Investment
Credit Crunch time time
02/Jun/2010 15:41
Time-Line Credit Crunch
For a list of important dates pertaining to the credit-crunch, please click here.
For a list of important dates pertaining to the credit-crunch, please click here.
Business Rates - empty property
03/Mar/2010 16:30
The Non-Domestic Rating (Unoccupied Property)
(England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (2010
regulations) come in to force 1 April 2010. For the
year 2010/11, empty commercial properties with
rateable values of up to £18,000 will be exempt from
business rates.
Base Rate and Interest Rates
26/Oct/2009 15:37
Interest Rates
Base Rate 0.5% as at 26 October 2009
For a list of MLR and Base Rate changes since 1989, please click here
Base Rate 0.5% as at 26 October 2009
For a list of MLR and Base Rate changes since 1989, please click here
Take-away food shops - planning restrictions
26/Oct/2009 15:35
Take-away food shops planning
restrictions
LB Waltham Forest has introduced a policy, likely to be copied by other planning authorities, of not allowing take-away food shops to open within 400 metres of schools, parks and youth centres. Also, the North East London planning authority has begun consulting on a suite of development control policies which would restrict the number of fast-food outlets within primary, secondary and retail parade zones.
Until the 400-mere rule becomes a nationally-adopted planning policy, the point would only arise within LB Waltham Forest. In the meantime, to prepare for the possibility:
At rent review in the lease of premises whereby the permitted user is take-away foods - Use Class A5 is hot food takeaway, and possibly A3 - an assumption of the hypothetical tenant being able to get planning permission for such use is normal. If the premises are within 400 metres of a school, park and youth-centre, then in the open market the assumption would fail in practice. That could have the effect of either increasing the market rent, on the basis that if the premises did not already have take-away use then it would not be allowed, in which case there is a scarcity value, or reducing the market rent on the basis that in the market such planning use would not be allowed.
At lease expiry, if the tenant requires a lower rent or it will not renew, the landlord will have to weigh up the consequences of conceding a lower rent against the risk not being able to re-let the premises for take-away use if the planning permission for such use were to elapse.
There are thousands of take-away food shops. As literal interpretation of the lease has given way to presumption in favour of reality, checking the distance to the nearest school, park and youth-centre will be necessary when evaluating the rent.
LB Waltham Forest has introduced a policy, likely to be copied by other planning authorities, of not allowing take-away food shops to open within 400 metres of schools, parks and youth centres. Also, the North East London planning authority has begun consulting on a suite of development control policies which would restrict the number of fast-food outlets within primary, secondary and retail parade zones.
Until the 400-mere rule becomes a nationally-adopted planning policy, the point would only arise within LB Waltham Forest. In the meantime, to prepare for the possibility:
At rent review in the lease of premises whereby the permitted user is take-away foods - Use Class A5 is hot food takeaway, and possibly A3 - an assumption of the hypothetical tenant being able to get planning permission for such use is normal. If the premises are within 400 metres of a school, park and youth-centre, then in the open market the assumption would fail in practice. That could have the effect of either increasing the market rent, on the basis that if the premises did not already have take-away use then it would not be allowed, in which case there is a scarcity value, or reducing the market rent on the basis that in the market such planning use would not be allowed.
At lease expiry, if the tenant requires a lower rent or it will not renew, the landlord will have to weigh up the consequences of conceding a lower rent against the risk not being able to re-let the premises for take-away use if the planning permission for such use were to elapse.
There are thousands of take-away food shops. As literal interpretation of the lease has given way to presumption in favour of reality, checking the distance to the nearest school, park and youth-centre will be necessary when evaluating the rent.
Distressed sellers
01/Oct/2009 15:38
"Distressed" seller is the latest way for sellers to
get rid of rubbish. The sort of properties that
nobody else would buy. Start off by putting on the
market over-priced. Expect to sell for much less.
Attract interest, consider offers much lower than
the quoting price. Do some due diligence as
to whether the buyer has the money. Agree to accept
what is thought by the buyer to be a bargain price.
Exchange and complete contracts as soon as possible.
Everyone is happy.
Good time to invest?
01/Sep/2009 15:38
It seems to me there are a growing number of people
thinking to themselves now seems like a good time to
invest in shop property. But I'm not convinced. Not
because life's difficult for many retailers, and that
for many struggling on in the hope of surviving is
possibly about the best they can do, but that that
the sort of property on the market for sale doesn't
fill me with much enthusiasm for its investment
potential.
Unlike the stock market, where you're buying a share of the company's business, with property you are not. You are simply buying the building in or which which the tenant runs its business. Whether the tenant intends to remain there is not something you are entitled to know and the tenant is not obliged to keep you informed. The only time the tenant has to tell you it is going is when it applies to assign the lease, sub-let the property, or does not renew the lease on expiry. And/or, in the case of a ltd company or plc, when it puts the occupant tenant in liquidation, administration or a CVA. Therefore, when you buy a shop property investment, you are placing a good deal of trust on the fact the tenant will continue to be the tenant for at least as long as the price you pay is commensurate with the value you have placed on the property per that price you have paid. For example, if the price you pay equates to 7% yield then to maintain that value, all other factors remaining constant, the tenant or a tenant of at least the calibre (if the lease were assigned and/or the property re-let) would have to remain the tenant for just over 14 years. If not, if any future tenant within that 14 year period is of a lesser calibre, then the value of the property would be less (all other factors remaining constant).
Buying a property let on 20 year lease is not the answer. Generally, retail property is a depreciating asset and the shorter the term the greater the yield. A property let to Barclays Bank plc, for example, on leaseback for 20 years from 2009 will likely fetch a higher price than if the term remaining is only a few years before expiry.
There is a difference between the return or yield you can get based on what you pay and whether the investment is worth buying in the first place. I think many people are not realising they are falling into the trap of the first. And it is a trap, believe me, because what it leads to is becoming stuck with something that is really only resalable at the same sort of price now.
Unlike the stock market, where you're buying a share of the company's business, with property you are not. You are simply buying the building in or which which the tenant runs its business. Whether the tenant intends to remain there is not something you are entitled to know and the tenant is not obliged to keep you informed. The only time the tenant has to tell you it is going is when it applies to assign the lease, sub-let the property, or does not renew the lease on expiry. And/or, in the case of a ltd company or plc, when it puts the occupant tenant in liquidation, administration or a CVA. Therefore, when you buy a shop property investment, you are placing a good deal of trust on the fact the tenant will continue to be the tenant for at least as long as the price you pay is commensurate with the value you have placed on the property per that price you have paid. For example, if the price you pay equates to 7% yield then to maintain that value, all other factors remaining constant, the tenant or a tenant of at least the calibre (if the lease were assigned and/or the property re-let) would have to remain the tenant for just over 14 years. If not, if any future tenant within that 14 year period is of a lesser calibre, then the value of the property would be less (all other factors remaining constant).
Buying a property let on 20 year lease is not the answer. Generally, retail property is a depreciating asset and the shorter the term the greater the yield. A property let to Barclays Bank plc, for example, on leaseback for 20 years from 2009 will likely fetch a higher price than if the term remaining is only a few years before expiry.
There is a difference between the return or yield you can get based on what you pay and whether the investment is worth buying in the first place. I think many people are not realising they are falling into the trap of the first. And it is a trap, believe me, because what it leads to is becoming stuck with something that is really only resalable at the same sort of price now.
Monthly Rents
01/Sep/2009 15:36
Monthly Rents
Although retailers in trouble are managing to persuade landlords to accept rents paid monthly, a growing number of retailers that are not in any difficulty are expecting the same treatment.
Some landlords can afford to be accommodating, but many cannot. Landlords that themselves are borrowing money are likely to be paying their interest quarterly, so accepting rents monthly from the tenant will mean the landlord subsidising the tenant.
In any event, such an arrangement, where it is a departure from the the terms and conditions of the lease, should only be temporary, and subject to notice to end the arrangement if the landlord should so desire. Landlords should also put the agreement in writing, in a side-letter with the lease, setting out clearly the terms and conditions of the arrangement.
To avoid problems should the landlord want to sell the investment, the arrangement should be personal to the tenant and landlord and non-transferable.
In my opinion, the investment value of a property where the tenant is being allowed to pay monthly could well be lower than where payments are quarterly.
Although retailers in trouble are managing to persuade landlords to accept rents paid monthly, a growing number of retailers that are not in any difficulty are expecting the same treatment.
Some landlords can afford to be accommodating, but many cannot. Landlords that themselves are borrowing money are likely to be paying their interest quarterly, so accepting rents monthly from the tenant will mean the landlord subsidising the tenant.
In any event, such an arrangement, where it is a departure from the the terms and conditions of the lease, should only be temporary, and subject to notice to end the arrangement if the landlord should so desire. Landlords should also put the agreement in writing, in a side-letter with the lease, setting out clearly the terms and conditions of the arrangement.
To avoid problems should the landlord want to sell the investment, the arrangement should be personal to the tenant and landlord and non-transferable.
In my opinion, the investment value of a property where the tenant is being allowed to pay monthly could well be lower than where payments are quarterly.
Pre-pack administration
01/Mar/2009 15:39
My letter published in Estates Gazette, March 2009:
"Whilst I agree with Anthony Ratliffe there seems precious little difference between “phoenix” company and “pre-packs”, I do think landlords could do both themselves and the shop property sector a service by adopting a more robust approach to requests for assignment.
Generally, alienation criteria in a lease enable a landlord to require a director surety or guarantor as a pre-requisite for consent for assignment. Generally, multiple retailers are unwilling to provide personal guarantors but, since the pre-pack company is effectively a new business with no trading record, there is no reason to treat it any differently.
In my opinion, landlords are being presented with a rare possibly unique opportunity to influence the future of retailing and the structure of property costs in the UK. By refusing consent to assign to a pre-pack unless personal guarantor(s) are provided, multiple retailers are less likely to embark upon debt-fuelled jamborees, if their own personal money were on the line. One reason there is now a legacy of high rents in most places is not a consequence of supply and demand, so much as the knock-on effect of rental evidence caused overambitious egocentric retailers living off borrowings and overpaying for new lettings with no thought for the long-term wider consequences.
Increasingly, I am taking the view that comparable evidence at rent review involving a transaction where the lease is to a company without a personal guarantor should be treated with the utmost caution, because the rent is likely to be higher.
In my opinion, multiple retailers allowing branches to underperform, such that they have to be ditched using pre-packaged practices, is tantamount to gross incompetence at the highest level. It is also a poor reflection on the investment acumen of innumerable landlords in allowing multiple retailers to be exempt or shielded from the strictures of tenancy management that are automatically applied to small businesses."
"Whilst I agree with Anthony Ratliffe there seems precious little difference between “phoenix” company and “pre-packs”, I do think landlords could do both themselves and the shop property sector a service by adopting a more robust approach to requests for assignment.
Generally, alienation criteria in a lease enable a landlord to require a director surety or guarantor as a pre-requisite for consent for assignment. Generally, multiple retailers are unwilling to provide personal guarantors but, since the pre-pack company is effectively a new business with no trading record, there is no reason to treat it any differently.
In my opinion, landlords are being presented with a rare possibly unique opportunity to influence the future of retailing and the structure of property costs in the UK. By refusing consent to assign to a pre-pack unless personal guarantor(s) are provided, multiple retailers are less likely to embark upon debt-fuelled jamborees, if their own personal money were on the line. One reason there is now a legacy of high rents in most places is not a consequence of supply and demand, so much as the knock-on effect of rental evidence caused overambitious egocentric retailers living off borrowings and overpaying for new lettings with no thought for the long-term wider consequences.
Increasingly, I am taking the view that comparable evidence at rent review involving a transaction where the lease is to a company without a personal guarantor should be treated with the utmost caution, because the rent is likely to be higher.
In my opinion, multiple retailers allowing branches to underperform, such that they have to be ditched using pre-packaged practices, is tantamount to gross incompetence at the highest level. It is also a poor reflection on the investment acumen of innumerable landlords in allowing multiple retailers to be exempt or shielded from the strictures of tenancy management that are automatically applied to small businesses."