The Four Clients, Which Are You?

In the book, Why I Left Goldman Sachs, the author Greg Smith describes himself as a “not very religious Jew” but that he appreciates the traditions around the Jewish holidays especially the Passover Seder.  He particularly likes the part of the story discussing the reaction of the Four Sons to Passover: one who is wise, one who is wicked, one who is simple, and one who doesn’t know what questions to ask.  He then goes on to say that just as in ancient Egypt it was told about the Four Sons, so too on Wall Street there are the Four Clients.

And I believe just as there are Four Clients on Wall Street, there are also Four Clients in commercial real estate.  These Four Clients represent universal truth.  By that I mean it’s as true today as it was 3,000 years ago and as true as it will be 3,000 years from now.  And these Four Clients transcend all cultures that have ever existed or will ever exist. 

About half my blog readers are clients and the other half are commercial real estate professionals.  So after each client description I give my suggested response of how the commercial real estate professional can best serve this particular type of client. 

THE WISE CLIENT

These are the ones we hope to always have as clients and fortunately many of my clients fall into this category.  They have excellent commercial real estate experience.  They know the ropes but they also respect what you bring to the table.  They realize you are an important cog in the wheel and they don’t grumble about the fee you earn. 

OUR RESPONSE: Treat them with the respect that they deserve.  Listen to them because you have the opportunity to learn from them.  Bend over backwards to get the deal done as promised.

THE WICKED CLIENT

The Wicked Client knowingly withholds adverse information from you about the property or about himself in order to get the best possible outcome for himself.  He has no problem  cutting ethical corners if that is what it takes.  He hopes that whatever he is hiding will stay hidden just long enough to get the deal done. 

OUR RESPONSE: When we find out that important information has been withheld, we disclose it to the light of day.  To not disclose it makes us a party to his deception.  So if it means we lose the transaction and/or the client we do what is necessary so we can go to bed at night with a clear conscience. 

THE SIMPLE CLIENT

The Simple Client thinks he knows more about commercial real estate than he actually does.  He generally has an over inflated ego and as a rule does not trust anyone’s judgment but his own.  If left to his own ways, the outcome of the transaction will get done but it will likely be a more painful process and have a less favorable outcome than if he would have taken your experienced counsel. 

OUR RESPONSE: It is our duty to protect the Simple Client from himself.  We should vigorously give them our best counsel (even when they don't trust us or our advice) but ultimately we leave the decision making to them.  As easty as it would be to be a "yes-man," give them your best counsel and even if they don't take it, they will deep down grudgingly admire that you weren't their sycophant.

THE CLIENT WHO DOESN’T KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS TO ASK

These clients are the most vulnerable, the easiest to take advantage of.  These are the clients that really shouldn’t own commercial real estate.  They don’t even know what questions to ask.  This reminds me of one of my clients, a recent widow whose husband before he died was the one who liked owning and managing commercial real estate.  She was a passive investor but now she had to make all the decisions on her own.

OUR RESPONSE:  Guide them through the process.  Give them wise counsel and charge them a fair fee for services rendered.   One definition of integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking.  With the vulnerable client we show integrity when we treat them right, especially when they wouldn't realize it if we were taking advantage of them.  

So in ending this article I ask, “Which client are you?”  In reality, most of my clients are a combination of two or more of these traits.  Do an honest self-assessment and once you can honestly admit to yourself who you are then find the commercial real estate advisor who will work best with your personality bent.  If you have a tendency under stress to cut ethical corners find someone who will keep you on the straight and narrow.  If you have a tendency to be a bit blustery don’t hire a “yes-man.”  And if you believe you’re in over your head find the advisor who you believe will always be looking out for your best interest and not his own. 

Is It Time To Break Up The Big Banks?

There is a growing, bi-partisan movement on Capitol Hill to pass legislation to break up the big banks.  When was the last time that Democrats and Republicans worked in a bi-partisan fashion on anything?  But I digress. 

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said recently, “if push comes to shove… I would be in favor breaking up the banks.”  Conservative columnist George Will recently wrote a persuasive editorial urging conservatives to support legislation proposed by Ohio U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown (D) to break up the big banks.  Before we look at this proposed legislation, let’s look at the facts.

How many financial institutions are there in the U.S?  As of 2010, there were about 7,700 financial institutions with insured deposits from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).   

How are assets distributed among these 7,700 banks?  The top 12 banks currently hold 69 percent of the total assets of the banking industry.  Community banks, which total about 5,500, have about 12 percent of the banking industry’s assets. 

What are the problems associated with large financial institutions?

1. They are too big to fail.  We cannot allow them to fail because of the negative consequences to our economy and to the world’s banking community.  So this means that we socialize the losses (taxpayers pay the bill) but when they are profitable, as they are now, the banks are allowed to keep their full share of the profits.
2.  They are too big to manage and too complex to regulate.    The recent bank scandals – LIBOR manipulation, money laundering, robo-signing, the “London Whale” – prove the megabanks are out of control.  Though there are a lot of good things in Dodd-Frank, it can only do so much to regulate bad behavior in the banking industry.
3. They are given preferential treatment.  The 20 largest banks pay between 50 to 80 basis points less when borrowing from The Federal Reserve than what community banks must pay.  
4. They are too big to prosecute.  Attorney General Holder stated in recent Senate testimony that “some of these institutions are so large that it becomes difficult for us to prosecute them.”  So in essence, they are too big to jail.  To prove this fact, no one all Wall Street was found guilty on any charges stemming from the 2008 financial meltdown.

So what would the SAFE Banking Act, co-authored by Senator Brown and Senator David Vitter (R-La), do to solve these problems?

1. It would provide sensible limits on the amount of debt that a single financial institution could hold.  No bank could have more debt than 2% of U.S. GDP; and no investment bank could have non-deposit liabilities exceeding 3% of GDP. 
2.  Their funding would be required to come from more stable sources, with about $3 of deposits for every $1 in volatile non-deposit funding.  
3. Banks in excess of this limit would be given three years to comply by drawing up their own proposals to meet this requirement.

Which banks would be affected?  Only six banks would be broken up: JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Citigroup. 

Now that the economy is improving and there are no immediate crises at hand, we need our legislators to push this bill through Congress on a bi-partisan basis for the president’s signature.  This is something that all of us should want to have enacted.  This is good legislation.  Let’s do it!

Sources: Is Fed Signaling Stance on Bank Break-Ups?, by Kayla Tausche, CNBC.com, March 15, 2013; Senator Sherrod Brown explains why he wants to break up the big banks, by Ezra Klein, The Washington Post, March 9, 2013; Time to break up the big banks, by George F. Will, The Washington Post, February 8, 2013.

Are we experiencing a stock market bubble?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed today (March 8th) at another record all-time high of 14,397.07. On the surface this seems like great news.  At long last we are emerging from the Great Recession of 2008.  I read an article in today’s Oregonian which stated that with the recent rise in home prices and the robust increases in the stock market that most Americans have regained the net worth they lost five years ago due to the collapse of the economy.  Wouldn’t that be good news if it were true?  It makes me want to sing a round of “Happy Days Are Here Again.”  

The question that is on my mind, and a lot of like minded people is, “Are we experiencing a stock market bubble caused by The Fed’s quantitative easing policy?  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says emphatically “no.”  He recently told the Senate Banking Committee that he "does not see much evidence of an equity bubble." Yes, stocks are high he says, but that’s because The Fed’s recent policies, which have kept interest rates near zero since 2008, are working to spur spending. 

So let’s begin with the facts.  I think there are three possible reasons for the stock market surge:

• First of all the economy is not as weak as we have been led to believe.  We have seen modest growth in autos, housing and manufacturing activity.  Today’s employment report shows improvement in the private sector employment resulting in a downward tick in unemployment to 7.7%.  Not great but improving, nonetheless. 
• With The Fed’s policy of keeping interest rates at near zero is making it impossible to get an honest return on bonds, savings accounts, money market funds or CDs.  I believe investors are putting their money in equities because these other traditional forms of investment have been taken away from them.
• There is some evidence to suggest that investor confidence is surging because we have avoided the serious crises in Europe and the United States from imploding.  The euro zone crisis and the fiscal cliff crisis in the U.S. have worked their way out and investors feel more confident that we will continue to somehow muddle through. 

However when you look at the stock market fundamentals there is little justification for the recent rise in equities:

• Profit growth has been slowing.  The growth rate in the S&P 500 has slowed from 6.0% last year and is projected to be 1.2% the first quarter of this year. 
• The best long-term measure of value is the price-earnings ratio.  Currently the PE ratio is at 22.9 which is 39% above its long term average.  In other words stocks are significantly over priced.  An old rule of thumb is when investors buy assets at above average valuations they will suffer below average future returns.

It is my opinion that this bull market is not driven primarily by economic reality on the ground but by The Fed’s quantitative easing policy.  Fed Chairman Bernanke says that he plans to continue this policy for at least another two years which bodes well for the stock market for the foreseeable future.  In the short run I wouldn’t bet against The Fed Chairman.  But at some point when a new crisis emerges or an old one raises its ugly head then all bets are off.  

Sources: The Great Stock Market Rally, The Huffington Post by Jerry Jasinowski, March 8, 2013; Better than the alternatives, The Economist, March 9, 2013, Bernanke: There is no stock bubble, CNNMoney by Annalyn Kurtz, February 26, 2013.

Sequestration – Will it be as devastating as predicted?

You’ve heard it from both sides of the aisle – Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, President Obama, Mitch McConnell – sequestration will be “devastating.”  “We’ve got to avoid it, we’ve got to stop it,” said John McCain.  He is being universally echoed with similar quotes by all of the Democrat leadership in Congress.  Let’s begin this discussion with the facts. 

What is sequestration?  Sequestration is a budget law that requires across the board spending cuts amounting to $1.2 trillion over 10 years or $109 billion per year.   

How much will be cut in 2013?  The last minute fiscal cliff deal in early January included cuts of $24 billion for 2013, so in the remaining seven months of this fiscal year the government must cut another $85 billion. 

How much is the federal government’s budget for the current fiscal year?  $3.8 trillion

Where would the cuts come from?  Equal amounts would come from the Defense Department and discretionary social spending.  The Defense Department makes up about one-quarter of the total federal budget; discretionary social spending comprises about half of the total budget, and non-discretionary social spending and the interest on the debt making up the balance. 

So who will be most affected by the cuts?  The cuts on a percentage basis would be deepest in defense spending because it represents a quarter of the budget but half of the cuts.

What programs won’t be cut?  Social security, Medicaid, the food stamp program and veteran’s benefits.  Active duty personnel would also be exempt.  Interestingly, Medicare is not exempt.

When does sequestration begin?  Officially it begins March 1^st but in reality it will roll out over a period of several weeks.

So those are the facts.  Now let’s look at what the impact of these cuts in spending will have on our economy.  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the sequestration cuts will reduce public- and private-sector employment by 750,000 jobs and will reduce our GDP by 0.5%.  In other words, our GDP, which is growing at about 2.0% right now, would slow to about 1.5%.  Depending on who you listen to the list of programs that will be affected is long and deep including:

• the Federal Aviation Administration,
• the National Parks,
• the Pentagon, 
• Health and Human Services, 
• Humanitarian Aid,
• Border Security,
• Education,
• Disaster Relief
• Law Enforcement 

The list appears to be endless.  This is what those in power are saying, in a nutshell, “The world is coming to an end as we know it.”  They may not use these exact words but that is what they are trying to convey.  I respectfully disagree.  Yes there will be consequences to making these cuts.  There will be some pain but the world will go on and in the long run we’ll all be better for it.  

Sadly, there are very few politicians in Washington who are willing to make modest cuts in spending, and make no mistake about it, that is what $1.2 trillion is over 10 years.  A cut of $85 billion in fiscal 2013 represents 2.3% of the total $3.8 trillion federal budget.  Do you actually believe that a 2.3% cut in spending is going to be “devastating?”  Have you had to make cuts in personal spending that have been much greater than this over the past several years?  I certainly have.   

The sequestration cuts are not perfect, they’re a blunt instrument to cut spending, rather than a deliberate plan that sets priorities, trims entitlements, and cuts other spending.  It would be better to replace them with better cuts but the reality is that Washington does not have the will to make spending cuts.  There is no political block in Washington that represents the constituency of the overburdened taxpayer.  In contrast, there are thousands of lobbyists on Capitol Hill that visit our congressional representatives in order to make sure that they’re constituency, whatever that may be, is getting their fair share of the spending pie. 

Don’t buy into the hysteria.  The cuts will not be devastating.  If the sequestration cuts actually happen, six months from now you’ll hardly notice. 

Sources: Sequestration Q & A, Money Watch, by Jill Schlesinger, February 22, 2013; Sequestration: The Facts About the Policy, BeforeItsNews.com, February, 19, 2013; The GOP Divide Over Sequestration (and Everything Else), The Atlantic, by Molly Ball, February 15, 2013.

Three Things to Consider When Choosing a Property Management Company

From time to time investors ask me to refer property management companies to them.  I’m glad to do it as one of the advantages of being a commercial mortgage broker is that I come in contact with lots of property management companies. 

Years ago, it seems like another lifetime, I was a property manager.  I managed three Class A apartments totaling over 500 units.  I had 23 employees under me.  Being a property manager was the longest three years of my life.  I will never do that again.  So I have a lot of respect for those property managers who do their jobs well.  It requires a certain type of personality that I frankly do not have.    

In the course of my work as a mortgage broker, I inspect lots of properties, talk with a lot of on-site managers and get to review many different types of operating statements.  Over the years I’ve gotten to know the good property management companies from those that are grossly incompetent.  So what makes a good property management firm? 

There are lots of questions you could ask, however I would focus my questioning on three broad categories:

How do you charge for your services?  I’m aware of at least three different ways that property management firms charge their clients:

1.   The most common is a property management fee based of effective gross income.  Is their management fee competitive with what is being offered in the market? 

2.   Sometimes property management companies will charge you a hidden fee when using their maintenance personnel.  This can happen when a property doesn’t have a full time maintenance man and the management company’s maintenance man is contracted out at an hourly rate whenever needed.  Does the management company charge the owner of the property an hourly rate equal to their cost of employing their maintenance man or do they charge the property owner at an hourly rate that’s well above what it actually costs the property management company to have this person employed by them?  Many times the property management company is charging the property owner an hourly rate that is well above what it’s costing them to have this employee on staff.  If so, they are making money on you every time a maintenance item is being fixed on your property.  Just by looking at the Maintenance & Repair costs I can usually tell which property management companies are charging an excessive hourly rate for their maintenance personnel. 

3.   Do they charge the owner of a property an asset management fee?  If so is the fee a reasonable expense for the services rendered and again is it really a hidden profit center for the property management company?    

Are their operating statements easily readable and disclose all important information?  The quality of operating statements I see varies widely from hand written to very detailed computer generated reports.  Income and expense items to watch: 

1.   Do the operating statements begin with gross potential rent or do they begin with effective gross income?  In other words do the statements show vacancy, bad debt, and concessions?  If the statements do not show gross potential then owners can’t determine quickly how much vacancy the property is experiencing.   

2.   Do the operating statements show all payroll expenses including free rent?

An owner cannot make informed decisions on his property without having accurate and detailed operating statements that show the “good, the bad and the ugly.”

Can I help select my on-site manager?  No matter how good the property management company is, the on-site manager has the most influence on a property’s performance.  And the only way to determine the quality of an on-site manager is to observe how well they do their job.  I would focus on these issues:

1.   How is the property’s curb appeal?  Is trash found lying on the grounds picked up regularly?  Are trash enclosures hidden and well maintained so as not to be an eyesore?  Are flower beds weed free and attractive? 

2.   How well do they stay on top of collecting monthly rents?  Some managers are passive about collecting rents which over time will cause collection problems.  Other managers promptly post notices and stay on top of renters who pay slowly.

3.   How quickly do they get a unit ready to be re-rented?  In a tight rental market that we are in, every day a unit is waiting to be cleaned is money out of your pocket.  Ask the manager what type of system she has for getting units market ready. 

A good on-site manager is worth their weight in gold and can have a significant impact on the property’s cash flow.   The old adage, “You get what you inspect, instead of what you expect” is very true in property management.    

Choosing a property management company and an on-site property manager in many instances can make the difference between a property that does well and one that limps along.  Call me if you need a recommendation.