, like in poker, they’re thinking of this stuff all the time, and the little things add up to big leverage.

Larger sized space users dealing with 7 and 8-figure lease obligations understand full well the business risks involved with playing at such an immense disadvantage.  With so much at stake, these firms choose to either make real estate a core competency with an in-house real estate department, or outsource this expertise through dedicated corporate real estate firms. Either way, in capturing co-broke commissions, there’s enough money to go around to pay for this expertise, often with surplus to hire in-house legal, architectural, and construction management services. It’s a no-brainer for these guys.

Smaller and mid-sized firms are the ones who often miss the boat when it comes to managing facility related expenses, quite literally leaving money and business flexibility on the table. They only think of their lease when expirations come up, and even then wait way too long. Landlords slow play the deal and tenants find themselves captive, without options. Imagine that, Doyle had the cards all along…he’s so lucky.

Unlike poker, there’s money literally set aside for the benefit of tenants…if only they choose to use it wisely. 

In most markets, 6 – 8 % of a commercial tenant’s total lease obligation is committed to brokerage commissions by landlords. This is not an arbitrary number, but a market driven expense for the landlord to best attract vetted, viable candidates to lease space.

This money is split between the landlord’s broker and tenant’s broker, paid out whether the tenant has representation or not. Roughly half the commission goes to the landlord’s broker for their role in marketing the space and getting the deal done. The other half is allocated to the tenant’s broker for introducing a bona fide candidate tenant to the landlord’s space (even in renewals). The landlord is happy to pay this fee to keep his building occupied.

Sticking with our poker analogy, real estate offers tenants the chance to bring some paid expertise to represent their interests on their side of the table. Unless you know how the game is played, nobody on the landlord’s team will ever tell you this.

Think of Phil Hellmuth (another World Series Champ) sitting down next to you at the poker table helping you play your hand. Doyle won’t be pulling the same tricks with Phil that he would without Phil being there. It’s the same in real estate…and it’s already paid for.

If you hire a good firm, this means you get full scale deal coordination, negotiation and strategic insights (stuff you’ll never think of), evaluation of all alternatives, integration of real estate into overall strategic planning, and a host of other services getting you to the finish line. If tenants are clever, there’s often money to spare which can be allocated to legal, space planning and/or construction services.

Naturally, as deal sizes reduce, there’s less money to go around on both the landlord’s side and the tenant’s side. You may not be able to get Phil Hellmuth, but then again, you’re probably not playing against Doyle Brunson either. In any deal above just a couple thousand square feet, you should be able to interview and find a suitable tenant representation broker to guide you through the process and ensure best possible economic terms in your next lease. The system allows for you to have representation, choose wisely.

If you don’t properly evaluate your alternatives, you won’t even know what a “good deal” is. A pair of 7’s might be a good hand in some games, but certainly not in others. In real estate, you have to work hard to see the other players’ cards.

The part where our poker comparison falls apart is when the deal is done. In poker, it’s obvious that you lost when all the chips are with the other guy. Commercial lease transactions are far more sinister. The devil is in the details in terms of what the market will bear…rent escalations, pass through operating expenses, maintenance obligations, holdover/assignment/subletting provisions, insurance requirements, legal terms, and and endless array of clauses often egregiously in favor of the landlord. Worse, opposing brokers and landlords allow you to go on thinking you’ve gotten a great deal under fair terms. Except perhaps later in hindsight, you won’t ever know you’ve been had.

As originally posted by Casey Bourque on LinkedIn

A better way to manage commercial construction

If you were around and fortunate enough to have a cell phone 30 years ago, you most likely had a Motorola “brick”.  It made calls.  It did not have a camera, email, mapping or navigation function, calculator, clock, or play music.  It could act as a paperweight, mini-dumbell, or a defensive weapon in a pinch.

Now, think about how much has changed in cell phones in the last 30 years.

Do you know how much has changed in the construction process during that same 30 year period?  Not much.

We still construct offices and buildings using the same process, with mostly the same materials, in the same way.  Sure, there have been some token design changes and there is often a greater focus on energy savings.  Many of these changes are style trends rather than cutting edge innovations, like switching from autumn colors and wood paneling to white finishes and glass.

Here’s how most new building construction projects happened then, and how most still work today:

Imagine a series of adjoining but unconnected rooms.  They have walls but no ceilings.
Execs from a company are sitting in the first room.  They decide they need a new building.  How big and where?  They pick a size (let’s say 50,000 SQFT) and some boundaries, write it on a piece of paper, and throw it over the wall into the next room which contains their real estate advisor.

The real estate advisor does some quick calculations and determines that they’ll need 4-5 acres of land, so goes out and identifies some properties and the company purchases one.

The advisor takes the requirement for a 50K SQFT building and the survey, and throws it over the wall to the next room which contains an architect.

The architect then designs the building.  Perhaps there are issues because the real estate advisor didn’t properly estimate water retention requirements.  Or setback restrictions.  Or utility access.  Or department of transportation mandates.  Perhaps the company didn’t fully consider future expansion needs. Or above average parking requirements.  Or fibre optic accessibility.  In any case, the architect does his/her best, completes a set of drawings, and throws it over the wall to a contractor for bidding.

The contractor immediately calculates the impact fees of that particular site which were not anticipated.  He also calculates the cost of concrete, steel, and other resources that might be in short supply and therefore at premium prices to just a short while ago.  He then throws the drawings over the next wall to his subs, to give him pricing.

The subs complain that the design is not the way that they’d do it because the equipment and fixtures were specified from a catalogue/web site supplied to the architect and their engineers by various sales reps.  Some of those products have better, more efficient, and less expensive substitutes however the subs are required to bid per the specifications.

Not surprisingly, the final price is significantly above the original planned budget.  Perhaps worse, the owners had the opportunity to take advantage of the expertise of the real estate advisor, architect, contractor, and subs and instead severely limited their ability to add value.

So what is the Better Way?

Start with them all in the first room together.  Negotiate an open book arrangement and agree to reasonable fees up front for profit and overhead.  Now everyone is on the same team.

Perhaps the broker could have suggested a location just outside of the boundaries provided without the impact fees, and perhaps even with economic incentives.

Perhaps the company could have taken advantage of efficient design strategies and only needed 40K SQFT.

Perhaps the contractor could have suggested tilt wall or other construction methods that could save time and money.

Perhaps the subs could have suggested the latest technology in HVAC, lighting, and utility saving features.

Perhaps.  Unfortunately, using a 30 year old process, this company will never know.

captive tenant syndrome

Captive Tenant Syndrome

In a recent post, Newtons First Law, we discussed how the “house odds” favor landlords since the overwhelming majority of tenants renew their leases.  Why?

Because:

  • It is a hassle to move
  • Evaluating options would require time and effort
  • A move would cause disruption to already stretched staff resources
  • It is expensive to move

OK, good points.  However, tenants who adopt the above mindset without actually quantifying or verifying those suspicions, are commonly said to be suffering from “Captive Tenant Syndrome” – the mistaken belief that they are being held hostage in their own space.
What if those issues could be minimized or mitigated entirely?  What if the design efficiency of the new office offset the effort required?  What if the improved morale of an exciting new workplace improved productivity?  What if the new landlord absorbed the cost of the move and paid to outsource the coordination the move?

And most importantly perhaps, what would a move cost the existing landlord?

Landlords know that every tenant considers the above bullet points when facing a lease expiration, and they typically count on it to achieve higher profits on renewal leases than they do on new leases.

Remember that, for an existing landlord, a vacating tenant means:

  • Vacancy expense in lost rent (often 6-12 months)
  • Free Rent to attract a new tenant
  • Operating expense carry for property tax, insurance, and non-variable expenses
  • Additional vacancy expense during design and construction for new tenant improvements
  • Tenant improvement costs (usually significantly in excess of a renewal refurbishment)

I’m not advocating that you put on the boxing gloves and get in the ring with the landlord, my point is simply that there are significant costs to both parties and any extension should be a collaborative effort that acknowledges that both parties might reasonably benefit from the renewal.

So how do you avoid leaving money on the table when your commercial lease expiration is approaching?  Here’s what you don’t do: Bluff.  A sophisticated landlord can sense a bluff the way a pitbull can sense fear.  It’s not that landlords are bad guys (or pitbulls – my apologies to offended landlords or pitbull owners), it’s just that it is their JOB to maximize return to their investors.  That means, getting the highest possible rents from tenants.  And the low hanging fruit is not in attracting new tenants, it is capitalizing on the ones in place.

So you have to make it real.  I know that you may think you want to stay.  I know that you may think your preference is a renewal.  Perhaps that really is the best option for you. However to get the best terms, you have to make a serious evaluation of relocation options.  Not just a check of the Business Journal to get an idea of market rates.  Search spaces, tour, meet with prospective landlords, do space plans, get construction estimates, issue formal Requests for Proposals, and prepare a fully loaded financial analysis.

Only then will you know the true cost of a relocation.  Only then can you weigh the true pros and cons.  And only then will you be able to either negotiate a fair market renewal or decide that the advantages to move may outweigh disadvantages.

Market Rate Audits for commercial leases

One of the easiest and most effective ways for a corporation to keep real estate costs low is to regularly perform Market Rate Audits on their leased locations.  Often many companies get caught up in reactionary tasks such as simply handling leases as they come up for expiration, so they never get ahead of the curve with a proactive approach.

Here’s how the Market Rate Audit usually works: Whether a firm has just a handful of locations or several hundred, each lease with less than 5 years remaining in term is evaluated and compared to actual available alternative spaces in their respective markets.  Rather than rely on the general occupancy and rate statistics published by the large landlord rep firms such as CBRE, JLL or C&W, this exercise involves actually identifying specific spaces that, if the lease were expiring in the next 12 months, would be feasible for a relocation.

While nobody has a crystal ball to predict what rates will be in the long term, rates for the next 18-24 months can be forecasted surprisingly well by looking at occupancy, absorption, and property under construction. Knowing existing feasible alternatives combined with construction – it takes generally 18 months or longer to get entitlements, permits, and build a new commercial facility – can give a very precise picture of what rental rates will be over the near horizon.

Many people fail to consider that leases are just like mortgages – a financing tool to occupy or control a property. And just like mortgages, when rates are low, it makes sense to restructure them and capture the lower rate.  Likewise, if rates are escalating and lack of new construction would not provide additional supply – the rules of supply and demand apply here of course – it may also make sense to lock in early before rates increase further.

The benefits of a Market Rate Audit to the corporation are:

  1. They become proactive to manage rental costs to take advantage of low points in the market.
  2. They become aware of any significant increases – many markets have rebounded to rates above their prior peaks – so no surprises.
  3. If market terms become unfavorable they have adequate time to plan alternatives such as build to suit options or even shifting facilities to other markets.
  4. The audits can be done on contingency with the auditing firm only billing to the extent that savings are immediately realized.

The Market Rate Audit is a low risk, low cost, smart portfolio strategy to take a proactive approach to corporate leases.

Are you paying for imaginary space?

If you go into the grocer and purchase, for example, three pounds of salmon, you can be relatively certain that you now possess three pounds of salmon.  However, if you lease 30,000 SQFT of space in an office building, can you be relatively certain that you possess 30,000 SQFT?  Absolutely not.

Here’s why:
To start, there is the concept of “rentable” and “usable” space.  In summary, “usable space” is the space actually contained within your walls, and “rentable space” is the same number plus your proportionate share of all common elements such as elevator lobbies, bathrooms, fire stairs, and mechanical rooms.  If you lease half of a floor, the rentable calculation would apportion half of those elements for your use and add that amount to your usable calculation.

The American National Standards Industry (ANSI) has created very detailed specifications on how to create accurate measurements.  For example, dimensions are taken from the interior of glass windows to the mid-point of the wall for any walls shared in common with other tenants, etc.  This standard has been adopted by The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) and some landlords agree to adopt these standards.  Fair enough.

But there is another scenario which can cost you thousands, perhaps even tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars over the term of your occupancy:  Phantom Space.  This is when either the usable or the rentable numbers or both are inflated above the actual or proper numbers.  Sometimes this occurs because the Landlord or their representatives choose to ignore the ANSI/BOMA standards in favor of their own.  These may be based on a measurement of the landlord’s choosing (the drip line of the roof for example) or could be, well, anything that they decide which may or may not be based on a real metric.  Illegal?  No, because all aspects of a lease are negotiable – including the basis for measurement – and the landlords that do this almost certainly have very smart attorneys who put language in the lease that will indemnify them and prevent recalculation to any reality-based standards.

Do you think this is a low risk concern?  A May, 2014 article in the Wall Street Journal details how the MetLife Building has somehow grown from it’s original 2.4M SQFT in 1979 to 3M SQFT today.  Indeed, NYC is notorious for floor measurements that have in some cases exceeded the outside measurement of the actual building.  Many real estate firms, including one quoted in the article that purports to represent tenants, turn a blind eye to the practice and shrug it off with the attitude, “It’s an important enough market that they (the Landlords) can make their own rules”.

How do you protect yourself?  Take these precautions:

1. Insist that measurements and rentable adjustments be done in accordance with ANSI/BOMA standards.  Note that The International Property Measurement Standards Coalition mentioned in the article is working towards a global standards, although it will likely be years before it is adopted in any significant way – and more likely never by unscrupulous landlords.

2. Hire your own architect, rather than relying on the Landlord’s architect.  The architect, like most professionals, has a fiduciary responsibility to their client.  Make sure that you have someone on whom you can rely for accurate and honest representations.

3. Include language in the Lease document that affirms measurement to to ANSI standards and allows for adjustment if a discrepancy is discovered.

4. Be certain that you have a tenant representative that insists on the items above, manages the transaction to meet ANSI compliance, and will not passively accept the non-conforming measurements of unscrupulous landlords.

When it comes to Phantom Space, Less is More.