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.
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.
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.
Strategy is to occupier real estate what a recipe is to a great meal. A recipe is more than the sum of its parts. It’s about how each ingredient is prepared, how and when it’s added to the mix. As with any recipe in which there are primary ingredients, vital to its success, similarly, every great strategy requires 3 main parts:
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.
I suspect most of us are caught off guard by change at scale. When thinking about the pace of change over the last 15 years, it’s clear we’ve entered a new era, one in which technology is enabling us to rethink EVERYTHING. Change in how we design and occupy physical space is inevitable. The skyscraper boom began in the late 1800s and the product playbook in urban core office markets has remained mostly unchanged for decades. Similarly, the ways in which the office product has been developed and owned, the investment thesis, has been largely unchanged in how it relies on capturing the best occupants in leases that reflect the highest possible pricing and the longest possible term to generate stable net operating income and bankable future value.
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.
Leases vary by building, by market, and by market circumstances. In most major metros, when dealing with larger buildings, the lease document is sophisticated and complex, addressing a broad range of variables that will have a material impact on the occupier’s experience at the building, as well as its cost of occupancy. If you’ve done a good job negotiating the letter of intent, you should begin the lease negotiation phase from a position of relative strength. However, even when the letter of intent is fully maximized, there’s still a lot to negotiate in the lease.
The letter of intent (“LOI”) is a non-binding document (although in unique circumstances they can be binding) which captures the terms and conditions upon which the parties have agreed and becomes the basis for a legally binding document (the lease). The best LOIs are highly detailed and cover a wide range of topics from rental economics to flexibility mechanisms (like expansion, contraction, termination, and extension options) to operating expense inclusions and exclusions, and much more. The occupier’s ability to include more items in the letter of intent varies somewhat by the circumstances of the market. In tight markets like San Francisco circa 2019, landlords could get away with limiting the level of detail covered in the LOI. Why would a landlord want to limit the LOI in this manner? Because they gain leverage. Most tenants don’t enter into the lease negotiation until late in their market process, meaning they’ve burned through a lot of the project schedule and will soon need to transition to design and construction in order to get the space ready on time. In short, limiting the terms of the LOI is a way for the landlord to jam the tenant on timing, forcing them to be more conciliatory to preserve schedule. In this current environment, nearly all tenants can enjoy the benefits of expanding the content of the LOI.
You’ve identified the purpose behind your physical space needs, you’ve created a thorough project budget and schedule, and you’ve developed the right strategy. It’s now time to implement a market process.
What is “…a market process”? In the context of office leasing, market process is how you engage the market. It ties to your strategy, with sensitivity to the objectives you seek to accomplish. The market is where you implement your strategy, where you take it from theory to reality.
Once you’ve established the purpose of your physical workspace, and given careful thought to budget and schedule, it’s time to develop the right strategy. This is a vital step prior to market engagement. Good strategy is not always obvious. At a minimum, any effective real estate strategy will include simultaneous assessment of multiple deal scenarios. Why would this matter? For starters, negotiation outcomes are not known. At the beginning of the process, the favored outcome may be to stay in the existing space. However, as the process evolves over multiple rounds of negotiation, we often find that things change in ways that may cause the desired outcome to shift. For example, when the existing landlord offers terms that are materially less favorable than those achievable through relocation.
Last week we established the importance of defining “the purpose” behind your workplace, especially those elements of the workplace which are expressed through physical spaces. This is the first (and vitally important) step companies must take before they begin a real estate process (e.g., the process of acquiring space). Once established, the next step is to think carefully about budget and schedule. These considerations, much like the discussion of purpose, are greatly aided by working closely with your real estate advisor. Here, again, companies must shift how they think about the engagement of real estate advisory services. Having the right real estate partner on board from the very beginning facilitates access to critical data and insights. The process of properly defining the budget and schedule are both areas in which the advisor can play a key role.
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.
Office lease negotiations typically cause pain for one party because leverage is rarely balanced such that the outcome is a true win/win. Sure, the actual winner will suggest the other party also won (after all, they got the deal), but sometimes winning feels a lot like losing. That’s OK. Markets ebb and flow. What matters is that you know how you’re hurting the other party.
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.
Many business executives know how to negotiate. Indeed, it’s a vital skillset essential to advancement in nearly all careers. But not all negotiations are equal. Negotiating leases on behalf of office tenants, for example, is a specialized undertaking. As with all negotiations, successful tenant lease negotiations are highly correlated with understanding the motivations of the counterparty. This means knowing everything about the landlord, including the equity and debt positions, the investment thesis, the leasing dynamic at the building (vacancy, lease rollover, etc.), the value of any recently completed comparable lease transactions in the building and in the market, and the overall market dynamic. These factors are fundamental to assessing leverage. Yet even when these basic elements are in place, the act of exercising leverage also requires special skills.
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.
