Tag Archives: real estate market conditions
January 26, 2009

Health Care REIT, Inc. Added to S&P 500

Health Care REIT, Inc. Added to S&P 500

Standard & Poor’s announced that Health Care REIT Inc. (NYSE:HCN) will replace Sovereign Bancorp Inc.(NYSE:SOV) in the S&P 500. Standard & Poor’s Announces Changes to U.S. Indices [.pdf] Sovereign is being acquired by Banco Santander SA, leaving a vacancy in the index.

Health Care REIT, Inc. is an equity real estate investment trust that invests across the full spectrum of senior housing and health care real estate, including independent living/continuing care retirement communities, assisted living facilities, skilled nursing facilities, hospitals, long-term acute care hospitals and medical office buildings.

Disclaimers

October 27, 2008

Emerging Trends in Real Estate

The Urban land Institute’s  Emerging Trends in Real Estate for 2009 came out with a picture of doom and gloom, predicting that in 2009, commercial real estate will suffer its worst year since the industry’s crash of 1991-92, with a noticeable rebound unlikely until 2011 at the earliest. It also forecasts a decline of 15% to 20% in property values, on average, from their 2007 peaks, with even sharper declines coming in weaker markets.

Of the 50 markets tracked, the study found only Dallas and Houston have prospects for investment and development in 2009 that should be better than in 2008, thanks to their exposure to the energy industry. All other markets face deteriorating conditions next year, the study said.

But, the report does point out that there are opportunities to be found.

Disclaimers

September 30, 2008

Largest Real Estate Investment Managers

Pensions and Investments Online put together a list of the Largest Real Estate Investment Managers. The list is ranked by total worldwide real estate assets, in millions, as of June 30, 2008.

Disclaimers

September 29, 2008

Economic Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008

The White House and Congressional Leaders finalized the Bailout Bill: Current draft of the Economic Emergency Stabilization Act of 2008. (from the Wall Street Journal) It will be interesting to see how it progresses through the House and Senate. I expect to see a lot of salesmanship as politicians try to weave into their current political campaigns.

What does it actually do?  Read this summary from the WSJ.com: Shape of Massive Bailout Bill Starts to Develop Definition

Disclaimers

September 15, 2008

When Life Hands You Lehman, Make Lehman-Aid

Over the weekend, Lehman Brothers lost its interested buyers and got ready to file for bankruptcy. According to the New York Times, interested buyers wanted the federal backstop that was put into place for JP Morgan Chase purchase of Bear Stearns: 2 Wall St. Banks Falter; Markets Shaken.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the lack of a backstop scared off Bank of America and Barclays PLC: Ultimatum by Paulson Sparked Frantic End. Most people think various buyers will swoop in and buy individual pieces of Lehman.

On Sunday afternoon, a trading session was opened to allow firms to try to unwind their derivatives transactions with Lehman by finding other parties to step into Lehman’s shoes: Lehman Risk Reduction Trading Session and Protocol Agreement.

It should be an interesting Monday and an interesting week.

Thanks to Rob Hyndman for coming up with this blog post title. I stole it from one of his Twitter Post (@rhh)

Disclaimers
All of these companies are clients of The Firm, but I am not aware of The Firm’s participation in any of the weekend’s events. If The Firm was involved, I was not. 

September 12, 2008

Opportunity Funds Overfloweth

National Real Estate Investor published a story by Joe Gose on the flow of capital into distressed property funds: Opportunity Funds OVERFLOWETH.

“Opportunity funds concentrating on distress intend to take advantage of the seized-up debt markets in a few different ways. Many funds are buying debt at a discount from investment banks stuck with billions of dollars of loans they can’t securitize. Other investors believe loose underwriting and over-leveraged properties will soon lead to maturity defaults, essentially defaults that occur when a landlord can’t refinance a property because it isn’t worth the loan coming due or because a landlord can’t come up with a slug of equity that lenders want. Those funds intend to buy up that real estate, or at least gain a position in the assets.”

It will be interesting to see if the capital markets come back into time to avoid a commercial real estate crash.  The loose underwriting standards we saw eighteen months ago are gone (for the foreseeable future). But most commercial property owners have enough cash flow to pay the monthly debt payments.

The problem will come at maturity. Commercial property owners may have a hard time rounding mortgage debt to replace the maturing debt. It was the short maturity on Mr. Macklowe’s debt that forced him to sell the GM Building. More commercial property owners are going to be faced with mortgage debt maturity. Will there be mortgage debt there to replace it?

Disclaimers

July 31, 2008

Office Building Classifications

I was poking around for a definition of Class A buildings and had a hard time finding a solid definition.

In BOMA’s Building Class Definitions, buildings are grouped into Class A, Class B and Class C. But BOMA does not recommend the publishing of a classification rating for individual properties.

Metropolitan Base Definitions

Class A. Most prestigious buildings competing for premier office users with rents above average for the area. Buildings have high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence.

Class B. Buildings competing for a wide range of users with rents in the average range for the area. Building finishes are fair to good for the area. Building finishes are fair to good for the area and systems are adequate, but the building does not compete with Class A at the same price.

Class C. Buildings competing for tenants requiring functional space at rents below the average for the area.

BOMA goes further with International definitions:

International Base Definitions

Investment. Investment quality properties are those that are unique in their location in the best metropolitan markets in the world, their design and construction quality, the solidity of the tenants and the tenant markets that they serve and the outstanding building management that is responsible for operating and maintaining them. These properties stand out as leaders not only within their own metropolitan areas but also within the international investment community. Investment properties usually contain state of the art mechanical, electrical, life safety, elevator and communications systems. Their finishes are of the highest standards and they often provide the occupants with a mix of amenities – in variety and quality – that is exceptional. Often they house a lead tenant for whom the property is named and usually they are located in a premier metropolitan area. Investment grade properties need not be considered to be “trophy” material but trophy properties are usually investment grade.

Institutional. Institutional grade properties are those of sufficient size and stature that they merit attention by large national or international investors, hence the name. These properties are of good design and construction, although they are rarely monumental in design or the use of construction materials. They are typically large. They may be located in secondary metropolitan areas, but invariably they will have a very stable tenant base.

Speculative. Speculative properties usually will conform to popular design conventions (at the time that they are constructed), but without the use of exceptional materials or construction methods. The design and construction of these properties emphasizes functionality, in contrast with aesthetics or image and the design rarely reflects the image of any particular tenant or occupant. To attract national or international attention, speculative properties must be relatively large, although minimum size requirements are lower for properties located in premier office markets. They are often occupied by multiple tenants.

Of course, Wikipedia has an entry: Wikipedia’s Class A Office Space

Although the US seems to be lacking objective classification of buildings, the Moscow office market has laid out some objective standards for classifying buildings: Office Building Classification. According to the Moscow Office of Jones Lang LaSalle:

The new classification aims to divide the office stock into three classes according to a number of objective criteria. The classification was developed with the participation of professionals from the Construction, Property Management and Office Service industries.  The principal difference of the new classification from the previous one is the division of stock into ?, ?+ and ?- classes. The major difference is also in giving a more structured criteria for modern office building classification. Leading real estate consultants: CB Richard Ellis Noble Gibbons, Colliers International, Cushman and Wakefield, Stiles and Riabokobylko and Jones Lang LaSalle have prepared a new classification of office buildings, dividing modern quality office stock  into 3 classes: A, B+ and B-.

Square Feet started this with his (or her) Guide to Office Building Classifications.

Disclaimers

July 30, 2008

Retail in Russia

In last week’s Wall Street Journal, there was an article on Developers Diversified Realty Corp.’s plan to expand into Russia: Mall Developer Targets Russia.

I found the statistic on retail space to be really interesting.

In Russia, the volume of shopping space per 1,000 inhabitants makes up about 420 square feet, according to Maxim Karbasnikoff, European Director, Russia, at brokerage Jones Lang LaSalle. In contrast, there is 25,758 square feet of shopping space available for every 1,000 people in the U.S.

 It makes me want to head out to the Chestnut Hill Mall and mark off my own 5 feet square of space in the courtyard.

Disclaimers

June 3, 2008

Mapping Foreclosures in Massachusetts

Mapping Foreclosures in Massachusetts

The Boston Federal Reserve Bank has put together a great interactive map showing two decades of foreclosure activity in Massachusetts: Foreclosure Rates in Massachusetts Cities and Towns 1990-2007.

There is a lot of red, showing lots of foreclosures in 2007

But there was a lot more red in 1992

This graphic was developed in conjunction with a paper by Kristopher Gerardi, Adam Shapiro, and Paul S. Willen, “Subprime Outcomes: Risky Mortgages, Homeownership Experiences, and Foreclosures,” which presents the first rigorous assessment of the homeownership experience of subprime borrowers, using data on subprime mortgages, foreclosures, and house prices from 1989 to 2007 in Massachusetts cities and towns.

“Subprime Facts: What (We Think) We Know about the Subprime Crisis and What We Don’t,” by Christopher L. Foote, Lorenz Goette, Paul S. Willen, and Kristopher Gerardi.

Dynamic Maps of Nonprime Mortgage Conditions in the United States (Federal Reserve Bank of New York).

Thanks to Boston.com’s Real Estate Now for pointing out this map:
Mapping foreclosures
Disclaimers

May 24, 2008

Rev. Proc. 2008-28 and Foreclosure Relief for Securitizations

The Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Procedure 2008-28 [.PDF ] which provides for the modification of certain mortgage loans will not jeopardize the favorable tax treatment of the capital structure for certain securitization capital structures.

One issue impacting the downturn in the real estate market is the inability of some lenders to revise the loan terms to avoid foreclosure. The packing of loans into a securitization structure was usually accomplished by using a REMIC or other tax-favorable structure. By adhering to the REMIC rules, the payments to the lender passed through the REMIC structure would not be taxed until received by the investors in the REMIC structure. REMICs are governed by Section 860A – 860G of the Internal Revenue Code.

One of the limitations in the REMIC structure is that the loans cannot be materially modified. If modified, the IRS imposes a hefty tax penalty. Section 860F(a)(1) imposes a tax on a REMIC equal to 100 percent of the net income derived from “prohibited transactions.” The disposition of a qualified mortgage is a prohibited transaction unless the disposition is pursuant to “(i) the substitution of a qualified replacement mortgage for a qualified mortgage; (ii) a disposition incident to the foreclosure, default, or imminent default of the mortgage; (iii) the bankruptcy or insolvency of the REMIC; or (iv) a qualified liquidation.”860F(a)(2)

The IRS promulgated Rev. Proc. 2008-28 to give the servicers of residential mortgage loans some more flexibility in providing foreclosure relief, without jeopardizing the capital structure of the mortgage loan securitization. This revenue procedure applies to “a modification of a mortgage loan that is held by a REMIC, or by an investment trust, if all of the following conditions are satisfied:

  1. The real property securing the mortgage loan is a residence that contains fewer than five dwelling units.
  2. The real property securing the mortgage loan is owner-occupied.
  3. (1) If a REMIC holds the mortgage loan, then as of either the startup day or the end of the 3–month period beginning on the startup day, no more than ten percent of the stated principal of the total assets of the REMIC was represented by loans the payments on which were then overdue by 30 days or more; or (2) If an investment trust holds the mortgage loan, then as of all dates when assets were contributed to the trust, no more than ten percent of the stated principal of all the debt instruments then held by the trust was represented by instruments the payments on which were then overdue by 30 days or more.
  4. The holder or servicer reasonably believes that there is a significant risk of foreclosure of the original loan. This reasonable belief may be based on guidelines developed as part of a foreclosure prevention program similar to that described in Section 2 of this revenue procedure or may be based on any other credible systematic determination.
  5. The terms of the modified loan are less favorable to the holder than were the unmodified terms of the original mortgage loan.
  6. The holder or servicer reasonably believes that the modified loan presents a substantially reduced risk of foreclosure, as compared with the original loan.”

If the modification meets those requirements, then

  • The IRS will not challenge a securitization vehicle’s qualification as a REMIC on the grounds that the modifications are not among the exceptions listed in § 1.860G–2(b)(3);
  • The IRS will not contend that the modifications are prohibited transactions under section 860F(a)(2) on the grounds that the modifications resulted in one more dispositions of qualified mortgages and that the dispositions are not among the exceptions listed in section 860F(a)(2)(A)(i)–(iv);
  • The IRS will not challenge a securitization vehicle’s classification as a trust under section 301.7701-4(c) on the grounds that the modifications manifest a power to vary the investment of the certificate holders; and
  • The IRS will not challenge a securitization vehicle’s qualification as a REMIC on the grounds that the modifications resulted in a deemed reissuance of the REMIC regular interests.

This revenue procedure governs determinations made by the Service on or after May 16, 2008, with respect to loan modifications that are effected on or before December 31, 2010.