Real Estate (Commercial)

More stories

  • 175 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Financial Stability Experts at the Fed Turn a Wary Eye on Commercial Real Estate

    by

    A financial stability report from the Federal Reserve flagged concerns tied to rising interest rates, including in commercial real estate.Federal Reserve financial stability experts are on the lookout for weaknesses after a year of rising interest rates — and as they survey the potential risks confronting the system, they are increasingly watching office loans and other commercial real estate borrowing.Fed officials have lifted borrowing costs rapidly over the past year — to just above 5 percent from near-zero in early 2022 — to cool rapid inflation by slowing the economy. So far, the fallout from that abrupt change has been most obvious in the banking sector. A series of high-profile banks have collapsed or faced turmoil in recent weeks partly because they were poorly prepared for heftier borrowing costs.But Fed staff members and market experts whom they survey cited commercial real estate as another area worth watching in the central bank’s twice-annual Financial Stability Report, which was released Monday.The jump in interest rates over the past year “increases the risk” that commercial borrowers will not be able to refinance their loans when the loans reach the end of their term, Fed staff wrote in the report, noting that commercial real estate values remain “elevated.”“The magnitude of a correction in property values could be sizable and therefore could lead to credit losses by holders of C.R.E. debt,” the report said — noting that many of those holders are banks, and particularly smaller banks.“The Federal Reserve has increased monitoring of the performance of C.R.E. loans and expanded examination procedures for banks with significant C.R.E. concentration risk,” the report said.The Fed’s comments on commercial real estate amounted to muted watchfulness rather than a full-throated warning — but they come at a time when many investors and economists are closely monitoring the sector. The outlook for office buildings in downtown areas, where workers have not fully returned after a shift to remote work that began during the coronavirus pandemic, has emerged as a particular concern on Wall Street.The report included a survey of 25 professionals at broker-dealers, investment funds, research and advisory organizations, and universities, and those respondents ranked commercial real estate as their fourth-biggest financial stability concern — behind risks from interest rate increases, banking sector stress, and U.S.-China tensions, but ahead of Russia’s war in Ukraine and an impending fight in Congress about raising the debt limit.“Many contacts saw real estate as a possible trigger for systemic risk, particularly in the commercial sector, where respondents highlighted concerns over higher interest rates, valuations and shifts in end-user demand,” the report said.The Fed’s stability report also focused on risks to the economy that might come from the recent banking sector turmoil, which many officials are worried might prompt banks to pull back when it comes to lending. A Fed survey of bank loan officers released on Monday showed that demand for many types of loans has fallen in recent months, and it is becoming gradually harder to borrow.Worries could “lead banks and other financial institutions to further contract the supply of credit to the economy,” the Fed report said. “A sharp contraction in the availability of credit would drive up the cost of funding for businesses and households, potentially resulting in a slowdown in economic activity.”And if banks pull back in a dramatic way, it could have knock-on effects, the Fed report warned.“With a decline in profits of nonfinancial businesses, financial stress and defaults at some firms could increase,” the report said, especially because companies are very indebted — which puts them on dicier footing if business goes badly. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Late-Night Negotiating Frenzy Left First Republic in JPMorgan’s Control

    by

    The resolution of First Republic Bank came after a frantic night of deal making by government officials and executives at the country’s biggest bank.Lawmakers and regulators have spent years erecting laws and rules meant to limit the power and size of the largest U.S. banks. But those efforts were cast aside in a frantic late-night effort by government officials to contain a banking crisis by seizing and selling First Republic Bank to the country’s biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase.At about 1 a.m. Monday, hours after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had been expected to announce a buyer for the troubled regional lender, government officials informed JPMorgan executives that they had won the right to take over First Republic and the accounts of its well-heeled customers, most of them in wealthy coastal cities and suburbs.The F.D.I.C.’s decision appears, for now, to have quelled nearly two months of simmering turmoil in the banking sector that followed the sudden collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank in early March. “This part of the crisis is over,” Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, told analysts on Monday in a conference call to discuss the acquisition.For Mr. Dimon, it was a reprise of his role in the 2008 financial crisis when JPMorgan acquired Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual at the behest of federal regulators.But the resolution of First Republic has also brought to the fore long-running debates about whether some banks have become too big too fail partly because regulators have allowed or even encouraged them to acquire smaller financial institutions, especially during crises.“Regulators view them as adults and business partners,” said Tyler Gellasch, president of Healthy Markets Association, a Washington-based group that advocates greater transparency in the financial system, referring to big banks like JPMorgan. “They are too big to fail and they are afforded the privilege of being so.”He added that JPMorgan was likely to make a lot of money from the acquisition. JPMorgan said on Monday that it expected the deal to raise its profits this year by $500 million.JPMorgan will pay the F.D.I.C. $10.6 billion to acquire First Republic. The government agency expects to cover a loss of about $13 billion on First Republic’s assets.`Normally a bank cannot acquire another bank if doing so would allow it to control more than 10 percent of the nation’s bank deposits — a threshold JPMorgan had already reached before buying First Republic. But the law includes an exception for the acquisition of a failing bank.The F.D.I.C. sounded out banks to see if they would be willing to take First Republic’s uninsured deposits and if their primary regulator would allow them to do so, according to two people familiar with the process. On Friday afternoon, the regulator invited the banks into a virtual data room to look at First Republic’s financials, the two people said. The government agency, which was working with the investment bank Guggenheim Securities, had plenty of time to prepare for the auction. First Republic had been struggling since the failure of Silicon Valley Bank, despite receiving a $30 billion lifeline in March from 11 of the country’s largest banks, an effort led by Mr. Dimon of JPMorgan.By the afternoon of April 24, it had became increasingly clear that First Republic couldn’t stand on its own. That day, the bank revealed in its quarterly earnings report that it had lost $102 billion in customer deposits in the last weeks of March, or more than half what it had at the end of December.Ahead of the earnings release, First Republic’s lawyers and other advisers told the bank’s senior executives not to answer any questions on the company’s conference call, according to a person briefed on the matter, because of the bank’s dire situation.The revelations in the report and the executives’ silence spooked investors, who dumped its already beaten-down stock.When the F.D.I.C. began the process to sell First Republic, several bidders including PNC Financial Services, Fifth Third Bancorp, Citizens Financial Group and JPMorgan expressed an interest. Analysts and executives at those banks began going through First Republic’s data to figure out how much they would be willing to bid and submitted bids by early afternoon Sunday.Regulators and Guggenheim then returned to the four bidders, asking them for their best and final offers by 7 p.m. E.T. Each bank, including JPMorgan Chase, improved its offer, two of the people said.Regulators had indicated that they planned to announce a winner by 8 p.m., before markets in Asia opened. PNC executives had spent much of the weekend at the bank’s Pittsburgh headquarters putting together its bid. Executives at Citizens, which is based in Providence, R.I., gathered in offices in Connecticut and Massachusetts. But 8 p.m. rolled by with no word from the F.D.I.C. Several hours of silence followed.For the three smaller banks, the deal would have been transformative, giving them a much bigger presence in wealthy places like the San Francisco Bay Area and New York City. PNC, which is the sixth-largest U.S. bank, would have bolstered its position to challenge the nation’s four large commercial lenders — JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo.Ultimately, JPMorgan not only offered more money than others and agreed to buy the vast majority of the bank, two people familiar with the process said. Regulators also were more inclined to accept the bank’s offer because JPMorgan was likely to have an easier time integrating First Republic’s branches into its business and managing the smaller bank’s loans and mortgages either by holding onto them or selling them, the two people said.As the executives at the smaller banks waited for their phones to ring, the F.D.I.C. and its advisers continued to negotiate with Mr. Dimon and his team, who were seeking assurances that the government would safeguard JPMorgan against losses, according to one of the people.At around 3 a.m., the F.D.I.C. announced that JPMorgan would acquire First Republic.An F.D.I.C. spokesman declined to comment on other bidders. In its statement, the agency said, “The resolution of First Republic Bank involved a highly competitive bidding process and resulted in a transaction consistent with the least-cost requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.” The announcement was widely praised in the financial industry. Robin Vince, the president and chief executive of Bank of New York Mellon, said in an interview that it felt “like a cloud has been lifted.”Some financial analysts cautioned that the celebrations might be overdone.Many banks still have hundreds of billions of dollars in unrealized losses on Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities purchased when interest rates were very low. Some of those bond investments are now worth much less because the Federal Reserve has sharply raised rates to bring down inflation.Christopher Whalen of Whalen Global Advisors said the Fed fueled some of the problems at banks like First Republic with an easy money policy that led them to load up on bonds that are now performing poorly. “This problem will not go away until the Fed drops interest rates,” he said. “Otherwise, we’ll see more banks fail.”But Mr. Whalen’s view is a minority opinion. The growing consensus is that the failures of Silicon Valley, Signature and now First Republic will not lead to a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis that brought down Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.The assets of the three banks that failed this year are greater than of the 25 banks that failed in 2008 after adjusting for inflation. But 465 banks failed in total from 2008 to 2012.One unresolved issue is how to deal with banks that still have a high percentage of uninsured deposits — money from customers well in excess of the $250,000 federally insured cap on deposits. The F.D.I.C. on Monday recommended that Congress consider expanding its ability to protect deposits.Many investors and depositors are already assuming that the government will step in to protect all deposits at any failing institution by invoking a systemic risk exception — something they did with Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. But that’s easy to do when it is just a few banks that run into trouble and more difficult if many banks have problems.Another looming concern is that midsize banks will pull back on lending to preserve capital if they are subject to the kind of bank runs that took place at Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic. Depositors might also move their savings to money market funds, which tend to offer higher returns than savings or checking accounts.Midsize banks also need to brace for more exacting oversight from the Fed and the F.D.I.C., which criticized themselves in reports released last week about the bank failures in March.Regional and community banks are the main source of financing for the commercial real estate industry, which encompasses office buildings, apartment complexes and shopping centers. An unwillingness by banks to lend to developers could stymie plans for new construction.Any pullback in lending could lead to a slowdown in economic growth or a recession.Some experts said that despite those challenges and concerns about big banks getting bigger, regulators have done an admirable job in restoring stability to the financial system.“It was an extremely difficult situation, and given how difficult it was, I think it was well done,” said Sheila Bair, who was chair of the F.D.I.C. during the 2008 financial crisis. “It means that big banks becoming bigger when smaller banks begin to fail is inevitable,” she added.Reporting was contributed by More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Stress Builds as Office Building Owners and Lenders Haggle Over Debt

    by

    A real estate investment fund recently defaulted on $750 million of mortgages for two Los Angeles skyscrapers. A private equity firm slashed the value of its investment in the Willis Tower in Chicago by nearly a third. And a big New York landlord is trying to extend the deadline for paying down a loan for a Park Avenue office tower.Office districts in nearly every U.S. city have been under great stress since the pandemic emptied workplaces and made working from home common. But in recent months, the crisis has entered a tense phase that could damage local economies and cause financial hits to real estate investors and scores of banks.Lenders are increasingly reluctant to make new loans to owners of office buildings, especially after the collapse of two banks last month.“They don’t want to make new office building loans because they don’t want more exposure,” said Scott Rechler, a New York landlord who is a big player in the city’s office market and sits on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.The timing of the pullback in lending couldn’t be worse. Landlords need to refinance about $137 billion of office mortgages this year and nearly half a trillion dollars in the following four years, according to Trepp, a commercial real estate data firm. The Federal Reserve’s campaign to fight inflation by raising interest rates has also substantially raised the cost of loans still on offer.Banks’ unwillingness to lend and building owners’ desperation for credit have created a standoff. Lenders want to extend loans and make new ones only if they can get better terms. Many landlords are pushing back, and some are threatening to default, effectively betting that banks and investors stand to lose more in a foreclosure. Blackstone slashed the value of the Willis Tower in Chicago by 29 percent. Lyndon French for The New York TimesThe Willis Tower, formerly the Sears Tower, is the third tallest in the country.Lyndon French for The New York TimesHow private negotiations between lenders and building owners are resolved could have major ramifications. Defaults could heap pressure on regional banks and help push the economy into recession. Local property tax revenue, already under pressure, could plummet, forcing governments to cut services or lay off workers.“What we are seeing is this dance between lenders and owners,” said Joshua Zegen of Madison Realty Capital in New York, a firm that specializes in financing for commercial real estate projects. “No one knows what the right value is. No one wants to take a building back,” he said, adding that building owners don’t want to put in new capital, either.He added that the office sector was feeling far more stress than other kinds of commercial real estate like hotels and apartment buildings.Some industry experts are optimistic that given enough time, building owners and their lenders will hammer out compromises, avoiding foreclosures or a big loss in property tax revenue because everybody wants to minimize losses.“I don’t see it as something that is going to result in systematic risk,” said Manus Clancy, a senior managing director at Trepp. “It’s not going to bring down banks, but you could see some banks that have problems. Nothing gets resolved quickly in this market.”Loans on commercial buildings are typically easier than home mortgages to extend or modify. Negotiations are handled by bank executives or specialized finance firms called servicers, which act on behalf of investors that own securities backed by one or more commercial mortgages.But striking a deal can still be hard.Mr. Rechler’s company, RXR, recently stopped making payments on a loan it used to finance the purchase of 61 Broadway in downtown Manhattan. His company got its original investment in the building back after selling nearly half its stake to another investor several years ago, he said. He added that the lender, Aareal Bank, a German institution, was considering selling the loan and the building.“In this illiquid market, can they sell that loan? Can they sell the building?” Mr. Rechler said. Aareal Bank declined to comment.Blackstone bought Willis Tower for about $1.3 billion in 2015.Lyndon French for The New York TimesAnd it committed to spending $500 million on renovating the 50-year-old building.Lyndon French for The New York TimesEric Gural is a co-chief executive of GFP Real Estate, a family-owned firm that has stakes in several Manhattan office buildings, mostly older ones. He has been embroiled in nearly seven months of negotiations with a bank to extend a $30 million loan on a building in Union Square, and just two months are left on the mortgage.“I’m trying to get a one-year extension on an existing loan so I can see what interest rates look like next year, which is likely to be better than they are now,” Mr. Gural said. “Hybrid work has created fear in the banks.”Though many workers have returned to offices at least a few days a week, 18.6 percent of U.S. office space is available for rent, according to Cushman & Wakefield, a commercial real estate services firm, the most since it started measuring vacancies in 1995.Public pension funds, insurance companies and mutual fund firms that invest in bonds backed by commercial mortgages also have an interest in seeing problems resolved or put off. A wave of foreclosures would lower the value of their securities.Many of the mortgages that analysts are most worried about involve buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington — cities where there is a glut of vacant space or where workers are reluctant to return to offices.One such property is the 108-story Willis Tower in Chicago — the third-tallest building in the country, after One World Trade Center and Central Park Tower, both in Manhattan. The giant private equity firm Blackstone bought it for about $1.3 billion in 2015 and committed to spending $500 million on renovating the 50-year-old building, formerly the Sears Tower, including adding retail space and a rooftop terrace.But in December, United Airlines, the building’s largest tenant, paid an early termination fee and vacated three floors; the company still occupies 16 floors. That month, about 83 percent of the building was occupied, according to KBRA Analytics, a credit data and research firm. Blackstone disputes those numbers; Jeffrey Kauth, a company spokesman, said that “approximately 90 percent of the office space is leased.”Blackstone recently notified some of its real estate fund investors that it had written down the value of its equity investment in Willis Tower by $119 million, or 29 percent, said a person briefed on the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive financial information. In March, Blackstone got a fourth extension on the $1.33 billion mortgage, pushing the due date to next year, according to Trepp. Under the terms of the loan, the firm can seek another one-year extension next year.The loan on the Gas Company Tower in downtown Los Angeles is in default.Tag Christof for The New York TimesA loan default sets up 777 Tower for potential foreclosure or sale.Tag Christof for The New York TimesBlackstone said only around 2 percent of the firm’s real estate funds were invested in office buildings — down a lot from a decade ago.Even streets with some of the priciest real estate in the country are not immune.In Manhattan, the owner of 300 Park Avenue, an office building across the street from the Waldorf Astoria, is seeking a two-year extension on a $485 million loan coming due in August, according to KBRA Analytics. The property is owned by a joint venture including Tishman Speyer and several unnamed investors.The 25-story building, built in 1955, is the headquarters for Colgate-Palmolive. But the consumer products conglomerate is shrinking its presence there.“We requested that our loan be transferred to the special servicer well in advance of its maturity so that we can work together on a mutually beneficial extension,” said Bud Perrone, a spokesman for Tishman Speyer.Portions of a bond deal that includes the 300 Park Avenue loan were downgraded last fall by Fitch Ratings because some tenants had left the building, and a lower-rated slice of the bond now trades at about 85 cents on the dollar.Across the country, an investment fund connected to the real estate giant Brookfield Properties defaulted on $750 million of loans for the Gas Company Tower and a nearby building, 777 Tower, in downtown Los Angeles, setting up a possible foreclosure or a sale of the properties, according to the fund.Andrew Brent, a spokesman for Brookfield, said in an emailed statement that office buildings suffering financial challenges were “a very small percentage of our portfolio.”Even as building owners struggle with vacancies and high interest rates, some have found a way to put their properties on a more solid footing.The owners of the Seagram Building in Manhattan have been working to refinance a portion of a loan that comes due in May.Haruka Sakaguchi for The New York TimesNew tenants are needed to fill several floors that Wells Fargo occupied in the Seagram Building.Haruka Sakaguchi for The New York TimesRFR Holding, an investment group that bought the Seagram Building in 2000, is trying to lure tenants back to the office.Haruka Sakaguchi for The New York TimesThe owners of the Seagram Building at 375 Park Avenue in Manhattan have been working to refinance a $200 million portion of a loan that comes due in May while finding new tenants to fill several floors previously occupied by Wells Fargo.RFR Holding, an investment group led by Aby J. Rosen and Michael Fuchs, bought the 38-story building in 2000 for $379 million. To entice employees back to the office, RFR last year built a $25 million “playground” in an underground garage that’s equipped with a climbing wall and pickleball and basketball courts. Four new tenants signed leases in the past few months, according to Trepp.Even with all the vacant space, some landlords like Mr. Rechler’s RXR still want to build new towers. RXR is moving ahead with plans to build what could be one of the tallest buildings in the country at 175 Park Avenue.“It’s one of a kind in what is and will always be one of the best office markets in the world,” he said, referring to the tower. More

  • 125 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Do We Know How Many People Are Working From Home?

    by

    New Labor Department numbers indicate that fewer Americans worked remotely last year. But many experts criticize the government’s data collection.Millions of workers, employers, square feet of real estate and dollars of downtown economic retail are wrapped up in the question of how many people are working from home — yet there remain large discrepancies in how remote work is measured.The Labor Department, last week, released data indicating a decline in remote work: 72.5 percent of businesses said their employees rarely or never teleworked last year, up from 60.1 percent in 2021 and quite close to the 76.7 percent that had no such work before the pandemic. But while the Labor Department found that remote work was almost back to prepandemic levels, many other surveys show it is up four- to fivefold.Outside research, including a monthly survey of workers from researchers at Stanford University and the Census Bureau’s household survey, indicate that remote work remains prevalent, with Stanford’s finding that it accounts for over a quarter of paid full-time workdays in the United States, just slightly down from 33 percent in 2021. Some scholars suggested that the Labor Department’s survey may overcount fully in-person work, though the comparisons among the various surveys aren’t direct.“I see this survey as an outlier and not the most reliable measure,” said Adam Ozimek, chief economist of the Economic Innovation Group, a public policy organization, describing the Labor Department’s survey. “We need to think hard as we try to develop better measures of working from home.”Remote work is having profound effects on nearly every dimension of the economy: foot traffic to downtown businesses, housing markets in big cities and far-flung areas, methods of assessing productivity and child care. Public transportation ridership sank during the pandemic, and suburban real estate values rose.Nearly one billion square feet of office real estate was available but in search of a tenant at the end of 2022. People refashioned their lives and routines, working 28 percent more after traditional hours, according to Microsoft.The stakes of measuring remote work’s prevalence are high. And researchers said the wording of the Bureau of Labor Statistics survey on remote work, which was distributed to businesses, might have caused some confusion among respondents.“Telework is a work arrangement that allows an employee to work at home, or from another remote location, by using the internet or a computer linked to one’s place of employment, as well as digital communications, such as email and phone,” the survey read. “Do any employees at this location CURRENTLY telework in any amount?”By defining telework so broadly — as any worker sending an email or making a call outside the office — the Labor Department’s survey question should most likely have turned up a fully in-person figure lower than the one released last week, said Nick Bloom, an economist at Stanford, suggesting that some businesses may have been confused by the question.This particular Labor Department figure on telework also combines fully remote work with hybrid arrangements. But hybrid work has eclipsed fully remote policies, with just over half of the workers who can do their jobs from home combining in-person and remote work, according to Gallup.A spokeswoman for the Labor Department said the survey most likely did not reflect informal work-from-home arrangements.“Taking into account that the self-employed and the public sector are not included in the sample, and that this is a survey of establishments rather than individuals, our estimates do not appear out of line with other estimates,” the spokeswoman said.Stanford’s monthly study on working from home, which surveys 10,000 workers across cities and industries, found that 27 percent of paid full-time days were worked from home in early 2023.Much of that remote work came from hybrid setups. Last month, the survey found that 12 percent of workers were fully remote, roughly 60 percent fully in person and 28 percent hybrid.Other sources of data confirm that working-from-home patterns remain entrenched in certain industries. The building security firm Kastle, for example, tracks data on office badge swipes and reported this month that offices remained at roughly 48 percent of their prepandemic occupancy.A closer look at New York, from the Partnership for New York City, found that 52 percent of Manhattan office workers were working in person on an average day at the start of this year, up from 49 percent in September. But only 9 percent of employees were in the office five days a week, underscoring the reach of hybrid arrangements. And Square, the retail technology company, which tracks payments at food and drink establishments, found that sales growth at bars and restaurants in Brooklyn had recently outpaced growth of those in Manhattan.“It’s clear that the work-from-home trends induced by the pandemic have transformed the food and drink scene in the city,” said Ara Kharazian, an economist at Square.The Partnership for New York City’s data indicated that financial service firms were back in the office in greater numbers than many other companies. Financial service firms reported 59 percent daily office attendance in late January, according to the partnership. The tech industry, by contrast, was at 43 percent.All this data is emerging as hundreds of companies formalize their policies on hybrid work, with many trying to persuade their employees to spend more time at the office.Amazon told corporate workers last month that they had to be in the office three days a week starting in May, and Starbucks called its 3,750 corporate workers back three days a week as well. Disney asked employees to return to the office four days a week. Its chief executive, Robert A. Iger, cited the need for in-person creative collaborations.Other chief executives have also begun to question the merits of remote work. Even Marc Benioff, chief executive of Salesforce, which told all its employees that they could go permanently remote, began voicing concern this year that productivity among some employees has been lower.As executives clamp down on in-person work, worker resistance has become more vocal. At Amazon, more than 29,000 employees joined a Slack channel, called Remote Advocacy, protesting the shift to in-person work. At Starbucks, more than 40 corporate employees signed an open letter opposing the new return-to-office policy.Wherever people are doing the jobs they already have, mostly in person per the Labor Department or over a quarter of the time at home per others, one metric does indicate that hybrid work is here to stay: job postings.A study from researchers at Stanford, Harvard and other institutions analyzing over 50 million job postings last month found that postings explicitly mentioning remote work are at 12.2 percent — a fourfold increase since before the pandemic. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    As the Fed Raises Rates, Worries Grow About Corporate Bonds

    by

    Executives, analysts and bond traders are all wondering if corporate finance is about to unravel as interest rates rise.As the Federal Reserve raises interest rates in an effort to tame inflation, the corporate bond market, which lends money to many companies, has been hammered particularly hard.The steep rise in interest rates has caused bond values to tumble: From October 2021 to October 2022, an index that tracks investment-grade corporate bonds is down by roughly 20 percent. By some measures, overall bond market losses have been worse than at any time since 1926.Even the price of bonds issued by the highest-rated corporations have cratered this year.The ICE BofA US Corporate Index, which tracks the performance of U.S. dollar denominated investment grade rated U.S. corporate debt, has severely declined.

    Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. LouisBy The New York TimesThe yield on bonds issued by solid businesses is now about 6 percent, about twice as much as it was a year ago. That number indicates how high of an interest rate rock-solid corporations would have to pay to borrow more money right now; rates are even higher for smaller businesses or those that investors consider risky.Corporate bankruptcies and defaults remain low by historical standards, but a growing number of companies are struggling financially. Businesses in industries like retail, manufacturing and real estate are especially vulnerable because their sales are weak or falling. In many cases, their customers have also been hurt by higher interest rates because the higher borrowing costs have effectively raised the costs of big-tickets items like homes and cars.Until recently, for example, Carvana was a fast growing used car retailer with a soaring stock. The number of cars the company sold fell 8 percent in the third quarter, and its spending on interest payments tripled compared with the same period a year earlier. The interest rate on a big chunk of its debt issued this year that matures in 2030 is 10.25 percent. Its bonds are trading at less than 50 cents to the dollar, suggesting that investors would require Carvana to pay an interest rate of nearly 30 percent if it were to borrow more money for the same amount of time. The company’s stock is down more than 90 percent over the last year.“There’s certainly a lot of headwinds,” Ernest Garcia III, Carvana’s chief executive, said on a conference call with analysts last week. “Recently, we’ve seen car prices depreciate to the tune of give or take 10 percent so far this year, but we’ve also seen interest rates shoot up very rapidly and I think that overall has harmed affordability,” he added, even as he expressed optimism about the company’s ability to weather the financial storm.Carvana, Co. has paid more in interest payments in the last quarter compared to last year and sold fewer cars.Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesBefore rates jumped, companies borrowed a ton of money last year, with lower-rated firms selling more new bonds in 2021 than in any other year. But that flow has turned into a trickle as interest rates have risen and investors have grown more discerning about whom they lend money to. Banks are still making more commercial and industrial loans, but they are also becoming more discerning and are charging higher interest rates.Most investors, executives and economists expect a recession or anemic growth next year, which could make doing business, borrowing money and paying off loans even more difficult.What the Fed’s Rate Increases Mean for YouCard 1 of 4A toll on borrowers. More

  • 163 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Times Square May Get One of the Few Spectacles It Lacks: A Casino

    by

    The battle to win a New York City casino license has heated up in Manhattan, with real estate and gambling giants offering competing proposals for Times Square and Hudson Yards.Times Square, New York City’s famed Crossroads of the World, could hardly be considered lacking. It has dozens of Broadway theaters, swarms of tourists, costumed characters and noisy traffic, all jostling for space with office workers who toil in the area.Now one of the city’s biggest commercial developers is pitching something that Times Square does not have: a glittering Caesars Palace casino at its core.The developer, SL Green Realty Corporation, and the gambling giant Caesars Entertainment are actively trying to enlist local restaurants, retailers and construction workers in joining a pro-casino coalition, as the companies aim to secure one of three new casino licenses in the New York City area approved by state legislators earlier this year.The proposal has enormous implications for Times Square, the symbolical and economic heart of the American theater industry, and a key part of the city’s office-driven economy. Although foot traffic in Times Square was almost back at 2019 levels during recent weekends, theatergoers and office workers have been slower to re-embrace a neighborhood where violent crime has risen.Overall attendance and box office grosses on Broadway are lagging well behind prepandemic levels, and there is considerable anxiety within the industry about how changes in commuting patterns, entertainment consumption and the global economy will affect its long-term health.A casino in Times Square faces substantial obstacles. There is already a competing bid for a casino in nearby Hudson Yards from another pair of real estate and gambling giants, Related Companies and Wynn Resorts.And with casino bids also taking shape in Queens and Brooklyn, there is no assurance that the New York State Gaming Commission will place a casino in Manhattan, let alone Times Square, one of the world’s more complex logistical and economic regions.Few things change in Times Square without notice or protest. When the city installed pedestrian plazas in the area more than a decade ago, the move was widely condemned and even lampooned by late-night talk show hosts, before being eventually embraced as an innovative foray in urban design. When the neighborhood’s army of costumed characters gained a reputation for aggressive solicitation, the city restricted them to designated “activity zones,” raising free speech concerns.Now critics worry that putting a casino at 1515 Broadway, the SL Green skyscraper near West 44th Street, would alter the character of a neighborhood that can ill afford to backslide toward its seedier past, and further overwhelm an already crowded area.In a copy of a letter soliciting support for the casino, which was obtained by The New York Times, the companies promised to use a portion of the casino’s gambling revenues to fund safety and sanitation improvements in Times Square, including by deploying surveillance drones.Yet the idea of a casino has already found an influential opponent: the Broadway League, a trade association representing theater owners and producers. On Tuesday, the league sent an email to its members saying it would not welcome a casino to the neighborhood.“The addition of a casino will overwhelm the already densely congested area and would jeopardize the entire neighborhood whose existence is dependent on the success of Broadway,” the league said in a statement. “Broadway is the key driver of tourism and risking its stability would be detrimental to the city.”The congestion in Times Square is both a closely watched sign of vibrancy and a potential irritant, particularly for commuters and theatergoers who sometimes cite the crowds and the cacophony as reasons to stay away.For New York, Times Square is an important financial engine — the city relies heavily on tourists to spend money at the neighborhood’s hotels, restaurants, stores and entertainment venues.There are ample indicators that Broadway is still struggling: Several productions, including “The Phantom of the Opera,” which is the longest-running Broadway show in history, and “A Strange Loop,” which won this year’s Tony Award for best musical, have announced plans to close.Last week, there were 27 shows running on Broadway, seen by 225,731 people and grossing $29 million; in the comparable week in October 2019, before the pandemic, there were 34 shows running that were seen by 286,802 people and grossed $35 million.Still, the Actors’ Equity Association, the labor union representing actors and stage managers, is among those supporting the casino bid, suggesting a contentious road ahead for a proposal that will face a lengthy approval process.“The proposal from the developer for a Times Square casino would be a game changer that boosts security and safety in the Times Square neighborhood with increased security staff, more sanitation equipment and new cameras,” Actors’ Equity said in a statement. “We applaud the developer’s commitment to make the neighborhood safer for arts workers and audience members alike.”The simmering tensions between local power brokers, months before the formal bidding process has even begun, foreshadow the fight ahead for developers hoping to cash in on what could become the most lucrative gambling market in the country, at a time when traditional office-using tenants have become more scarce.A state committee formed this month to review casino applications said the process would open by Jan. 6, and that no determinations on locations would be made “until sometime later in 2023 at the earliest.”In their letter seeking support for the casino, SL Green and Caesars said that gambling revenues could be used to more than double the number of “public safety officers” in Times Square and to deploy surveillance drones.The letter said a new casino would result in more than 50 new artificial intelligence camera systems “strategically placed throughout Times Square, each capable of monitoring 85,000+ people per day.” The safety plans were developed by former New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, according to SL Green.Mr. Bratton did not respond to a request for comment.“As New Yorkers, it’s incumbent on us to keep making sure Times Square is keeping up with the times, and doesn’t go back to what I’ll call the bad old days of the ’70s or the early ’90s,” said Marc Holliday, the chief executive of SL Green. “And we all remember what that was like, when it comes to crime, and, you know, open drug use.”The casino is expected to include a hotel, a wellness center and restaurants, right above the Broadway theater that is home to “The Lion King” musical and a stone’s throw from the site of the ball drop on New Year’s Eve.Earlier this year, the state authorized up to three casino licenses for the New York City region. Legislators have touted the union jobs, tourists and tax revenue that a casino would attract, citing the fact that the bidding for each license will start at $500 million.Two existing “racinos” — horse racetracks with video slot machines but no human dealers — are considered front-runners for two of the three licenses: Genting Group’s Resorts World New York City in Queens and MGM Resorts International’s Empire City Casino in Yonkers, N.Y.The competition for the third license features many of the country’s major casino companies. Steven Cohen, the owner of the New York Mets, has been talking with Hard Rock about a casino near the baseball team’s stadium in Queens. Las Vegas Sands has been finalizing plans for its preferred casino location in the area, and Bally’s Corporation has been scouting for a development partner.The Wynn-Related proposed casino would be on the undeveloped western portion of the Hudson Yards, which was supposed to be completed by 2025 and include residential units and parks. Related, the developer of Hudson Yards, said it plans to fulfill all of its prior housing and public space commitments for the area.In a private pitch deck obtained by The Times, Wynn and Related wrote that Hudson Yards, near the Javits Center, was the ideal location to target “diverse upscale” guests for a casino resort complex.“Because it attracts the upper tier of gaming consumers, Wynn is able to dedicate less than 10 percent of its resort space to gaming, yet still generate significant gaming revenue and tax benefits for municipalities,” reads a slide in the deck.The deck also features photos of an outdoor man-made waterfall — and of a couple enjoying cocktails while watching a cigarette-holding animatronic frog, apparently from Wynn’s “Lake of Dreams” show.In their pitch letter, SL Green and Caesars said the casino was a “once in a lifetime opportunity to once again solidify Times Square as the world’s greatest entertainment area.”Community support is an integral ingredient to winning state approval for a casino license.The Broadway League’s “influence and clout and understanding of what theatergoers want is crucial to the future of Times Square, and if they’re opposing this proposal, I don’t see how it proceeds,” said Brad Hoylman, the state senator representing the district that encompasses Times Square.But Andrew Rigie, president of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, which represents the city’s restaurants and bars, said the group would support a casino in Manhattan if it used local restaurant operators or provided vouchers to nearby eateries. A major question surrounding the economic impact of casinos is whether they incentivize guests to stay and eat inside the building, which could hurt surrounding businesses.Alan Rosen, the owner of Junior’s Cheesecake, a restaurant chain with locations in Times Square and at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, said he was unconcerned.“I can’t see it hurting my business,” he said. “Look at Las Vegas. What do people do? They eat. They go to shows. It’s a lot more than gambling these days.” More

  • 125 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    N.Y.C. Companies Are Opening Offices Where Their Workers Live: Brooklyn

    by

    Before the pandemic, Maz Karimian’s commute to Lower Manhattan was like that of many New Yorkers’: an often miserable 30-minute journey on two subway lines that were usually crammed or delayed.By comparison, when he returned to the office last week for the first time since the coronavirus began sweeping through the city, his commute felt serene: a leisurely bicycle ride from his home in Carroll Gardens to his company’s relocated office about 10 minutes away in Dumbo.“I love the subway and think it’s a terrific transit system but candidly, if I can be in fresh air versus shared, enclosed air, I’ll choose that 10 times out of 10,” said Mr. Karimian, the principal strategist at ustwo, a digital design studio.More than 26 months after the pandemic sparked a mass exodus from New York City office buildings, and after many firms announced and then shelved return-to-office plans, employees are finally starting to trickle back to their desks. But remote work has fundamentally reshaped the way people work and diminished the dominance of the corporate workplace.Companies have adapted. Conference rooms got a makeover. Personal desks became hot desks, open to anyone on a first-come basis. Managers embraced flexible work arrangements, letting employees decide when they want to work in person.And some are taking more drastic measures to make the return to work appealing: picking up their offices and relocating them closer to where their employees live. In New York City, the moves reflect an effort by organizations to reduce a major barrier to getting to work — the commute — just as they start to call their workers back.Before the pandemic, workers in New York City had the longest one-way commute on average in the country, nearly 38 minutes.About two-thirds of ustwo’s employees live in Brooklyn, so it made sense to move the office to Dumbo, on the Brooklyn waterfront, after a decade in the Financial District in Manhattan, said Gabriel Marquez, its managing director.The new space is about 11,500 square feet, slightly smaller than its former office, and was less expensive per square foot to lease than most offices in Manhattan. It is also better suited for when employees do come into the office, featuring an open-air rooftop with Wi-Fi for meetings, he said.“We didn’t need the same relationship with the office and have everyone in five days a week,” said Mr. Marquez, who said that employees are mandated to be there twice a week, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. “It felt like, culturally, it is a good fit and for a lot of companies like ours in our area.”Before the pandemic, the morning commute for Maz Karimian, who works at ustwo, took about 30 minutes on two separate subway lines into Manhattan. Now, his company’s new office in Brooklyn is within biking and walking distance from his home.Jose A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York TimesAs New York City tries to climb out from the depths of economic turmoil, there are recent signs that the city is rebounding despite concerns about crime on the subways and rising coronavirus cases. Tourists are visiting New York at a greater rate than last year, hotel occupancy has increased and earlier this month, daily subway ridership set a pandemic-era record of 3.53 million passengers.Despite those promising signals, a vital piece of the city’s economy remains battered: office buildings.Before the pandemic, office towers sustained an entire ecosystem of coffee shops, retailers and restaurants. Without that same rush of people, thousands of businesses have closed and for-lease signs still hang in many storefronts.Despite pleas for months from Mayor Eric Adams and Gov. Kathy Hochul for companies to require people return to the office, so far, many have heeded demands by their employees to maintain much of the job flexibility that they have come to enjoy during the pandemic.Just 8 percent of Manhattan office workers were in-person five days a week from the end of April to early May, according to a survey from the Partnership for New York City, a business group.About 78 percent of the 160 major employers surveyed said they have adopted hybrid remote and in-person arrangements, up from 6 percent before the pandemic. Most workers plan to come into the office just a few days a week, the group said.The seismic shift in office building usage has been one of the most challenging situations in decades for New York real estate, a bedrock industry for the city, and has upended the vast stock of offices in Manhattan, home to the two largest business districts in the country, the Financial District and Midtown.About 19 percent of office space in Manhattan is vacant, the equivalent of 30 Empire State Buildings. That rate is up from about 12 percent before the pandemic, according to Newmark, a real estate firm. Office buildings have been more stable in Brooklyn, where the vacancy rate is also about 19 percent but has not fluctuated much since before the pandemic, Newmark said.Daniel Ismail, the lead office analyst at Green Street, a commercial real estate research firm, predicted that the office market in Manhattan would worsen in the coming years as companies adjusted their work arrangements and as leases that were signed years ago started to expire. In general, companies that have kept offices have downsized, realizing they do not need as much space, while others have relocated to newer or renovated buildings with better amenities in transit-rich areas, he said.Even before the pandemic, it was not uncommon for companies to move offices throughout the city or to open separate locations outside of Manhattan. The city offers a tax incentive for businesses that relocate to an outer borough, with up to $3,000 in annual business-income tax credits per employee.Nearly 200 companies received it in 2018, for a total of $27 million in tax credits, the most recent data available, according to the city’s Department of Finance. But some office developers are betting on neighborhoods outside Manhattan becoming attractive in their own right, luring companies that specifically want to avoid the hustle-and-bustle of Midtown.More than 1.5 million square feet of office space is under construction in Brooklyn, including a 24-story commercial building in Downtown Brooklyn.Two Trees Management, the real estate development company that transformed Dumbo, is turning the former Domino Sugar Refinery in Williamsburg into a 460,000-square-foot office building. Jed Walentas, its chief executive, said he had so much confidence in the project that it was being renovated on speculation, without office tenants lined up beforehand.“You can’t ignore the talent base that has shifted to Brooklyn and Queens,” Mr. Walentas said. “The notion that they will all take the F train or the L train or whatever train into the middle of Manhattan, that’s faulty.”“We didn’t need the same relationship with the office and have everyone in five days a week,” said Gabriel Marquez, the managing director at ustwo, which moved to the Dumbo neighborhood in Brooklyn.Jose A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York TimesTo be sure, the latest outer-borough office trend is still nascent, and the unpredictable whims of the pandemic could change its course in the future.Brian R. Steinwurtzel, the co-chief executive at GFP Real Estate, whose firm largely owns properties in Manhattan, said that office markets in Queens and Brooklyn could attract certain niches of companies, such as biomedical and life science companies in Long Island City, Queens, where GFP has several sites.But overall, Mr. Steinwurtzel offered a curt assessment of the outer-borough markets: “It’s terrible.”Still, just being able to have panoramic views of Manhattan is enough for some companies.When the European advertising firm Social Chain opened an office in the United States before the pandemic, the group settled in the Flatiron area, an epicenter of the marketing world made famous decades ago by advertising giants on Madison Avenue.But after the pandemic struck and the firm decided to revisit its location, the prestige of being in Manhattan lacked the same magnetism — or necessity, said Stefani Stamatiou, the managing director of Social Chain USA.She toured office locations in Manhattan but none felt like the right fit. Then she traveled across the East River into Williamsburg and found 10 Grand Street, also a Two Trees property. It checked all the boxes — unobstructed views of Manhattan, a flexible floor plan and, most importantly, a shorter commute for a large number of Social Chain’s 42 employees.That includes Ms. Stamatiou, who now walks to work from her home in Greenpoint.“There is actual outside activities and restaurants down below us just like in Manhattan but there’s a sense of space,” Ms. Stamatiou said. “It made sense to be where the creative is, where the people are.” More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Taxpayers May Foot Bill for Penn Station Revitalization, Report Says

    by

    New York State wants to rebuild the transit hub in Midtown Manhattan and pay for the improvements through a larger real estate development.To restore the ailing Pennsylvania Station, both Gov. Kathy Hochul and her predecessor endorsed an extraordinary reimagining of Midtown Manhattan with 10 super-tall skyscrapers — among the largest real estate projects in American history.The ambitious undertaking would be complex but necessary, they said, as the development of new towers would help pay for much-needed improvements at Penn Station, which was, before the pandemic, the busiest train station in the Western Hemisphere and, perhaps, the most universally disliked.But just as New York State is set to approve the project as soon as next month, a new analysis by New York City’s Independent Budget Office has raised serious questions about the financial viability of the development, the state’s role in it and the possibility that taxpayers would have to foot the bill if the revenue its boosters are expecting fails to materialize.Most strikingly, the report concludes, New York State has provided so few financial details about the 18.3-million-square foot project, that it is all but impossible to analyze the plan on the merits. The state’s cost projections have run the gamut from an original estimate of between $30 billion to $40 billion, to an estimate closer to $20 billion, now that the state is no longer bundling the Hudson Tunnel into the same project estimate, it said.The reconstruction of Penn Station would be complete in 2032, before construction would start on half of the towers, largely consisting of office space, demand for which has declined markedly because of the pandemic-induced shift to working from home. The last building would be finished in 2044.During that 12-year gap, the city agency said, revenue from the new buildings’ office leases, hotel rooms, retail and residences may not be enough to pay for the completed transit improvements, which would force taxpayers to cover the bill.“Without this information, it doesn’t seem reasonable to actually be moving on to approving this program,” George Sweeting, the acting director of the Independent Budget Office, the nonpartisan agency that monitors the city budget, said in an interview.A spokesman at the Empire State Development Corporation, the state agency leading the redevelopment, said that the project would not be brought to its board for approval until the financial questions have been resolved. Agency officials said that the city would be protected from financial risk because any shortfalls would be covered by the state.“In addition to cooperating with the I.B.O. on its report, E.S.D. will continue to work with the community, the city, stakeholders and elected officials to ensure their priorities, including a fair financial structure, are in place prior to securing public approval,” the spokesman, Matthew Gorton, said.“We will finally transform the area’s neglected business district, create much-needed affordable housing and social services, vastly enhance the commuter experience and provide a foundation for sustainable growth for the city and the broader region,” he added.Ms. Hochul revised the proposed development plan, which was first introduced by her predecessor, in response to concerns over the size of the project.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesDespite the report’s findings, a spokesman for Mayor Eric Adams said that his administration was still committed to the state’s redevelopment plan.“We are working constructively with our state partners to advance a project that transforms Penn Station and the surrounding area into the world-class transit hub New Yorkers deserve, in a fiscally responsible way,” the spokesman, Charles Lutvak, said.The report amplifies many of the criticisms that were first raised by elected officials and community leaders when former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo revealed the full scope of the project a year ago, just months before he resigned amid sexual-assault allegations.It also echoes similar questions about the project’s finances posed by the New York City Planning Commission in a letter in January to Empire State Development.“The project needs to be retired,” said Layla Law-Gisiko, a community board member in Midtown Manhattan who is running to represent the area in the State Assembly. “The rationale for this project to go forward is to generate the revenue. And this particular project is going to be costing money and not producing revenue.”In many ways, the project mirrored Mr. Cuomo’s other efforts to put his imprint on the city, including the renovation of the Moynihan Train Hall across the street from Penn Station and his reconstruction of the city’s major airports in Queens.In this case, the funds from the development would pay for cosmetic improvements at Penn Station, as well as a potential expansion of the station a block south of its current location. New tracks and platforms would add rail capacity along the economically vital corridor connecting commuters in New Jersey to jobs in New York, after a second tunnel is built under the Hudson River.The state would wield its authority to overrule local zoning and planning laws so that developers could build bigger buildings at the site than otherwise allowed. When Ms. Hochul succeeded Mr. Cuomo, she continued the state’s support for the project while making modest changes to appease critics, such as expanding pedestrian pathways and slightly reducing the project’s proposed scale.The report also highlights a key concern from critics: It would largely benefit a single company, Vornado Realty Trust, one of the city’s largest office developers. Vornado owns four sites in the development zone and part of a fifth, and its chief executive, Steven Roth, last year donated the maximum, $69,700, to Ms. Hochul’s campaign.Mr. Roth, along with his family members, also gave Mr. Cuomo about $400,000 in campaign donations before he resigned. State officials and a Vornado spokesman have said the donations did not influence Vornado’s role in the venture. Mr. Roth has called the redevelopment of the Penn Station area Vornado’s “Promised Land.”In an earnings call this week, Mr. Roth reiterated the company’s commitment to the state’s project. “Obviously, we support it,” he said.A Vornado spokesman declined to comment on the record on the report.Despite the state’s multiyear work on the project and its imminent approval, the Independent Budget Office found that the plan lacked a robust analysis of the numerous risks, including the consequences of the shift to remote work and whether the new Penn Station towers could negatively impact Hudson Yards, the enormous development on the far West Side of Manhattan. Hudson Yards opened in 2019 and has a similarly structured tax deal as the proposed Penn Station site.“It’s a flashing yellow light that the Penn Station redevelopment plan at this stage has more questions than answers,” said Brad Hoylman, the State Senator whose district encompasses most of the proposed development. “There are significant risks that the state has not yet addressed.”Officials have not reviewed whether a simple rezoning of the area to spur redevelopment could produce greater economic benefits and property-tax collections than the state’s project, the agency said. Yet, without the state’s proposal, the area is unlikely to entice developers, the agency said, noting the lack of construction in the Penn Station area. And while the mayor is pro-development, such a rezoning would be unlikely to proceed through the current City Council.The state’s proposed financial scheme would suspend additional property taxes on the new towers but require Vornado and other developers to contribute an undetermined share of their revenues to pay down the construction costs at Penn Station.But without financial specifics, the report said, it is not possible to determine whether the developers would pay less to the city and state in this deal than if the new buildings were subject to standard property taxes. And, while the state would still be collecting payments from developers, the city would lose out on extra property-tax revenue that it would have earned under a standard rezoning.While the Penn Station area has not had seen large redevelopment in decades, Vornado executives have explored such projects in the area for years, which the city agency noted “may signal that little additional incentive is needed, if at all, for those sites.”John Kaehny, the executive director of Reinvent Albany, a government watchdog group, said that the Independent Budget Office’s report makes clear that “the project does not stand up under scrutiny.”“It’s an issue of putting a lot of taxpayers at risk for no reason other than helping Vornado,” Mr. Kaehny said. “It just doesn’t make sense from a public-financing and public-policy perspective.” More