One Developer Shows Its Hand in Queen Anne

Seattle Times reporter Eric Pryne writes in today's paper that Emerald Bay Equity is looking for a joint venture partner or buyer for property it owns in the Queen Anne business district.  The story reads like a snapshot of today's development issues:  trouble getting financing; former plans to build office space scrapped in favor of apartments. The parcels, together totaling 2.1 acres,  were purchased in March 2008 for $14M.  No word on the asking price.

 

The State of Portland Real Estate - and Future Financing

It's not Seattle, but from Todd Murphy's article in yesterday's Oregon Business it sounds like Portland is suffering just as much as its urban neighbor to the north.  I found two pieces of useful information in this article.  First, it attempts to predict what lending will look like once we finally hit bottom and begin to recover (in 2011 or later, says the article).  The changes are not difficult to predict, but Murphy does a nice job of sketching out how a deal might get done:

 The community banks that survive for the next commercial real estate world  . . . [will] be giving loans of maybe only 60% or 70% of the now-lowered value of the property.  For some traditional titans in commercial real estate and some new cash-rich entrants into the industry, that will work out OK. Large players in the industry and others, including private equity funds, have been amassing cash during the tumult of the last year or more.

“And they’re looking for opportunities,” says Mike Paul, former CEO of The Commerce Bank of Oregon, who now is a partner in a firm helping financial institutions dispose of their non-performing assets: foreclosed properties.

Paul suggests that the new commercial real estate world, with the traditional banks being reluctant to lend very much on any property, will leave an opening for those new entities to be part of deals. The private equity firms and others, looking to place cash in a distressed market, will provide some less-traditional financing that will make up a part of the deals. The firms will do it as more expensive lenders, or in return for equity in the properties.  The private entities might provide another 10% to 20% of the value of the property, with the owner providing the final 10% to 20%.

But for right now, Murphy and those he consults see the spiral continuing down:

 . . . as the job market remains dormant, the vacancies remain. As vacancy rates stay high, building values plummet. As building values plummet, many owners owe more on their loans than the properties are worth. And community banks with the loans on their books have lost billions of dollars in asset value.  Many in the industry say some building owners without deep pockets are finding it difficult to make their loan payments or sell their buildings. (No one would name names.)

As we saw in the Seattle Times last week, that name in Seattle is Beacon Capital Partners.

The bright side in all of this is that commercial tenants are doing very well, from lower rents, to months of free rent, to great TI contributions.  I'm even finding I'm able to negotiate self-help rights in a growing percentage of the leases I work on, which was unheard of except for the biggest tenants previously.  The ability to lease space on great terms is a big help to new and expanding businesses, and ultimately to us all, as much as it may pain the landlords in the short-term.  

 

FDIC Action: Delaying the Recovery?

On Halloween, Douglas McIntyre reported in Daily Finance on a recent action by the FDIC that takes a more “liberal view” of what constitutes a nonperforming commercial real estate asset. As reported in wsj.com, the change allows “banks to keep loans on their books as "performing" even if the value of the underlying properties have fallen below the loan amount.” As McIntyre puts it, "[the] change in how the current regulations should be interpreted appears to be a fudging of the way in which federal agencies look at bank financial statements. Loans that are "nonperforming" may be restructured, but many are likely to lose a great deal of their value in the process. The FDIC appears simply to be dealing with losses that would be incurred in the normal course of business by pushing the true accounting for them into the future."  

While this may help banks in the short term (and the FDIC, who might otherwise have to insure deposits at these banks should they fail), it seems dealing with these assets for what they truly are might get us to a market correction more quickly, get the assets into the hands of those that can re-develop them, and get that deal flow I mentioned in a previous post underway.  Do you agree?  For a lively discussion, visit the comments section of the wsj.com article.  I don't mean to infer that this would be a painless process for anyone involved, but the faster we can get a recovery in commercial real estate underway, the better for everyone.  

 

The Funds are Circling - Can We Get Deals Done?

The October 30 Puget Sound Business Journal touts, on its front page, the Schuster Group as another fund ready to “pounce on opportunities presented by the Puget Sound area’s growing list of troubled companies.” The first such fund to get the front page treatment was Talon Private Capital, headed up by heavyweights Bill Pollard (formerly of PREP) and James Neal (formerly of Metzler). Also as reported in the PSBJ, Urban Renaissance Group has added a new Chief Investment Officer (John Bliss, another former Metzler exec) to work with institutional investors looking to buy troubled properties in town. They are not alone. Groups like Caerus Realty Capital and the major brokerage firms are circling as well. When will they investing frenzy begin? It may take awhile.

In September of this year, Northwestern Mutual paid $115 million for the Washington Mutual Tower, which cost $350 million when it was completed in 2006. At $132 a square foot, this is a significant discount on the estimated $450 a square foot paid by Beacon Capital for Equity Office Properties’ portfolio in early 2008. At this point there are not a lot of other well-publicized sales, due to a number of factors: credit markets have yet to thaw, investors want to make sure we’ve hit bottom, owners have to determine if they can hang on to the asset given their debt load/vacancy rates. The lack of sales makes setting a price for distressed properties more difficult. If those with the cash and those with the distressed property can agree to terms on a few other buildings, I hope we’ll see begin to see a more steady flow of “done deals.”  I have no doubt everyone mentioned above is hustling to make that happen.