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.”
If you’re like me, growing up your mother told you no less than twice a day “…it’s what’s inside that counts” or “…don’t judge a book by its cover”. I’m grateful for that advice, as it helps me be more mindful of bias, more open minded. Did you know the same is true for office buildings? That it’s not just about how the building looks, or where it’s located. The nuanced details of the ownership, debt, and occupancy also matter…a lot.
Over the past several years the concept of work has undergone more change than at any point in recent history. While there’s many narratives, one common discussion centers on changing where and when we work to make work less harmful to our health. This is exemplified by remote work.
Work can certainly be harmful. Yet few among us can avoid harm. Indeed, harm often comes to us in ways we cannot and do not anticipate. Sometimes what seems good turns out to be bad. The very world in which we live is full of harmful realities. I’m not convinced the absence of work brings less harm. Nor am I convinced the changes we’re seeing now around how and where we work are as good for us as we hope they will be. I think we’re generally failing to account for a variety of negative consequences that are slowly becoming more apparent.
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.
The so called “blend and extend” deal structure has a number of applications, among them a scenario in which a landlord might account for a downward adjustment to a tenant’s rent by amortizing the value of the adjustment with interest into a new term. Say, for example, a tenant has 3 years remaining on a lease and the market value for the space has dropped from $75/sf to $60/sf. The landlord would adjust the rate to market ($60/sf) and spread the $15/sf differential over the new term. If the interest rate were 8%, and the term 7-years, this would add $2.80/sf to the rent.
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.
Have we hit bottom in the pricing of San Francisco office assets? Maybe.
The historical measures by which office buildings were valued, a function of capitalized net operating income, doesn’t apply to assets having large vacancy and limited weighted average lease term (“WALT”). These assets are trading at a simple cost/sf metric. Investors take a long-term view of the investment, betting the value for San Francisco office will, ultimately, recover. They may or may not use debt to finance the acquisition – where there is limited occupancy, they may not be able to secure debt.
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.
I participate in a lot of “conversations” on LinkedIn in which people argue that office buildings should be as flexible as hotels. I love to explore the possibilities, the idea the office can be something different, something better. But sometimes these conversations are so detached from reality it makes my head hurt.
Investors invest in office buildings to generate a positive return on their investment. Return is created in 2 primary ways, one is through ongoing profits generated from the individual leasing transactions completed within the project, and the other is through financing activities (taking on debt which allows the investor to pull equity from the investment or selling the asset). This TenantSee Weekly is focused on the first of these 2 scenarios, the one in which the landlord seeks to create positive cash flow through its leasing activities.
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.
Let us lend our TenantSee perspective to the coming year. Despite green shoots from 2 large AI sector leases (Open AI and Anthropic), demand for San Francisco office space remained low throughout 2023, yielding 4 more quarters of negative net absorption. We finished the year with vacancy at >35% - an historical record. The market is under significant stress, creating sizable opportunities for occupiers.
Recently, we completed a lease for a client in a small San Francisco building. The transaction was negotiated to provide our client with a tenant improvement allowance, and the right to manage their construction. Because the client is a design firm, this approach suited them well. They understand design and construction and can leverage relationships to mitigate cost. The ownership of this building is not an institution, its management team lacks the sophistication you would otherwise see with professionals working for larger institutional owners. The lease provided the landlord with the right to approve the plans prior to construction, but it notably lacked a specific mechanism for communicating such approval. Our client provided detailed plans. They received a few minor comments/questions to which they responded promptly. Otherwise, the landlord agreed to the project schedule and let them commence their construction – implicit approval. During the construction, the client invited the management team to attend weekly meetings, to walk the space and generally sought to keep them informed (under no obligation to do so). Despite a few bumps along the way (the building had non-compliance in a few areas and a small amount of hazmat was discovered), the project was successfully completed. However, after moving into the space, the landlord sent a letter stating numerous elements of the construction had been completed without its approval, and the space must be restored at the end of the lease term (an undertaking which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars). Naturally, our client was concerned. Thankfully, they sent us the letter and asked for our guidance.
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.
Wayne Gretzky attributed his success, in part, to his ability to “…skate to where the puck is going, not where it’s been”. This was among the skills that made him a great hockey player. This same skill can help companies and individuals be more successful in business. Yet it’s not what comes natural to us. Have you seen young children play hockey, soccer, or similar sports? A child’s first instinct is to go where the puck or the ball is, resulting in a highly ineffective throng of players. In business, it can also be hard to go where others are not. It requires instinct, thorough analysis and understanding of a market; and, most importantly, confidence to stay the course.
Lately I’ve been contemplating Enrico Morreti’s 2012 book “The New Geography of Jobs”. In it, Morreti makes the case that urban winners and losers are determined, in large part, based on the extent of geographic concentrations of high-tech employment. San Francisco was perhaps the most prominent example of the thriving economic ecosystems that can emerge when tech employment is aggregated in one region. I believe Morreti’s core thesis remains correct. But his ecosystems are more fragile than we may have anticipated. In fact, it seems they can unravel in much less time than they took to build.
Here’s how ChatGPT defines social facilitation: “Social facilitation is a psychological phenomenon that refers to the influence of the presence of others on an individual's performance of a task. It describes how the mere presence of other people, whether they are spectators, colleagues, or competitors, can affect an individual's behavior and performance.” In 1898, Indiana University’s Norman Triplett studied cyclists to determine differences in performance when racing other humans vs. the clock. He found, “…bodily presence of another contestant participating simultaneously in the race serves to liberate latent energy not ordinarily available…” I’ve experienced my own version of this in training for and running marathons. Without fail, I was always able to run faster and farther when in the presence of others. It turns out we have the capacity to do better, to do more, but reaching that next level is not easily accomplished alone.
