Knakal: Resurgence of Institutional Capital
A: I need to plug Robert Knakal's Streetwise blog because the content has been a breath of fresh air for the past nine months or so. In his latest piece, he discusses the "resurgence" of institutional capital interested in buying distressed Manhattan property, to which their is limited supply (office, multi-family, mixed-use, etc..). With transactional volume down "60% from 2008 and 75% from 2007", average property values fell about 32% from peak levels. Sounds about right with office properties seeing the most pressure. But with sales volume down so sharply, why the limited supply?
There are three main pressures on commercial properties:
a) rising unemployment
b) declining rents
c) tight financing in the mid to high end
Strange to see inventory levels so tight given the plunge in sales volume. To hear Knakal describe it, "...discretionary sellers are seeing these pricing trends as a tangible reason not to place properties on the market at the present time". According to "Low Volume of Investment Sales Caused by Supply Constraint; Demand Still Strong":
The volume of investment sales recently has been extraordinarily weak whether you look at aggregate sales price or number of transactions. In fact, we are on pace to see sales volume hit the lowest level we have seen in the 26 years we have been tracking these statistics.Mr. Knakal goes on to discuss..."on the demand side, we have seen resurgence, within the past month or two, of institutional capital. As I mentioned earlier, this capital all but evaporated from the marketplace in the summer of 2007 and many of these institutional real estate players have formed distressed asset funds looking to buy properties. These funds are now in the market actively bidding on opportunities."Average property value has fallen in New York by 32% from its peak levels. Multi-family properties have been performing best, having lost only 16% of value while office buildings with significant exposure to the marketplace have been the most negatively affected, seeing a reduction in value of about 70%.
These reduced values have peaked the interest from the buying community as investors are looking for core assets at greatly reduced prices. Conversely, discretionary sellers are seeing these pricing trends as a tangible reason not to place properties on the market at the present time. At the height of the market in the first half of 2007, we had, at one point, 836 exclusive listings. Today, we have just 513 and have been below 600 for the entire year.
We remain hopeful that the supply side of the equation will get better as distressed assets appear to be coming to the market in slightly better numbers than we have seen thus far in the cycle.
I too know of a few funds that were recently set up to take advantage of distress opportunities in that sector. Leads me to believe that a disconnect may exist in the most distressed commercial sectors as bids, while out there, just are not at levels that non pressured sellers would consider trading at - but then again, what the heck is non pressured sellers anyway. How do we quantify who needs to raise cash fast and close within a few months or else default? And how do you add in to that the human reaction to dealing with a financially stressed situation? Maybe a seller is in denial and ignores what in hindsight turns out to be a solid bid?
With declining rents, rising unemployment, and a tight financing market, the price has to be right; as the new owner will ultimately have a much better environment with which to operate the property. This is a highly deflationary phenomenon and tends to have a ripple effect on competing properties. This also may be one reason why bids have improved in the sense that Armageddon is now off the table, but not to a level that would jive with the current reflation trade mentality. The numbers still have to work!
For now, it's likely a good time to get into some distressed properties in office and mixed use marketplace if you have the cash and the numbers work! The chances of a natural overshoot to downside are high with such a fierce move; especially in office markets. For residential, the fear trades window was about 2-3 months (Feb, March, into early April) before the market saw a re-emergence of buyers and bids started to price out systemic risk. We found out later which months ultimately saw the sharpest deals.
Last check saw Manhattan office vacancy rates at 11.1%, a five year high, with rents falling 5.2% from the 2nd quarter and down 22% from the year ago period; via Bloomberg.
Calculated Risk adds some thoughts from NY Fed President William Dudley:
"First, the capitalization rate—the ratio of income to valuation—has climbed sharply. At the peak, capitalization rates for prime properties were in the range of 5 percent. That means that investors were willing to pay $20 for a $1 of income. Today, the capitalization rate appears to have risen to about 8 percent. That means that the same dollar of income is now capitalized as worth only $12.50. In other words, if income were stable, the value of the properties would have fallen by 37.5 percent. Second, the income generated by commercial real estate has generally been falling."Not sure where cap rates are today, as my business is entirely focused on the residential sector. But it is clear that we are experiencing a deflationary adjustment, no matter what reflation trade seems to be going on in more liquid markets. Its healthy, it has to happen, it is happening, and markets will continue to purge the excesses from a credit fueled housing boom.
Net effective rents are more clearly showing the furious adjustment; these are rents after deductions and landlord concessions are factored in. Crain's reports net effective rents for commercial sector "hit levels that are 45% below their pre-recession peaks".
While I just renewed my residential lease 2 weeks ago, I'll share the outcome:
I rent a 891 sft, JR4, with 1 bathroom in full service upper east side building. E 80s location, west of 3rd avenue. My starting rent in 2006 was $2,900. It was raised to $3,100 in 2007 and raised again to $3,300 in 2008 (they asked for $3,450, but only offered $3,300) as there was no inventory in building even though markets seemed to be trending down this time last year already.Anyone out there care to share what they are seeing in the commercial or rental leasing markets?Landlord offered me $3,150 + 1 month free rent for a 13 month lease renewal. I asked for $2,900 plus the same concession. They came to $3,000/mth + 1 month free on a 13 month lease. I took it. So, that brings the net effective rent to about $2,750/month, or a 17% reduction from last year's levels.



Comments (7)
Nice negotiating.
Posted by MeekSheep | October 20, 2009 8:21 PM
Surprised that you rent.
Posted by Anonymous | October 21, 2009 8:57 AM
MeekSheep - ehh, I see that similar units are renting in the mid 3Ks, but to me, its still very pricey.
Anon - I signed a contract in NOV 2001, closed April 2002 and sold in June 2006. Now I am renting because quite simply the product that I would need to buy to comfortably grow into over the years is out of my affordability range! Im not ashamed of it at all. I will save and save and buy when time is right. In 2006 and 2007 and 2008, it wasnt right. In 2009, well, affordability increased nicely. But for me, the timing is not right for personal reasons that I wont go into.
So, Im paying 2750/mth net effective rent here for next 12 months, to buy a comparable property would be in the 675K - 800K range in this location. The monthly nut would be closer to $4,200 - $5,000/mth with the opportunity cost of the down payment/closing costs gone. And that is a property that is comparable to where I am now, NOT what I would deem scalable to buy and grow into. I can always leave this rental, its not so easy to buy and sell quickly to upgrade and not take a big hit. The decision is a business one and an easy one.
Posted by Noah | October 21, 2009 10:01 AM
Sounds like you got a good reduction.
Fortunately, you kept the lease term short. If prices continue to decline, you can try for an even better deal on renewal!
Posted by Thisson | October 21, 2009 11:23 AM
Hope I didn't come across as criticizing. I think the decision to rent is a good one when looked at from a purely financial perspective. So I agree with your analysis. I still find it funny that so many people still think owning is better because you are paying into the equity of a property instead of "throwing money away". They always seem to forget about carrying costs and especially the cost of capital that should be placed on invested equity. If you take the difference between rent and the monthly expenses of owning you can invest this equity wherever you'd like. Maybe you could offer a simple financial model template on a spreadsheet to your readers/clients to help them understand the financial implications of owning v. renting. My only fear is that so few would understand it no matter how simple it was made.
Posted by Anonymous | October 21, 2009 11:26 AM
I read today that Morgan Stan is forking over Crescent Real Estate Equities over to Barclay who owns a big mortgage on the property. Sounds like Barclay will be getting a huge steal on the firm based in Houston. Said that the cash flow was currently 1.8% of the debt but was going to fall to 0.8% by next year. Considering the size of the portfolio, that is a problem. Sounds like Icahn is also trying to put the kabosh on what CIT had in mind. CRE will fall due to no institutional cap and no cash flow to keep up with the debt. Investors, get your checks ready.
W/o going into detail, I rent also for the same reason Noah does. Strictly business decision. I played "Keeping up with the Jones's" once and almost paid dearly for it. I paid, but not as bad as I thought I was going to. Puts things into perspective. As a 31 year old with a 2 year old and likely another by next year, I am in no rush to jump into something where I don't know how big my family will be. Not like prices are going up 20% in the next 18 months. Rates, maybe. I'll take my chances.
Posted by Scott | October 21, 2009 3:25 PM
Assuming taxes and common charges of $1k/month, the owner of your unit is netting <$24k/year. If the asset "value" is around $700k, you are giving him a 3% return. This seems about where things sit across Manhattan, and make renting the obvious economic choice until rental rates and prices come back into line. Given the huge rental inventory overhang (808 Columbus, for example, as well as many condo owners stuck and unable to sell), it is unlikely to be an increase in rent that drives this.
Posted by uws | November 2, 2009 11:15 AM