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.
Imagine you invested in an office building in San Francisco in 2015. At the time, the building was 95% occupied. You paid $750/sf for the building and secured a loan on 50% of the value at the rate of 3.5%. 50% of the building’s tenant leases rolled in 2023/2024, a fact you underwrote as opportunity, opportunity to increase net operating income by achieving higher rents. Then the pandemic hit.
An encumbrance is a burden or impediment. Office leases often contain rights which are exclusive to a specific tenant and which place constraints on the landlord’s ability to lease space to other, 3rd party tenants. These rights are referred to as encumbrances. When tenants consider leasing space in a building, one of the first things they should qualify is the extent to which the landlord’s ability to lease the subject space is subject to any encumbrances. If so, the specific terms of these encumbrances must be understood before proceeding.
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.
Office lease negotiations are complex, involving numerous parties (the principals and their advisors), and covering a wide range of issues, from economic to legal. The most effective negotiators are those who possess both a deep understanding of the markets, and the ability to actively listen while negotiating.
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.
How do you know when you’ve fully accessed market leverage in negotiating a lease extension? It’s when you find the sweet spot, a place in which the economics of the potential relocation lease match the lowest value the existing landlord is willing to offer. This is not a simple exercise of identifying the asking rents for alternative sites and asking the landlord to match. No, instead, it’s a byproduct of a carefully orchestrated negotiation that involves 2 main elements:
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.
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.
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.
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.
n March, we’ll hit the 4-year anniversary of the date when offices all over the city first shut down due to the pandemic, a time when just 5% of the city’s office inventory was available. Today, despite having more office workers now than we had then, just under 30m sf of our total supply sits vacant, and even more than that is available. Citywide average asking rental rates declined 17.5% during this period. We expect this trend to continue, possibly to accelerate in 2024. Sublease supply is pulling rates down as companies increasingly view any recovery as a net positive. There’s little on the near-term horizon to suggest we’ve begun (or will even begin in 2024) the long march toward recovery. The market dynamic is considerably worse than that which we experienced in the dot-com recession when it took 63 quarters to get from bottom to peak. We’ve not yet reached the bottom.
Since the pandemic, the cost to lease San Francisco office space, but for the most premium segment of the market, has steadily declined. The pace of decline is beginning to accelerate as more landlords capitulate to unprecedented vacancy and reduced demand, just as more companies are (finally) taking a longer-range approach to workplace. For occupiers, this provides a welcome respite from the relentless effects of a decades-long dynamic in which the office market was both too tight and too expensive.
Subleasing is the most common approach occupiers take in mitigating the cost of underutilized space. Yet in San Francisco, it has become increasingly difficult to sublease office space. With recoveries ranging from 0 to 25%, companies must consider the full spectrum of options. Remember, too, sublease recoveries can be expensive to execute (fees and concessions); and, in subleasing, the occupier takes on a variety of risks that can prove costly (e.g., subtenant default).
In tenant-favorable market environments, landlords often provide more concessions to compete for tenants. Concessions come in many forms, the most obvious being, landlord funding for tenant improvements, free rent, reduced rent and more flexible lease terms. But understanding the value of the concession is not always easy, especially relating to tenant improvements, one of the biggest economic variables in leasing.
