When you look at an office building, what do you see? Maybe you see the architecture. Maybe it’s the neighborhood, the restaurants, and amenities. Perhaps, you see the views from within the building. This is what most people see. They’re all important. But it’s what you don’t see that matters most.
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.
The pace of investment sale activity in San Francisco is accelerating. This is the “Great Reset” about which we’ve written. It’s driven by capital partners (equity/lenders) deciding there is no viable pathway to own their way to an exit and choosing to sell (usually at a steep discount to what they paid and/or the value of the debt). Ultimately, these capital stack resets are healthy as they activate the asset, enabling new capital partners to transact at market.
If you look at the quarterly market reports provided by all major real estate service firms (Cushman & Wakefield, included), you will find that rent data is typically expressed in terms of “Asking Rents”. Reports will cite the trend in Average Asking Rents by submarket, or by building class. This is a somewhat misleading indicator. Why? Because it does not reflect the rent after negotiations, which often includes reductions in rate from the Asking Rate and potentially significant landlord-funded concessions. In other words, Asking Rents reflect what landlords are asking, not what they’re getting.
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.
