Billions, Literally, Chasing Distressed Commercial Real Estate
Clearly, this is a huge decline in price, and even the senior lender, Realty Finance Corp, took a $22 million hit. It was also the first San Francisco office building to trade in a year, and the first “round trip” sale, where a property goes from a one new owner directly to another new owner via a deed in lieu of foreclosure. The total sale price of $19.9 million represents about 25% of replacement cost.
From that standpoint, the buyer got a fantastic deal. But a broker familiar with the sale said the building actually traded about 40% ABOVE his initial BOV and also attracted three times as many bidders as a traditional fee-simple sale would have seen. The broker said they are advising all of their lender clients to do note sales to the high level of interest in properties marketed as "distressed assets."
Part of the reason for the lower opinion of value was rent growth, or the lack of it. The broker, who has been selling instutional office property for the better part of 20 years, doesn't see any. In fact, he is reducing typical rent rolls by 20%, and then assuming no growth for 5 years.
Who was the buyer? It was Argonaut Capital, a Tulsa-based private equity firm controlled by just one investor, billionaire George Kaiser, who was nowhere on the commercial real estate radar until this purchase. Argonaut is neither a distressed asset neophyte nor a stranger to alternative assets (one of its most recent purchases was $412 million in natural gas assets from Chesapeake Energy), but real estate doesn't appear to be a major area of focus for the firm.
Surely 25% of replacement cost for an office building in downtown San Francisco can't be all bad, but given the fundamentals, it may be quite some time before any new money is pulled out of this deal. Nevertheless, if you're a billionaire with plenty of cash and other interesting things to do in the meantime, who cares? These are the kinds of buyers now swimming in the distressed asset pool, and with approximately 30 of them all clamoring a piece of San Francisco dirt with no clear value, it's practically deja vu all over again.

Labels: commercial real estate, commercial real estate loans



5 Comments:
Part I: If the building sold for 40% higher than the BOV of the Broker you spoke to, I would second guess the Broker, not the buyer who just bought an asset in Downtown San Francisco for 25% of replacement costs. The only way that will turn out to be a bad decision is if the entire GLOBE falls off the steep cliff of broken dreams choking on “deadly” carbon dioxide, and we end up in a global nuclear war started by the US because the world doesn't want its' currency anymore, and only the raw foodist and rednecks survive because they seem to be the most capable at hunting and gathering. In that scenario, yes, you are right. Terrible buy. The End.
Any other scenario though and that was a great buy. You mention the broker reducing rent rolls by 20% and no growth for 5 years. OH NOOOO. FafafafaFIVE YEARS!! NOOOO. Get the children, and the snuggie, get to the igloo!!!!!! NO GROWTH FOR 5 YEARS!!!! wait…with no inflation for probably at least 3 years doesn't that mean?...wait..NO GROWTH FOR 5 YEARS!!
I think the reduction in price absorbs that quite well, especially if done largely with cash. Am I crazy to think that owning real estate longer than 5 years is actually ok? And in some crazy rich circles, it's actually kind of a cool thing to do?? Haven't we learned anything from all of this? The lesson I can take is that a very short term perspective can destroy you in real estate. I can see Lincoln properties saying to themselves after having to walk away from this value-less piece of dirt as you call it, "Wow, if only... investing was done in short, little itty bitty 5 year time increments, we would be Billionaires."
I love this quote the best though. "Approximately 30 of them all clamoring for a piece of San Francisco dirt with no clear value, it's practically déjà vu all over again." Ok, that sounds like something Bruno would say or possibly maybe Kathy Griffin. Either way, not good. Did you really just say San Francisco dirt with no clear value? Really??!! Wait... Really?.......Really? I'll just move on from that one for now, but I’ll use it against you.........forever and ever.
And what is this Déjà Vu you speak of? You said yourself that these buyers are a different breed. Completely different, to quote you..."these are the kinds of buyers swimming in the distressed asset pool" And you're totally right. Completely different from the types that would come in with a ton of Debt(crack) or creative financing from wall street(crack)at the height of the market to own a building with no equity...sounds like a lot of fun to me. Déjà Vu over to the next scenario with me,
Stealthy Billionaire Mogul comes in and buys at 25% replacement costs...probably with cash...and is ”nowhere on the commercial radar” as you say. Is that your commercial radar system? How does a Billionaire miss a commercial radar screen? The answer? He doesn't. The operator forgot to turn the machine on. But I’m sure the Property firm specializing in "Commercial Property" that buys at the high, because it just feels so good, at the HIGH, shows up like a big beautiful green blip on your so called radar screen, right? How is that déjà vu?
I am sure that our Boy George the Billionaire doesn't look at debt like a main course. More like a drug. Just like any other Drug, it can be nice, even REAL nice, but only in small controlled doses. Not like the Cracky doses we all were taken that helped fuel all of this. Don't get me wrong. I took a hit from that cracky pipe, and it was good... Real good and cheap! Oh man, but theren't ain't a cave big enough for that cracky hangover. But the lessons were massive.
Part II: One last thing before I move on. You're right, this poor dumb billionaire with nothing else to do but just burn million dollar bills, just comes in here all ignorant and stuff... with all his Billions and stuff... and buys this "worthless piece" of dirt in some shanty town on some un-inhabited coastal strip, somewhere in the new world. Wow, I would like to see how he's doing in 10 years (2 investment cycles for you). My guess is that he'll be ok, and so will his building. Reality is we all should be paying closer attention.
I also loved how you made it look like the buyer was foolish, and that this appeared to be his first time at the dance. I don't think I am going out on the line here when I say owning Natural Gas is a major real estate play. Wall Street thinks anything of "Real" value is an alternative investment when it's quite the opposite; paper is the true alternative investment. Even if he bought the equipment for Natural Gas as you say, you need to make a substantial Real Estate deal to make any money from that asset. So I HIGHLY doubt this Billionaire that you speak of is new to the commercial real estate biz. His diapers were probably “Commercial" grade, and he probably has moles older than both of us, so he's probably pretty savvy when it comes to Real Estate, to be brutally perceptive with you. But really, we're talking about a $20 million dollar property in downtown San Francisco. If this guy truly is a Billionaire, this would be something he would buy to house his accounting department..wink..wink...and this property would actually fit rather nicely in his little "Real Asset" portfolio that he built for his great grandnephew, Charlie the biter on youtube. The rich get richer as they say. But there are a few smart ones out there and in some cases maybe even smarter than us, sounds crazy, I know. Sure, some are bastards and some come right out of Satan's underpants. But at least when it comes to investing, with these guys, I do way more listening, and a lot less talking.
Joseph, why move on? Candor is good! Stick around. You misquote me a little bit though (really, you misquote me a LOT. The statements you attribute to the post do not exist), and I suspect that the softening of your comments in Part II come as a result of reading my post on the price-value disconnect in San Francisco commercial real estate.
Satan's underpants indeed!
Cheers, REITWrecks
I will stick around, and I don't think I misquoted you. I actually "quoted" you in several instances, and took a very small liberty to dig deeper into a very apparent perspective you had on the subject. A perspective in which i still greatly disagree. I don't think there was a softening, and if that was suspected, it was intended to be softer. The article you are referring to addresses none of the issues I had with your first post. Again, if you bought over valued property with leverage, yeah you have major problems. Both areas that I steer clear from, and help my investors do the same.
If you poke around here a bit, you'll probably find more that you agree with than disagree. A little disagreement is good though, so I'm glad you've decided to stick around.
With regard to what I think is your main point, My partners and I bought a 58 unit property with 79% LTC leverage, invested in some very minor cosmetic improvements (signage landscaping, lighting, interior common area upgrades) and now we are doing 20% cash on cash with almost 2x debt coverage.
This is C property that we bought in 2006, at the height of the market. We do not plan to sell, because it's obviously a good asset, but we also negotiated for more than six months to get our price from the seller. At the same time (2006), similar properties were selling in San Francisco at 20x gross rents after two weeks on loopnet. If you bought those with leverage and have no staying power, you are soiling your pants right now. We like to sleep at night too, so we go where everybody isn't.
Cheers, REIT Wrecks
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home