Can someone help me understand what is YTD direct net absorption vs YTD overall net absorption?
file:///C:/Users/Asus/Downloads/OrangeCounty_Americas_MarketBeat_Office_Q12017.pdf

In a Cushman and Wakefield market research report on office, I see two columns- YTD direct net absorption and YTD overall net absorption, can someone tell me what do those mean? And is YTD leasing activity, the total new leasing space (not including renewals) leased in a given period?

Thank you!
[{"id": "dp1u1vs", "text": "The difference is absorption of sublease vacancy.\n\nDirect absorption is net leasing (directly) between landlords and tenants. Overall absorption adds in absorption of spaces on the sublease market. \n\nSo if a market has direct absorption of 50k SF and overall absorption of 75k SF, then 25k SF of sublease space was also absorbed. ", "replies": [{"id": "dp1vvld", "text": "Thank you so much! and a basic question on absorption, when a market has an absorption of 50K sf last year, does that mean the market absorbed 50K more new space than what was vacated. So, if a new building with 200K new space is coming onto the market next year, would it be safe to assume that it will take a while and it wont be easy for 200K space to be leased as the market could only absorb 50K the previous year?", "replies": [{"id": "dp1zuuf", "text": "&gt;when a market has an absorption of 50K sf last year, does that mean the market absorbed 50K more new space than what was vacated. \n\nYes. \n\n&gt; So, if a new building with 200K new space is coming onto the market next year, would it be safe to assume that it will take a while and it wont be easy for 200K space to be leased as the market could only absorb 50K the previous year?\n\nSo many factors impact how long it will take to lease up. You're correct that absorption is one... Vacancy is another. If absorption is 50k and there's still 500k of vacant space out there, then yeah, I'd be pretty worried about a new 200k SF building... Even if my building is \"better\" than the competition. \n\nIf however there's only 20k SF of vacant space and my building is newer, nicer and better located than the competition, maybe I'm confident that I'll get my fair share of the absorption AND I'll steal tenants from other buildings resulting in a reasonable lease up period for me, even though the overall market only absorbed 50k SF/year during that time. ", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "dp1uyhn", "text": "Direct indicates absorption only due to direct leases (excludes sublease) and overall includes both...", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "dpjkd70", "text": "Not related to your question, but nobody can see the file you are trying to link because the path leads to your computer directly and not to an internet address. ", "replies": [], "depth": 1}]