Last
week, I wished you all a Merry Christmas. This was my way of adding some levity
to decorations appearing in stores the last week of September. But I then got
serious and discussed the chats I’ve had recently with investors, tenants, and
owner-occupants. If you allow yourself to listen, interesting challenges are
disclosed. If you missed the column - below is a recap of what I’m hearing from
investors.
From last Sunday. Investors. Our
industrial market crossed a pivotal point in the middle of 2020. For the first
time I can remember, the occupant premium disappeared and investors started
paying more for offerings than those who bought them to house businesses. Deep
pools of capital, a rabid appetite for return in a stable asset class, and
skimpy supply caused pricing to hit a crescendo in May of 2022. With all the
world happenings - inflation, recession, global strife, and rising interest
rates - investors, especially institutional investors, have hit pause. Private
folks are proceeding quite cautiously. Many require debt to acquire income
properties. As rates have now eclipsed 5.5% - the resulting capitalization must
be north, lest negative leverage will occur (return on invested dollars less
that cap rate). So with fewer buyers and higher rates - yep. Prices have
started declining.
Another
week and several more conversations. One in particular I believed was column
worthy. We are marketing an investment opportunity in Chatsworth. Included is
the owner’s desire to sell the building and remain - after the close - as a
tenant. Known as a sale-leaseback, this deal structure has curried favor
recently as our values have eclipsed sanity. This particular offering has a bit
of hair, however - configuration, company ownership, and re-use once the
occupant vacates in ten years. Yes! Investors are concerned with the next
round. Akin to a game of billiards where the current shot pales compared to the
“leave” - investors look past the return today vs their risk once the tenant
bales in the future.
As
the market changes - an investor’s propensity for risk is padded by a need for
more return. Generally, institutional investors - those which are publicly
traded or invest pension funds as correspondents - seek one of two types of
deals - a core or value add. The former falls right in the mayor’s office the
latter involves some work to get the engine revving. Our listing is neither.
Plus, with the market and global gyrations, many institutional types are
playing wait and see and not transacting.
What
buyers are left? Private capital. Your neighbor that owns a strip shopping mall
or office building. Many private investors have considered our listing. Most
have passed. Too risky if the tenant leaves, we don’t like the layout, how do
we retrofit the building in the future, and what insurance do we have the
occupant will remain in residence - are common refrains. But another
interesting dynamic is occurring. Unless motivated by the need to place money
via a tax deferred exchange, private capital can earn 3-4% investing in
government treasuries. These afford a return of 10x versus a year ago and come
with the full faith and credit of the United States government - very little
risk. So, if faced with investing in a risky real estate deal with a return of
6% compared to the alternative of the bonds…yeah. Me either. Also, if I’m
buying at a 6% return and I choose to finance the purchase - I must be keenly
aware of my borrowing costs as loan constants are now north of 7%.
Allow
me a simple example. Let’s assume you buy an income property for $2,000,000. If
$1,000,000 is borrowed at 5.5% interest - the simple interest payment is
$55,000. Easy. But, how is the $1,000,000 principal repaid? That’s where
amortization comes in. A fancy way of repaying the principal over the loan
term. So. If the $1,000,000 principal is repaid over 25 years at 5.5% interest
- now the annual payment is $73,690. Your return on the $1,000,000 (rent from
your tenant) is $120,000 but your loan payback is $73,690 - for a net of
$120,000-$73,690 = $46,310. See the problem? Your $1,000,000 invested brings in
$46,310 per year. Take the same $1,000,000 and throw it into treasuries and you
make $40,000. Hmmm.
So
what does all that mean? Continued downward pressure on pricing. If you want to
sell to a private investor, be realistic. Times they are a changin!
Allen C. Buchanan, SIOR, is a principal with Lee &
Associates Commercial Real Estate Services in Orange. He can be reached
at abuchanan@lee-associates.com or 714.564.7104. His
website
is allencbuchanan.blogspot.com.
Showing posts with label Cap rates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cap rates. Show all posts
Friday, October 21, 2022
An Interesting Investor Conversation
Labels:
#cre
,
Allen C. Buchanan
,
An Interesting Investor Conversation
,
Cap rates
,
commercial real estate
,
Investors
,
Lee and Associates
,
rate hikes
,
SIOR
Orange, California 92865
1004 W Taft Ave #150, Orange, CA 92865, USA
Friday, May 17, 2019
Is a Commercial Building Worth More Vacant or Leased?
As
we’ve discussed - commercial real estate is owned by those who occupy it with a
business or investors who rely upon the rent the property produces. Therefore -
a slice of commercial real estate is valued according to its utility - in the
instance of an occupant or to an investor - in its ability to produce income.
Occasionally the lines cross - which I will cover in the last section.
Utility varies. Think about it this way. If you’re
a company that tools aerospace parts - the electricity feeding a property is
critical because you use it in your operation. Without the amperage - the
parcel is worthless to you. A logistics company that stacks products in a warehouse
relies upon the number of truck doors and inside ceiling height. Therefore -
utility is found in a property with such upgrades. An easy way to consider
utility? Generally, an occupant considering a selection of buildings will place
a greater emphasis on utility or use in its decision. Said occupant is willing
to pay more if the commercial real estate has the features he seeks.
Income production. Rent. How much? How certain? How
long? Easy. Let’s assume a building has market rents and is leased to a Fortune
500 tenant for ten years. So, there is very little risk. The valuation is
simple - an investor will buy the income stream for a price. His price? Easy
math. Annual rent divided by his desired return - also knows as a
capitalization or “cap” rate. Thus, an annual lease payment of $12.00 at a 6%
return yields a value of $200 per square foot. Consequently - your 20,000
square foot building is worth $4,000,000.
If a building is vacant - is it of no value to an investor? If he is
smart - certainly not! However, the analysis is more complex and the stars must
align for the resulting price he can pay to compare to an occupant purchase.
Here’s the way it works. Since an investor relies upon the income - rents - a
property produces, he must calculate what those rents will be, how long it will
take to achieve them, and at what cost. We refer to this as lease origination
expense. If he’s looking at a vacant building and the seller wants $200 per
square foot - the investor must factor in the origination expense. If an
investor can pay the $200, absorb the origination expense, and still get his
return - golden!
If a property is leased - is it worthless to an occupant? It depends.
Keep in mind - an occupant looks at utility. And he must be able to occupy the
building. So, if the PERFECT site - with all the bells and whistles - is
available but leased for awhile - it might still work. Here is how. We recently
represented a buyer. Obligated for two years in a lease - they wanted to pursue
a purchase for their next move. So, if we located a building for sale with a
short term lease in place - that was beneficial. We did! Plus. Because the
lease on the building we bought was short term - the buyer got a better price.
Because - most investors were turned off by the impending lease expiration and
most occupants couldn’t wait two years to move. Boom!
When do the lines cross. We are seeing a fair number
of investors buying vacant buildings these days. Recently - a high percentage
of the structures in a new development in north Orange County were sold to
investors - vacant! Their motivation? Money needed to be spent. Capital had to
be deployed. It was costlier to wait than to buy vacant and incur the
origination expense. A similar trend is occurring inland where new logistics boxes
are trading without tenants in place. The reason? More occupants are seeking
leases vs purchases. As an investor - if you can buy the right utility - your
origination costs are reduced, you create the income, and the world is a happy
place.
Labels:
#cre
,
allen c buchanan
,
Cap rates
,
Is a Commercial Building Worth More Vacant or Leased?
,
owners and occupants
,
real estate investors
,
rental income
,
SIOR
Orange, California 92865
1004 W Taft Ave #150, Orange, CA 92865, USA
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)