Billions, Literally, Chasing Distressed Commercial Real Estate

by REIT Wrecks on July 15, 2009

Even with all the capital now chasing distressed commercial real estate, it’s still not clear whether these bargains are really much of a bargain. 250 Montgomery St., a downtown San Francisco office building that traded via a distressed note sale is the latest example of the uncertainty. The building, located on San Francisco’s “Wall Street of the West”, was purchased by Lincoln Properties for $400 a square foot in 2006, but it just sold in a deed-in-lieu-of-foreclosure for $172 a square foot.

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.

REIT Investments

Email, Print, PDF and/or Share:
  • email
  • Print
  • PDF
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Live
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Technorati
  • Netvibes

ShareThis

{ 3 trackbacks }

Commercial Real Estate: 6.8 Trillion Reasons Why it Won’t Derail the Recovery — REIT Wrecks
March 9, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Long Odds For Apartment Owners In Vegas; Prices Down By At Least 60% — REIT Wrecks
March 10, 2010 at 10:50 am
Bad Commercial Real Estate Loans Are Coming in Hot! And They’re Right on Schedule — REIT Wrecks
March 10, 2010 at 3:10 pm

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

1 REIT Wrecks January 9, 2010 at 9:19 pm

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

2 Joseph January 11, 2010 at 2:40 pm

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.

3 REIT Wrecks January 11, 2010 at 11:38 pm

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

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: