We see a lot of confusion in the market around when to begin negotiations. It’s not an insignificant consideration. In fact, when you begin can make a huge difference in the outcome. It’s understandable that tenants would not know when to start. Brokers are not always keen to start at the right time, since compensation is derived by transacting and the closer the tenant is to lease expiration, the faster it will need to transact (and the fewer options it will have). Good for the broker, bad for the tenant. This creates a misalignment of interests that discourages thoughtful consultation on the front end – the more time a broker spends on a project, the lower the compensation.
Throughout 2020, the prevailing sentiment among investors in the San Francisco office market was one of relative optimism. After all, despite the fact tenants were prohibited from occupying their buildings, they continued to collect full rent. The buildings were full, with vacancy hovering around 4%. Sure, companies weren’t happy about paying for space they couldn’t use, but business was good. In many cases the tech sector (which makes up most of San Francisco’s office occupancy) was booming due to an even greater reliance on and usage of tech caused by pandemic driven changes in how people were living. Throughout the course of 2020 there was no reason for San Francisco investors to panic, as few (if any) office occupiers were showing signs of developing long-term hybrid or remote-first strategies. Most were simply focused on solving for ongoing operations as a temporary reaction to the pandemic. Yet early indicators did point to a future in which companies would be shedding office space, as some expiring leases were not replaced. This, coupled with the addition of new supply, caused a big increase in vacancy to nearly 12% by year end. Despite this large uptick, the brunt of the sluggish demand dynamic was being felt in the sublease markets, where rental economics more accurately reflected the true state of the market. Despite a total closing of the office market in 2020, average asking rents ended the year off just 6% from the pre-pandemic high.
In the years leading up to the pandemic, most medium and small companies defined their office space need based on headcount (current and projected), space programming, and industry/sector norms. The exercise was mostly formulaic. The primary differences in the offices of a small, regional law firm compared to those of an AM Law 100 firm would be scale, the cost of finishes, and the quality of the building and views. It was planning for the same outcome, just at different levels on the cost spectrum. Companies having a larger portfolio of offices would typically create a “workplace strategy” that included guidelines around programming (e.g., space layout, office size, critical adjacencies, growth factor, finishes, FF&E, etc.). These guidelines could then be used to inform the real estate process across geography.
Negotiations are always about (or should always be about) this or that. There’s always something else, maybe that something else is nothing (as in sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all). Decisions made without proper consideration of all relevant alternative scenarios are decisions made poorly. As important, in the context of office lease negotiations, the best negotiated outcomes are directly correlated to the extent to which we understand the alternatives of the landlord counterparty. This is a bit counter intuitive, allow us to explain.
A little AI distraction to cheer your day (and relieve us of yet another discussion about workplace). Ever wandered through the streets and felt like you've stepped into the future? With their undeniable presence here in San Francisco, the driverless car is quickly becoming the most prominent representation of AI in our daily lives. If you spend any time in San Francisco neighborhoods, you can’t miss them. The other day, as I chatted with a neighbor, I counted 6 autonomous vehicles casually cruise by our front door within a span of 10 minutes. Intriguing, right? And today, in a twist of irony, I was held up by one. Blocked by a double-parked UPS truck, the driverless car hesitated, unsure about navigating into the lane of oncoming traffic. Of course, all the drivers in the opposing lane weren’t too keen to make space for the driverless car, as one normally would (or at least the more decent among us would) for a human-driven vehicle. Hence, we waited.
AI has summarized capitalism for me as follows:
“…an economic system where private individuals and corporations own and control the means of production, such as property, businesses, and industries. In capitalism, the core principles are profit motive, private property, and market competition. The government's role is limited to taxation and standard regulatory laws, and individuals are given the freedom to operate their businesses and manage their income as they choose.”
We’ve noticed an interesting shift in how companies are thinking about their offices. For some time now, many companies have resolved to employ a hybrid approach to workplace, having employees work in office for a designated number of days each week. In many cases, this solution was chosen more for how it seemingly struck a compromise between employers who wanted employees in the office and employees who sought freedom to choose. To date, companies have been relatively lax in enforcing their workplace plan. What’s changed? Leadership is now becoming increasingly frustrated at spending on underutilized real estate. Companies track space usage, and they don’t like what they’re seeing. The occupancy reality is often way below what it would otherwise be if employees were following the hybrid work policy. The company leasing 10,000 sf to accommodate an average of 10 workers each day is (painfully) aware of the wasted spend.
Physical places, buildings, towns, cities, and even entire countries are always changing. Sometimes the change is progressive and less noticeable, sometimes it's more extreme and jarring. Near where I grew up is the town of White River Junction, Vermont. When I was a child, the town was mired in hard times. But it wasn’t always this way.
One common mistake tenants and their advisors make when negotiating the office lease is failure to properly account for design and construction implications. These are important considerations. Space design plays a vital role in determining the efficacy of the space, how it translates in terms of value to the employees. Construction is expensive, representing a material component of the tenant’s total occupancy cost. Gaining understanding about design and construction at the right time in the transaction process provides useful data in the context of effective negotiations.
Years ago, I was a partner at The Staubach Company, one of the industry’s most prominent tenant-only advisory firms. The Staubach Company was a highly ethical business, full of skilled tenant advisors. One of the firm’s core value propositions was that its advisory services were free of conflict. The conflict narrative is powerful in how it seemingly separates the conflict-free advisor from most other brokerage firms which serve both occupiers and landlords. Tenant-only firms often differentiate themselves with statements like, “…when you hire us, you never have to be concerned that we’re beholden to a landlord who pays us millions of dollars each year in fees”; or “…we fight harder for you because we’re not concerned about our relationship with the landlord”. To the unknowing audience, these statements can make it seem that all so-called “full-service” firms (those with diverse practices) are incapable of providing ethical, conflict-free occupier advisory services. When you consider the spectrum of tenant-only firms is very small, as a sales tactic, this is a brilliant approach in that it significantly narrows the competitive landscape, making it more probably the tenant-only firm will be hired.
The so called “capital stack”, the money investors and lenders have put into an office building investment, has recently been the subject of much discussion in markets like San Francisco. In many cases, the stack is broken, meaning the investor has lost all its equity and the value of the lender’s position is compromised, as well. We’ve reached a point at which these financial partners have concluded there is no path forward for the investment, leaving only one option: sell. This is how the Great Reset begins. It’s exemplified in the sale of buildings like 350 California Street, an asset that would have traded in the $800/sf+ range prior to the pandemic, but which traded in the $250/sf range this year.
An office lease is a unique financial transaction. While supply data is widely available, the values associated with completed leases are not so readily available, nor is the financial position of the landlord and its partners. In effect, despite the preponderance of available data in residential markets (e.g., Zillow, etc.), office markets remain opaque. The educated occupier can certainly access more information today than in decades past. But it’s not enough to merely know available spaces. Achieving a complete understanding of the markets can only be accomplished by partnering with a firm which is engaged in the market in a variety of very specific contexts. You need an intimate understanding of landlord motivations, capital structures, and even the intricate dynamics of tenants within a building. Yet many real estate service firms don’t have this information because they lack the practice groups.
A little AI distraction to cheer your day (and relieve us of yet another discussion about workplace). Ever wandered through the streets and felt like you've stepped into the future? With their undeniable presence here in San Francisco, the driverless car is quickly becoming the most prominent representation of AI in our daily lives. If you spend any time in San Francisco neighborhoods, you can’t miss them. The other day, as I chatted with a neighbor, I counted 6 autonomous vehicles casually cruise by our front door within a span of 10 minutes. Intriguing, right? And today, in a twist of irony, I was held up by one. Blocked by a double-parked UPS truck, the driverless car hesitated, unsure about navigating into the lane of oncoming traffic. Of course, all the drivers in the opposing lane weren’t too keen to make space for the driverless car, as one normally would (or at least the more decent among us would) for a human-driven vehicle. Hence, we waited.
Today, we examine the transformative role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation in the workplace. AI will have broad impacts on work in the information economy, both in how and where work is done. While it's true AI and automation could lead to significant job displacement, it’s also true that AI will create new jobs. Studies suggest that AI will affect job transformation more than destroying jobs, altogether. It automates parts of jobs, not whole jobs. The nature of some roles may change, requiring a focus on skills that AI can't replicate – creativity, critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and complex problem-solving. For those at the top of the food chain, this shift will make jobs more strategic and rewarding, enhancing employee engagement and productivity. Yet jobs at the lower end of the white-collar spectrum will be susceptible to displacement.
