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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Lingering Fog of a Bull Market.
Advisors on the right side of a bull market end up looking good, no matter what they do. This was certainly the case for landlord advisors in the San Francisco office market for the ~10 years leading up to the pandemic, a time when you could win for losing, as the deal you failed to make was often (quickly) replaced by a new deal at better rental economics due to rapidly appreciating rents. Today, both landlord advisors and the investors they advise are, in some cases, suffering from the lingering effects of the bull market.
