Comments on: The economics of shopping malls A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: schooner Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:04:08 +0000 Jonathan has it right.

As someone who works in real estate (but more on the construction finance side) the debt coverage ratio is a major covenant, so banks’ want long term leases from major anchor tenants covering the bulk of the monthly payments.

Frankly we don’t care if Joe’s shoe store goes under since the strength of the anchors will draw business to the vacant space.

But if a formerly solid anchor goes under(i.e. grocery store chain, bank, national fast food co. etc.) you can kiss the mall goodbye

By: Donald A. Coffin Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:32:35 +0000 Maybe I live in the bizzaro universe, but the notion that strip malls have lower vacancy rates seems wrong. I live and work in northwest Indiana, and I can attest, on the basis of driving to work this morning that vacancy rates of 1-out-of-6 storefronts (or higher) in strip malls can be common and long-lasting.

And, for some actual data, I present this for your amusement:

“For neighborhood and community centers, net absorption for the quarter amounted to negative 7.9 million square feet—greater than the negative absorption for all four quarters of 2008 combined. The figure was down only slightly from the 8.1 million square feet of negative absorption posted in the first quarter. The vacancy rate jumped to 10.0 percent—the highest level since 1992. Year over year effective rents are down 3.2 percent and effective rents dropped 1.1 percent between the first quarter and the second quarter…On the regional mall front, the vacancy rate hit 8.4 percent—the highest figure since Reis began tracking regional malls in 2000.” l-vacancy-rates-new-highs-0713/

So neighborhood and community shopping centers had *higher* vacancy rates than did regional malls…hmmmm.

By: jonathan Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:20:22 +0000 Speaking from a great deal of experience, most landlords don’t want temporary tenants because that speaks of desperation and because temporary tenants don’t pay squat. It can be different on a street in a city than in a strip or shopping mall but what’s noted are the weird exceptions: restaurant / bar space, because the rule of thumb is that you never convert away from that use because getting that use approved and built the first time is so expensive. But in standard space, the belief, right or wrong, is that having a temporary tenant in place discourages longer term tenants from taking the space.

The notes about length of lease driving vacancy is largely correct. The other factor is financing cost and debt covenants. A commercial mortgage will have a debt service ratio and should have a key tenant list. Let’s say a key tenant moves out. You have a negotiated period of time to get a replacement and that can, depending on the situation, get extended pretty far out. Let’s say you have a 1.25 coverage ratio – and they vary – then as long as you hit your ratio, you really don’t have an incentive to give in and make a short deal. Remember, as long as your CAM leakage isn’t terrible – so you’re not paying too much out of pocket – then you still have cash flow of sorts.

By: bdbd Tue, 01 Sep 2009 15:03:41 +0000 Wasn’t the business model of the (now bankrupt) Steve & Barry’s clothing stores built around getting large up front payments from owners of distressed malls?

By: ab Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:37:34 +0000 Sounds like you’ve hit on the solution. Assuming empty storefronts do impose negative externalities on nearby businesses, those businesses should be willing to subsidize their neighbors to take lower rents. Landlords renting to the banks, CVS, etc. pay others to rent to restaurants and small shops. Win-win.

By: MattF Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:34:24 +0000 Whether or not a single-landlord development feels like an outdoor mall depends on the landlord. A forward-looking landlord can do development that fits well into an urban landscape– the classic example is Federal Realty’s Bethesda Row development.

The problem is that this kind of development is expensive, requires long-term commitment, and entails endless struggles with local zoning and regulatory bodies. The good news is that over that long term, you end up making a lot of money.