The Rent Review Specialist
CPI and Rent Calculator
18/04/2019
My RPI and Rent Calculator has become very popular so to complement I have added a CPI (Consumer Prices Index), For more information, please click here.
Mercy of the Market
29/03/2017
Any form of investment whose profit-potential depends upon finding someone somewhere to buy it off you, preferably for more than you paid, is risky. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter - click here
Thinking inside the box
23/02/2017
Anyone can invest in commercial property: all you need is the cash or enough cash to get a mortgage. Anyone can invest isn’t the same as becoming an investor. To become an investor, one needs to… For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter - click here
Misreading the signs
28/07/2016
Despite the future being naturally uncertain, we live in an age, fearful of change, when wanting or needing to know in advance what will happen has become a social norm. To know what will happen is… For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Truth will out
27/01/2016
Over the years, the growth in popularity of the property market reflects its consistency as a store of value. The value of an asset is only worth what a buyer is willing and able to pay for it. An asset doesn’t necessarily appreciate… For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Liquidity
19/08/2015
Whether better to invest in quoted property companies on the Stock Market or property direct is a matter for debate: each has advantages and disadvantages and… For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Stoop to Conquer
28/05/2015
Despite evidence that many shrewder landlords are selling up while the going is good, the booming market in retail property investments is showing no overt signs of abating. Money to invest is one thing, but money to provide a return on capital is another so it is time to wonder how those tenants that are just about keeping their heads above water are going to manage when their own rents come up for review. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Yield and Return
30/04/2015
A concern for investors in commercial property is how well the investment is performing or how it is expected to perform. Knowing how to gauge performance is essential which is why it’s important to understand the difference between yield and return. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Self-service at auction
05/03/2015
Every year, millions of pounds of retail, commercial and industrial property investments changes hands, far too often to buyers whose expectations never materialise after completion. …For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
Bubble and squeak
27/02/2015
Let’s face it, if you took my advice then you’d never buy anything! Which is what a client used to tell me before mentioning he’d bought another shop property and wanted…For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
Appraising High Streets
24/10/2014
My work takes me travelling all over England and Wales so, apart from work for regular clients, I never know in advance where each new instruction might be. Long-distance travelling is not as demanding when… For further reading, please visit LandlordZone - click here
Open market rent review
09/10/2014
A feature of investing in commercial property is the rent review. With residential BTL, rents can be increased but usually only at the end of the term if the existing tenant would pay more or on a new letting if the market is up to it or, as with ground rents, to pre-set incremental increases. With commercial property, rent reviews can occur at regular intervals throughout the term because the duration of a commercial property letting is often for years: 3 to 5 years is not uncommon, 10 is typical, 15-25 years not unusual, and with ground leases 75-125 years or more. At present, I dealing with a ground lease rent review where the contractual term was extended from 80 years to 150 years.
There are various types of rent review: fixed increases, percentage uplifts, formulaic reviews such as inflation-adjusted index-linked, ground rent reviews geared to open market rent, turnover rent review comprising a base figure plus a percentage of the turnover of the tenant's business, and open market reviews where the rent is assessed by reference to the open market. Turnover reviews are common in factory outlet centres and shopping malls that are owned by a single landlord; in isolation turnover reviews are for the private investor harder to administer, let alone finding a tenant who'd agree. (The turnover is before VAT: in case-law, a tenant got clobbered a while back through overlooking the impact of VAT on the wording of the review and was obliged to pay more rent when the VAT rate went up to 20%.) Fixed increases, common during the 1960s/1970s, are rare nowadays because the amount of increase requires a leap of faith at the onset. Formulaic reviews tend to be found with sale-and-leaseback and where investors are offered a certain or easily calculable income stream, akin to an annuity. Ground rent review is where the land is let, the tenant constructing the building in consideration for which the landlord gets a percentage of the rental value of the building.
Open market review is the most common. The principle is that the rent would be adjusted to the market rent assuming (hypothetically) the premises would be available to let in the open market at the review date or valuation date if different. For the hypothesis, there are matters to be assumed and disregarded and whatever is to be taken into account is to be found in the wording of the rent review clause. There are no set guidelines: it all depends upon what was agreed when the lease was granted and any related documentation. The interpretation the guidelines is another matter entirely which is why to assume literally whatever the review clause says can be a mistake.
For open market review, the rental valuation approach is evidence-oriented. There has to be evidence of a higher rent elsewhere for the rent of the premises under review to increase, either that or informed opinion. Informed opinion is not the same as working out what the actual tenant should be able to afford: that the tenant might be able to afford, for example, ten times more doesn't in itself mean that the rent should increase.
On grant of leases, there are two types of landlord. The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment, and the landlord that previously occupied the property for his own business but is selling up and simultaneously granting a new lease of the property to the buyer. Where the lease is being granted in conjunction with the sale of the business, it is common for the initial rent to be set by reference to what the business could afford. Where that rent is higher than the market rent, it is essential for the wording of the rent review to enable an increase, otherwise all that will happen is that the market rent would prevail. That does not matter if the market rent were higher than the initial rent but, all other factors remaining constant, often it's not. In such cases, the rent currently payable could result in over-renting in the context of the open market rent.
Frequently, I am consulted by landlords who, having granted a new lease in conjunction with sale of their business as a going concern, approach the rent review in the same way of thinking as with the initial rent. A well-advised tenant is likely to opposite any increase on that basis.
The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment will usually agree whatever rent the incoming tenant will agree to pay. Since that rent would normally be based on the asking rent, the agreed rent is likely to reflect the open market rent at the time, presupposing the terms and conditions of the lease reflect that rent.
Unlike the new letting where the landlord can bide his time waiting for an acceptable offer, the open market rent on review is at a fixed date, the valuation date which may or may not be the same as the review date depending upon what the lease says. Regardless of the type of landlord and how the initial rent was set, both become subject to the terminology of the open market rent on review, in particular the valuation basis.
In outline, the leases contains two leases: the lease and the hypothetical lease. The hypothetical lease only applies at rent review. The terms and conditions of the hypothetical lease can be the same as the lease or differ, that's a matter of drafting and approval when the lease was granted. Of the three methods of valuation, the contractor's or costs method, the profits test, and the comparable evidence, the latter is the most common. The profits test may not be admissible evidence: the information would have to be in the public domain and limited to the particular property, rather than the tenant's other interests. The contractor's method tends to be used for buildings that are rarely on the market and for which there is no evidence. The evidence method, based on comparable evidence, is the method in widespread use because the opinions that can cloud the contractor's and profits' method do not apply.
Evidence is what another tenant has agreed to pay for their property. The property may belong to the same of a different landlord. The weight that would be given to the evidence for use as comparable is likely to vary according to the facts and circumstances.
What happens if there's no evidence. The short answer is no increase. Does that make sense? Yes and no. Yes if you accept without question the valuation basis for the rent. No if you wonder why you should lose out just because there's no evidence.
Perhaps it has always been thus but in recent years I've noticed a trend towards reliance on evidence regardless. I suspect it's a product of tenant-resistance to increase. Tenants and surveyors are well aware of the need for evidence for justification. It may not be necessary to give reasons but in the event of dispute it is. In dispute, which is the parameter upon which all reviews are based even if referral were not initiated, the tenant's approach is to require the landlord to justify the proposed increase with supporting evidence. To the inexperienced landlord, it is wearing, often frustrating that the tenant will not play ball. Despite the lease stating the parties are to reach agreement, rarely if ever does the lease prescribe how agreement is to be reached. The landlords thinks the tenant can afford more, the tenant thinks why should he offer more. This is unyielding combat, a battle of wits.
Frequently, I am instructed to take over negotiations where the landlord having reached the end of his tether doesn't want to take the next step of referral but wants me to work wonders. To force the pace, the cost of referral is not a step to be taken lightly. One step at a time maybe but the starting price is £369 for referral to the RICS. After that, the minimum fee could be £500/£750 plus anything between £180 and £350 an hour plus VAT and disbursements merely to get the tenant to concede. Lining the pockets of third parties is not how it should be, but is the price of venturing into the property system.
The standard form of rent review clause to open market rent is rarely thought out in the context of the actual property. In my opinion, there is no benefit to a landlord in going to the expense of a rent review clause drafted if there is any possibility the rent might not increase. To assume that merely because there is a rent review and an open market that the two combine to support an increase is a nonsense. At rent review to open market, a landlord is not in a position to insist upon an increase, nor is there is any justification for an increase merely because at the last rent review there was no increase. In a matter I was dealing with earlier this year, where my instructions were withdrawn despite the landlord concurring with my opinion that the rent would not increase, the fact that it takes time to procure an increase when none is justified seemed to be lost on the landlord. as far as the landlord was concerned merely because I advised no increase, but have a go, and the tenant's surveyor concurred with me did not mean the rent should not increase. You may think the landlord off his rocker but the failing is that the rent review clause to open market was drafted on the assumption that there would be evidence in the open market to support an increase.
Psychologically, the implication in 'upward-only' rent review is that the rent must increase and that if the landlord cannot procure what he wants through his own efforts a surveyor ought to be able to do better. Tough, it's not like that. Sometimes the rent that the parties could agree between themselves would be higher than if surveyors are involved. Hardly surprising therefore that landlords are keen on dissuading tenants from involving surveyors!
There are various types of rent review: fixed increases, percentage uplifts, formulaic reviews such as inflation-adjusted index-linked, ground rent reviews geared to open market rent, turnover rent review comprising a base figure plus a percentage of the turnover of the tenant's business, and open market reviews where the rent is assessed by reference to the open market. Turnover reviews are common in factory outlet centres and shopping malls that are owned by a single landlord; in isolation turnover reviews are for the private investor harder to administer, let alone finding a tenant who'd agree. (The turnover is before VAT: in case-law, a tenant got clobbered a while back through overlooking the impact of VAT on the wording of the review and was obliged to pay more rent when the VAT rate went up to 20%.) Fixed increases, common during the 1960s/1970s, are rare nowadays because the amount of increase requires a leap of faith at the onset. Formulaic reviews tend to be found with sale-and-leaseback and where investors are offered a certain or easily calculable income stream, akin to an annuity. Ground rent review is where the land is let, the tenant constructing the building in consideration for which the landlord gets a percentage of the rental value of the building.
Open market review is the most common. The principle is that the rent would be adjusted to the market rent assuming (hypothetically) the premises would be available to let in the open market at the review date or valuation date if different. For the hypothesis, there are matters to be assumed and disregarded and whatever is to be taken into account is to be found in the wording of the rent review clause. There are no set guidelines: it all depends upon what was agreed when the lease was granted and any related documentation. The interpretation the guidelines is another matter entirely which is why to assume literally whatever the review clause says can be a mistake.
For open market review, the rental valuation approach is evidence-oriented. There has to be evidence of a higher rent elsewhere for the rent of the premises under review to increase, either that or informed opinion. Informed opinion is not the same as working out what the actual tenant should be able to afford: that the tenant might be able to afford, for example, ten times more doesn't in itself mean that the rent should increase.
On grant of leases, there are two types of landlord. The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment, and the landlord that previously occupied the property for his own business but is selling up and simultaneously granting a new lease of the property to the buyer. Where the lease is being granted in conjunction with the sale of the business, it is common for the initial rent to be set by reference to what the business could afford. Where that rent is higher than the market rent, it is essential for the wording of the rent review to enable an increase, otherwise all that will happen is that the market rent would prevail. That does not matter if the market rent were higher than the initial rent but, all other factors remaining constant, often it's not. In such cases, the rent currently payable could result in over-renting in the context of the open market rent.
Frequently, I am consulted by landlords who, having granted a new lease in conjunction with sale of their business as a going concern, approach the rent review in the same way of thinking as with the initial rent. A well-advised tenant is likely to opposite any increase on that basis.
The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment will usually agree whatever rent the incoming tenant will agree to pay. Since that rent would normally be based on the asking rent, the agreed rent is likely to reflect the open market rent at the time, presupposing the terms and conditions of the lease reflect that rent.
Unlike the new letting where the landlord can bide his time waiting for an acceptable offer, the open market rent on review is at a fixed date, the valuation date which may or may not be the same as the review date depending upon what the lease says. Regardless of the type of landlord and how the initial rent was set, both become subject to the terminology of the open market rent on review, in particular the valuation basis.
In outline, the leases contains two leases: the lease and the hypothetical lease. The hypothetical lease only applies at rent review. The terms and conditions of the hypothetical lease can be the same as the lease or differ, that's a matter of drafting and approval when the lease was granted. Of the three methods of valuation, the contractor's or costs method, the profits test, and the comparable evidence, the latter is the most common. The profits test may not be admissible evidence: the information would have to be in the public domain and limited to the particular property, rather than the tenant's other interests. The contractor's method tends to be used for buildings that are rarely on the market and for which there is no evidence. The evidence method, based on comparable evidence, is the method in widespread use because the opinions that can cloud the contractor's and profits' method do not apply.
Evidence is what another tenant has agreed to pay for their property. The property may belong to the same of a different landlord. The weight that would be given to the evidence for use as comparable is likely to vary according to the facts and circumstances.
What happens if there's no evidence. The short answer is no increase. Does that make sense? Yes and no. Yes if you accept without question the valuation basis for the rent. No if you wonder why you should lose out just because there's no evidence.
Perhaps it has always been thus but in recent years I've noticed a trend towards reliance on evidence regardless. I suspect it's a product of tenant-resistance to increase. Tenants and surveyors are well aware of the need for evidence for justification. It may not be necessary to give reasons but in the event of dispute it is. In dispute, which is the parameter upon which all reviews are based even if referral were not initiated, the tenant's approach is to require the landlord to justify the proposed increase with supporting evidence. To the inexperienced landlord, it is wearing, often frustrating that the tenant will not play ball. Despite the lease stating the parties are to reach agreement, rarely if ever does the lease prescribe how agreement is to be reached. The landlords thinks the tenant can afford more, the tenant thinks why should he offer more. This is unyielding combat, a battle of wits.
Frequently, I am instructed to take over negotiations where the landlord having reached the end of his tether doesn't want to take the next step of referral but wants me to work wonders. To force the pace, the cost of referral is not a step to be taken lightly. One step at a time maybe but the starting price is £369 for referral to the RICS. After that, the minimum fee could be £500/£750 plus anything between £180 and £350 an hour plus VAT and disbursements merely to get the tenant to concede. Lining the pockets of third parties is not how it should be, but is the price of venturing into the property system.
The standard form of rent review clause to open market rent is rarely thought out in the context of the actual property. In my opinion, there is no benefit to a landlord in going to the expense of a rent review clause drafted if there is any possibility the rent might not increase. To assume that merely because there is a rent review and an open market that the two combine to support an increase is a nonsense. At rent review to open market, a landlord is not in a position to insist upon an increase, nor is there is any justification for an increase merely because at the last rent review there was no increase. In a matter I was dealing with earlier this year, where my instructions were withdrawn despite the landlord concurring with my opinion that the rent would not increase, the fact that it takes time to procure an increase when none is justified seemed to be lost on the landlord. as far as the landlord was concerned merely because I advised no increase, but have a go, and the tenant's surveyor concurred with me did not mean the rent should not increase. You may think the landlord off his rocker but the failing is that the rent review clause to open market was drafted on the assumption that there would be evidence in the open market to support an increase.
Psychologically, the implication in 'upward-only' rent review is that the rent must increase and that if the landlord cannot procure what he wants through his own efforts a surveyor ought to be able to do better. Tough, it's not like that. Sometimes the rent that the parties could agree between themselves would be higher than if surveyors are involved. Hardly surprising therefore that landlords are keen on dissuading tenants from involving surveyors!
How to Appraise a Shop Investment
02/06/2014
The short answer to how to appraise a shop investment is that everything about the proposition is reflected in the level of Zone A rent. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
Growth
01/01/2014
The rate of growth is a combination of rental and capital growth. Although capital growth is often rental-dependent, a higher price may be obtainable from an owner-occupier rather than an investor or developer. Also, because a difference can exist between the value of a property and a proposition, investment sentiment can affect growth.
A recent sentiment, that came into being in 1999 or thereabouts, is "yield compression" - essentially a gamble on interest rates. For example, a shop investment let at £20,000 a year and priced at £200,000 (yield 10%) when mortgage interest is 5% might be thought a bargain, so the price goes up to reflect the difference between the return and cost of borrowing. Nowadays, we have what I call 'confidence compression' where buyers are banking on capital growth as the gap narrows between the cost of borrowing and the investment yield.
Capital value is calculated by multiplying the estimated rental value ("ERV") by the yield (or year's purchase) that the market would require at the date of valuation. Note I say estimated’, not actual. A shop let at £20,000 a year in 2005 might not fetch £20,000 a year in 2010 if offered to let on the same terms and conditions in the lease as in 2005. The estimated rent might be more, or less.
Yield is the actual rental expressed as a percentage of the capital value. Year's purchase (“YP”) is the yield expressed as an integer. For examples, an investment priced at £300,000 the rent at £15,000 would yield 5%. The year's purchase is 100/5 = 20 YP. In my opinion, use of YP enables a more readily identifiable indication of investment prospects because it tells you how many years are needed for that amount of rent to recoup the purchase price.
Rental growth reflects one or two factors, or a combination of both: 1) demand and supply of the sort of shops that suit the prevailing requirements of tenants that are in the market for premises; and 2) whether, in comparison with other premises and their tenancies, there is 'something' in the wording of the tenancy that would justify a greater rent.
Although a shop property that is let is an investment, not all shop investments perform, or are capable of performing. For example, there may be no likelihood of the rent increasing, or no likelihood someone else would pay more than you, so you might not get your money back and depending upon the market when you want to sell you might not be able to attract a buyer. Also, a great many shop investments with no chance whatsoever of performing are created by cunning sellers to attract naive buyers into paying far more than the property would be valued at.
Many investors become successful, despite mistakes. Often, achievements outweigh the cost of mistakes, but all that means is that they have benefitted from market momentum. When the market changes, as it does and sometimes suddenly, negative events can overtake achievements. With shop property, one worst thing that could happen is that the property becomes vacant and unlettable at a rent that would give you a proper return on the investment; and whilst you are hoping to attract a tenant, the building is deteriorating and empty property rates are draining your resources. The other thing is foreclosure and being made bankrupt. Of course, the worst may not happen: but what does happen more often than not is that the investment fails to perform: the rent never increases and the value falls.
A recent sentiment, that came into being in 1999 or thereabouts, is "yield compression" - essentially a gamble on interest rates. For example, a shop investment let at £20,000 a year and priced at £200,000 (yield 10%) when mortgage interest is 5% might be thought a bargain, so the price goes up to reflect the difference between the return and cost of borrowing. Nowadays, we have what I call 'confidence compression' where buyers are banking on capital growth as the gap narrows between the cost of borrowing and the investment yield.
Capital value is calculated by multiplying the estimated rental value ("ERV") by the yield (or year's purchase) that the market would require at the date of valuation. Note I say estimated’, not actual. A shop let at £20,000 a year in 2005 might not fetch £20,000 a year in 2010 if offered to let on the same terms and conditions in the lease as in 2005. The estimated rent might be more, or less.
Yield is the actual rental expressed as a percentage of the capital value. Year's purchase (“YP”) is the yield expressed as an integer. For examples, an investment priced at £300,000 the rent at £15,000 would yield 5%. The year's purchase is 100/5 = 20 YP. In my opinion, use of YP enables a more readily identifiable indication of investment prospects because it tells you how many years are needed for that amount of rent to recoup the purchase price.
Rental growth reflects one or two factors, or a combination of both: 1) demand and supply of the sort of shops that suit the prevailing requirements of tenants that are in the market for premises; and 2) whether, in comparison with other premises and their tenancies, there is 'something' in the wording of the tenancy that would justify a greater rent.
Although a shop property that is let is an investment, not all shop investments perform, or are capable of performing. For example, there may be no likelihood of the rent increasing, or no likelihood someone else would pay more than you, so you might not get your money back and depending upon the market when you want to sell you might not be able to attract a buyer. Also, a great many shop investments with no chance whatsoever of performing are created by cunning sellers to attract naive buyers into paying far more than the property would be valued at.
Many investors become successful, despite mistakes. Often, achievements outweigh the cost of mistakes, but all that means is that they have benefitted from market momentum. When the market changes, as it does and sometimes suddenly, negative events can overtake achievements. With shop property, one worst thing that could happen is that the property becomes vacant and unlettable at a rent that would give you a proper return on the investment; and whilst you are hoping to attract a tenant, the building is deteriorating and empty property rates are draining your resources. The other thing is foreclosure and being made bankrupt. Of course, the worst may not happen: but what does happen more often than not is that the investment fails to perform: the rent never increases and the value falls.