It's funny that business owners don't share the extra profits with landlords in the good years, but they want the landlord to share in the losses in the bad years.
Just a thought on this new pervasive expectation that landlords should be the providers of loss abatement during the pandemic, as if we are somehow equity partners in the tenants businesses but only when things get rough.  

If I were a commercial landlord right now I'd be negotiating huge profit sharing deals for years if tenants couldn't pay rent for a few months in 2020.
[{"id": "fm0gyd2", "text": "Or that they want to increase our taxes every year to pay for bullshit programs that just funnel money to corrupt politician's buddies, but then want to \"cancel rent\" without any plan to cancel taxes", "replies": [{"id": "fm0hi6c", "text": "For sure. Or like in Vancouver you can be sitting on an old 12-unit apartment downtown, rents 40% below market.  Rent increases locked in at inflation. \n\nBut because the land happens a to be 10-20 FSR, they get taxed on the *potential* income as if a 20-storey tower was on the lot. Not allowed to raise rents though.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0houa", "text": "Jesus...Is this true? That is insane.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0jhd7", "text": "100%.  All residential tenancies are being treated as soon-to-be social housing agreements by politicians.", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm0nt4y", "text": "Why not just sell the property to a developer? Tenants lose their under market (and owner subsidized) housing and owner gets actual value.", "replies": [{"id": "fm104x4", "text": "That's the objective. Only large developers survive though. The taxes are insane.  Also the tenant policies require the brand new units to be delivered to them at the same rents. A residential tenancy is some kind of Holy grail of public policy.", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm0vxus", "text": "that is terrible. holy shit", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0gyot", "text": "But don't forget all Landlords are evil greedy entities so they had this coming ya know.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0hkea", "text": "Oh that sweet sweet 4.5% return. How could anyone be so greedy?", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0w548", "text": "Ive stopped talking about work with friends. They all think landlords are fat cats counting cash in their mansion.", "replies": [{"id": "fm2bsmm", "text": "Like I would count my own cash.  \n\nThat's what the accountants are for.\n\nPlus cash has been touched by poors.  Eww.\n\n*puffs Cuban cigar*", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0htar", "text": "Access to the properties is illegal by emergency law, that sounds like a landlord problem not a tenant problem. (Devils advocate, I'm on both sides of the table.)", "replies": [{"id": "fm0hzng", "text": "That\u2019s related to evictions right now, not after the immediate crisis has passed. Retail revenues are gonna be hurt for a while, evictions will restart in a few months.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0j9zt", "text": "Two parties may reach an agreement in a pandemic but my point stands - tenants rarely send the landlord surplus profits when things go well, but now things are going poorly the first relationship they look to exploit is the landlord.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0n08v", "text": "I disagree, the first \"relationship\" that the tenant exploits his own bank account, then his employees.. The landlord is not the first one in line.\n\nAn act of God is in process, and you think that you are being taken advantage of?\n\nIt's the landlord's property which is inaccessible..", "replies": [{"id": "fm19aa3", "text": "&gt; It's the landlord's property which is inaccessible..\n\nIf you are trying to get technical with these emergency orders, I disagree. The orders are not \u201cyou cannot access X property\u201d, they are you \u201cyou cannot operate X business type\u201d. The same landlord in a strip mall might have a CrossFit gym, a small fabrication shop, an engineering firm, and a cleaning supply distributor. Some of those may be closed by order, some may not, and all by reason of their business type, not their location.", "replies": [{"id": "fm1fkgf", "text": "Yes, and the landlord chose to rent it to these non essential businesses.\n\nAlso, since there is no alternative use to the property during the time of the shutdown, what is the landlord's BATNA?\n\nThe most reasonable compromise is to pause the lease and extend the term.", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0iser", "text": "They can be done in retail leases.  It\u2019s called percentage rent.\n\nEDIT: I replaced \u201ctypically do\u201d with \u201ccan be done\u201d.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0j5jt", "text": "Percentage rent included in extremely small percentage of retail leases, almost non-existent in other property types.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0jxm5", "text": "It is in more than an extremely small percentage of retail leases.\n\nIt is virtually non-existent in most other property types though.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0kyjh", "text": "Not saying you're wrong but I have encountered exactly 1 % rent clause in my retail experience. What tenants or types of tenants do you see that still have % rent?", "replies": [{"id": "fm0l7ql", "text": "I guess I\u2019ve just encountered it a fair amount.  I\u2019ve seen percentage rent for in-line tenants in grocery anchored centers, in more high-end retail locations, and in a newly constructed power center.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0ld8j", "text": "Interesting. Could be that we have different geographies and that our market norms are different.", "replies": [{"id": "hporbej", "text": "In Southern California it's almost uncommon to try and open a restaurant and NOT have your rent have some tie in into your gross profits. Makes trying to open a restaurant infinitely harder. Think it's because one city started the trend (Irvine) way back in the day, and other landlords in other counties followed suit. If you want to rent commercial space, don't do it in Irvine lol.", "replies": [], "depth": 7}], "depth": 6}], "depth": 5}, {"id": "fm0nxwf", "text": "I've seen a few in fast food", "replies": [], "depth": 5}, {"id": "fm0t27c", "text": "Right? most of them negotiated that clause out during the LAST downturn.", "replies": [{"id": "fm2iwlg", "text": "Who? The tenants?  Do they think they\u2019re being smart?  If I\u2019m a retail landlord, I\u2019d like to lock them in for as much BMR as possible with little potential for overage.", "replies": [], "depth": 6}], "depth": 5}, {"id": "fm0vhd0", "text": "I've only seen 1 and it's a CVS from the 80s", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}, {"id": "fm0wj7y", "text": "This is correct", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm0nw1m", "text": "It\u2019s much more prevalent in Europe", "replies": [], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm13hfl", "text": "It's also a massive pain in the ass for a landlord? Do you want to be auditing the books of every tenant every year to make sure you are getting your fair share of percentage rent? Hell no. Much better to just be paid a known negotiated dollar amount than to have to fight over what is being paid every year.", "replies": [{"id": "fm1bi91", "text": "I am a property accountant and it is not a pain the ass.", "replies": [{"id": "fm1bx50", "text": "For a small building owner who doesn't have a property accountant, it is.", "replies": [{"id": "fm1cnu4", "text": "Not if you hire me!", "replies": [], "depth": 6}, {"id": "fnr6pep", "text": "You gotta pay to play.", "replies": [], "depth": 6}], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm1upg7", "text": "Agreed with you.  It was much more common in older leases.  It is very rare in today's leases and even so, the breakpoints are so high in most cases, they are almost unattainable.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0jqcr", "text": "Not typical at all any more. If a lease does include a percentage rent provision, it's usually the result of a tenant having a ton of option terms that included it from a lease signed decades ago.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0wfbn", "text": "This is my experience as well. It's an outdated thing in my area.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0jund", "text": "Additionally on small shop retail spaces, a lot are paying a market rent based on anchor tenants that are traffic generators like movie theaters or gyms. Hopefully they have a clause that goes into anchor tenant closures or are in a grocery anchored center. \n\nOn the percentage rent side, how do you think that could be addressed for loss of business/sales? It would be difficult to institute a range of expected sales and have agreement for mom and pops who don\u2019t have operating history. Plus, how can you be sure they are doing everything to run the business effectively? I\u2019ve been thinking about it a lot lately and just not sure if there is already some clause that exists covering this", "replies": [{"id": "fm0kdu3", "text": "It\u2019s pretty common for co-tenancy clauses tied to an anchor (because that\u2019s why they located their shop there) or to overall occupancy of the center.\n\nLandlords really benefit by having a fixed amount of rent they receive if sales are below X and a portion of wales if it is above X.  Generally you\u2019d just rely on the profit motive.  You align your interests with them and assume they want to make as much money as possible.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm0l9sy", "text": "Many shop space leases in anchored centers do have co-tenancy clauses. Some allow the tenant to close altogether with x days written notice if an anchor/s close, some allow the tenant to pay 50% rent for a certain amount of time etc.\nPercentage rent lease agreements should still have a component of base rent. If they don't, then LOL at the LL.\nI think % rent is an outdated concept that should be done away with entirely. Because retail is omnichannel now, internet sales often blend with brick and mortar with returns being done in person, which the store can use to \"deduct\" their gross sales numbers thereby avoiding or reducing % rent. The original intent of percentage rent was sound - tenants are motivated to always sell as much as they can and LL's are motivated to keep them happy by providing traffic, complimentary co-tenants and keeping the center vibrant. But it doesn't make sense anymore.", "replies": [{"id": "fm1n8m0", "text": "Haven't seen too many complimentary co-tenants, but complementary ones are good.", "replies": [{"id": "fm1wrio", "text": "Lol. Congrats man, you got me.", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0kth7", "text": "There's overage rent (% of sales over a breakpoint, paid in addition to BMR) and percentage in lieu of base rent. And yes, both are common in retail still to this day.  Hell, landlords are even coming up with ways to capture a % of digital sales if they are within a certain radius of a store.", "replies": [{"id": "fm15mgn", "text": "That is super interesting. How do they even capture/share that data?", "replies": [{"id": "fm18cyg", "text": "A lot of negotiating on the landlord's part.  The data/theory driving it is that online sales increase in and around the zipcodes where retailers have a bricks and mortar presence.  Furthermore, Landlord's are fighting two more issues: (1) Bricks and mortar stores deducting in store returns from their online sales from the store's sales and (2) BOPIS (buy online, pickup in store).  The store doesn't get any credit for the sale. They capture the data by requiring the tenant to report the sales.", "replies": [{"id": "fm1fcx7", "text": "Really interesting stuff. Thanks for answer!", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm26uqb", "text": "i\u2019ve seen cases where landlords are capturing a % of every online \u201cpickup\u201d whenever a customer walks in to pick up their online order.", "replies": [{"id": "fm2a9uf", "text": "Good.  The bricks and mortar location thus has value and should share some credit for the sale (assuming tenant pays overage or % in lieu).\n\nEdit: Hell, even if they dont pay overage or % in lieu, they should be required to report this so that the landlord can accurately value the space.", "replies": [{"id": "fm2fh4r", "text": "Some of those who I talked to were only required to report sales from their store, and most online orders were done at corporate level (in reality, they just used a 'virtual' store #), so technically it wasn't their income, and LL's couldn't collect percentage rent on them.\n\nHowever, with the increase of online \"click-n-collect\", foot traffic increased, but retail landlords weren't getting any of the $$. Nice loophole.", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0q4xj", "text": "You might have just helped this person out. It\u2019s always great when Reddit can be an educational experience instead of a troll farm.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0q7oz", "text": "That's really only malls with anchor tenants.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0qsoa", "text": "No, plenty of non-anchor tenants in grocery centers have percent rent. Lots of fast food tenants too.", "replies": [{"id": "fm12lcp", "text": "In what scenario? Where would that make any sense?", "replies": [{"id": "fm33yr8", "text": "My first job out of college 7 years ago was doing site selection for one of the big hair salon chains, we did a ton of leases in grocery anchored center where we payed percent rent over a break even.", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm1eb21", "text": "Yep", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm2u3ee", "text": "I wouldn't say typically. It's fairly common but not necessarily a staple these days.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0jnxl", "text": "So you're telling me that as a landlord you don't receive any benefit from the credit quality of your income stream? The reason landlords are being asked to shoulder some of the burden on abatement is because it benefits the landlord for good tenants to emerge from this crisis healthy.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0la6b", "text": "Once this is over landlords will not make the same mistake again.  I'd be looking at 6-month rent holdback in a separate account to mitigate the risk.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0ol8v", "text": "If we have a recession, it might be a tall order. If the economy recovers quickly, then landlords can start making demands.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm2i1ev", "text": "In many markets for normal class B office or industrial that is just not a realistic demand. As long as it\u2019s a tenants market that won\u2019t stand", "replies": [], "depth": 3}, {"id": "fm4003g", "text": "There\u2019s no way someone will pay half a year up front to rent, especially in a city, when they could just keep saving and put a down payment on a mortgage.\n\nThe buck shouldn\u2019t be passed on to your customer because you assumed more risk than you could tolerate \u2014 The risk here being, what\u2019s the chance a renter goes months without paying?\n\nLandlords have had it relatively good these past few years. Its only a couple of months to endure, and if they can\u2019t be endured, that\u2019s a business operation problem you have. \n\nCause even without a pandemic, things can happen where there\u2019s renters who will not pay, and only get evicted via court order. Imagine someone living for a year+ in your house without paying, while courts litigate your case. Oh and no back pay. \n\nyou do you, your houses, your tenants. All I\u2019m saying is I think the only people who need to resort to these measures are people who can\u2019t play the game right, and offset that by financially imposing on tenants.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm0m9jk", "text": "Of course landlords receive the benefit of the credit quality of the rental income stream - but so do \"credit worthy tenants\".  For example, when it comes to long term commercial leases, landlords are inclined to fund a big portion of the tenant improvements and of course all of the leasing commissions and other lease transaction costs, amounting to a relatively long payback period, for a good credit tenant.  Then imagine this good credit tenant turning around and saying they refuse or cannot pay rent.  Granted this is can be classified as a Force Majeure event, which I acknowledge is not the tenant's fault that their income substantially dropped, but is it the landlord's fault for not having predicted that their credit worthy tenant was going to be impacted by a global pandemic?  If it isn't the landlord's fault, then why give the landlord the risk and detriment? \n\nPut another way, I think government assistance is probably the best approach here.  Commercial tenants looking for rent relief should also be prepared to share the future benefit of their surviving the crisis, because by asking for rent relief, they are asking the landlord to share in their business risks.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0pl4n", "text": "I understand that there are upfront costs to the landlord, and force majeure is going both ways right now (i.e., yes, tenants are asking for rental abatements, but landlords doing build-to-suits in some areas are going to struggle with delivery dates to tenants as well). That said, landlords have benefitted from cap rate compression and mortgage policy, and part of the tradeoff of sky-high valuations is that you need your good tenants to perform long-term. \n\nFrom the landlord's perspective, if a good tenant has short-term cash flow issues due to this, and needs the landlord's help, then it seems to me the landlord has two options: 1) work with the tenant to defer rent, and try to extend the term of the lease by a few months, and recover the deferred rent on the back end when the tenant is in a healthier position to do so, which obviously helps the LL's own valuation; or 2) tell the tenant to pound sand, in which case they likely just default because pounding sand doesn't solve cash flow issues in a pandemic. I view things from the landlord's perspective and 1) is the better option to me.", "replies": [{"id": "fm28k4b", "text": "Agreed, one is better.", "replies": [{"id": "fm2hw31", "text": "Agreed that 1 is better, but still doesn\u2019t seem \u201cfair\u201d to just push the adverse effects to the landlord. Rent deferrals are one thing, but rent abatement or relief just seems crazy to me.", "replies": [{"id": "fm3zk8q", "text": "What\u2019s crazy is there\u2019s a pandemic floating around that robs people of their ability to breathe. \n\nI know you have a bottom line, but let\u2019s keep things in perspective.\n\nIt\u2019s not like your renter had any say in whether they would remain employed or not, so the situation isn\u2019t fair to them, either.\n\nYou should be negotiating with your lenders and catering to your renters to get through a couple months", "replies": [{"id": "fm4289w", "text": "I think I\u2019m just jaded because of all of the tenants that I\u2019ve seen trying to take advantage of this situation. I am a commercial office asset manager and we\u2019ve had multi billion dollar publicly traded companies that have no direct business effects of COVID that have used this situation to demand free rent. There\u2019s no way these companies don\u2019t have the cash to pay rent, they just don\u2019t want to. \n\nI agree it\u2019s a time to be compassionate, but there are factors that are out of our control as the landlord. Mortgage payments, real estate taxes, utility bills, etc are still due. We are continuing to clean mostly empty buildings with a full staff to keep our janitorial and building staff working and getting paid. If we don\u2019t get rent we won\u2019t be able to sustain that for long.", "replies": [], "depth": 7}], "depth": 6}], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0p13m", "text": "A few years ago, when oil prices dropped drastically, a number of tenants in the energy industry began looking to renegotiate their rent since their bottom line was being hit. My comment to the landlords I represent was \"does that mean we get to raise the rent when times are good?\" No, of course not. So why should it go the other way?\n\nThat said, these are unprecedented times. One solutions a number of my landlords have offered is to abate the net rent for the next couple months but then amortize the deferred months over the remaining term. Essentially an interest free loan on the next couple months. A fair compromise, in my opinion.", "replies": [{"id": "fm0zlh6", "text": "Yes I agree that is the best option.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm13p4k", "text": "This is basically what will happen. The forbearance given from Fannie/Freddie Deals will all work like this. Loan payment status will remain current and they will just be marked with a special indicator. The money will then be due over the next 12 months or whatever. So for any CMBS deal, the logical thing to do is to pass that through to your tenants. ...and hopefully they can pay you back. If you have grocery/pharmacy/essential businesses as an anchor, you\u2019ll definitely be fine. Hospitality... you\u2019re probably fucked... so do whatever you need to do as the borrower to make it through. If CMBS, the deal will most likely transfer to special anyway.", "replies": [{"id": "fm2msf0", "text": "Deals don\u2019t go to special under forbearance.", "replies": [{"id": "fmojebm", "text": "That\u2019s not accurate as a blanket statement. Some deals require the special servicer to approve a forbearance of a certain length. Additionally, a loan can be called to the special for default risk, and given the environment, I\u2019m sure more than a handful of loans have been identified as having serious default risk.", "replies": [{"id": "fmojuwr", "text": "Deals in a CMBS conduit can only move to special once they stop paying. They can sit on watch list for default risk but only his SS when they default. \n\nAnd also to that point the OA would approve not the SS, but there\u2019s nothing to approve in forbearance because it\u2019s still with the master. You as OA are still getting paid either way under forbearance so there\u2019s nothing to approve. The only way it would impact you is if it ends up in special and you want to buy it but don\u2019t do so before the foreclosure and now get stuck with full exposure pricing.", "replies": [{"id": "fmokg8r", "text": "Loans can absolutely be brought in for special servicing for significant default risk. You\u2019re using all the right acronyms and everything, but that\u2019s all still incorrect as a blanket statement. Here\u2019s a scenario I\u2019ve seen dozens of times: Default risk is high, say from a majority tenant stating they won\u2019t renew their lease. Borrower tries and tries to find a replacement tenant and can\u2019t. Borrower can request a transfer to the SS - isn\u2019t always approved, but is in many cases. Something on the WL May be brought in prior to an actual payment default if the risk is high enough. Source: Me - almost 10yrs working for a large SS.", "replies": [{"id": "fmopfyc", "text": "I\u2019ve never seen it that way, but defer to you - I come from a large hedge fund buying first loss pieces where everything was already in special, I had always understood that payment default was what forced the transfer, though I\u2019ve never worked on performing CMBS positions.", "replies": [{"id": "fmoq9bi", "text": "Those Loan Agreements and the underlying documents that govern the master and special servicer\u2019s roles/rights are chock full of little exceptions. That said, payment default is absolutely the leading reason for transfer!", "replies": [{"id": "fmowsz9", "text": "So I guess the benefit to borrower under your scenario of a major tenant blow out is that they can then start the workout before they default? I guess that is a little bit friendlier than having a monetary default occur and a receivership order put in place.... Generally by the time we were involved the borrower had long long since walked away so I was working with the SS to execute an FMV. \n\nNow I generally work on Agency CMBS where the only way it moves to SS is following a payment default but I suppose GSE is a totally different beast. \n\nAnd yea, the indentures are crazy long and nuanced.", "replies": [{"id": "fmox8hd", "text": "Exactly. Especially beneficial to borrowers in quick foreclosure states. \n\nFMVs!!! Yeah, I was an asset manager, so worked on those all the time. \n\nYup - GSEs have a different set of guidelines/documents for servicing rules. \n\nStay well out there!!", "replies": [{"id": "fmoxlmw", "text": "I loved fighting for FMVs - lot of good fun trying to batter appraisals. Thanks for the education, I appreciate it. Hope you stay healthy too!!!", "replies": [], "depth": 11}], "depth": 10}], "depth": 9}], "depth": 8}], "depth": 7}], "depth": 6}], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fmfptce", "text": "This is essentially what I did with my residential tenants.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0pdvp", "text": "Isn't this accomplished using shorter term leases where landlords can add significant rent increases to what they feel is \"market\"? It definitely feels crappy if you're a landlord today with another 9 years on a lease, but in the grand scheme, especially with multiple properties with different lease expirations, extra profits are captured by increasing rents at the ends of leases. The tenant who needs to invest $1 million won't be willing to do yearly lease renewals, but smaller vendors who don't need much equipment would gladly do it.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0qu7f", "text": "The last city I lived in was a major metro.  There was a welll travelled road, where these two brothers owned EVERY commercial space up and down this road.  For about a mile or three.  They'd collected these parcels over the years.  Anyways, their leases with their tenants required the  tenants to pay points on gross revenue to them.  Over the years, they had fallen into disrepair, and when they died,  their kids were on the news telling the city that they were going to liquidate all the parcels.  It was like the entire city exhaled.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm0rdld", "text": "True, but these are two different types of businesses with different goals and different upside and downside. Small landlords are small business owners just like an operator of a restaurant or bar. The goals are different. A benefit to real estate is stability relative to a consumer facing small business. In general the income of a center is far more stable than the income of the business in it. We're in a time that's never been seen before and landlords have a choice: protect their occupancy and work with landlords or not and risk losing them. The businesses in their center likely doesn't have the choice to give the customer a discount to insure they come back when things improve, they just have no customers.", "replies": [{"id": "fm10lkl", "text": "That requires the lender to get on board if the land owner is not liquid. That's part of why looking only at landlords is an odd place to stop.  Many don't have the resources to float all their tenants, they're just one part in the chain.", "replies": [{"id": "fm16qum", "text": "That's very true. Creates a tough situation that the landlord could get caught with the hot potato. So far most lenders have been being helpful and tenants are taking what they can get. That said, we'll see what happens tomorrow when rent is actually due.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm11ziu", "text": "The Fed government is setting a bad example for all so why not", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm1j9zu", "text": "The big bad landlord, greedy and fat with cash narrative is so prevalent right now it\u2019s best to tune it out and stay in the micro!", "replies": [{"id": "fm1mk0a", "text": "True. And the only legit reason why land values go up disproportionately to surrounding incomes is obtuse municipal land use regulations. So it's not even our fault!", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "fm2f52r", "text": "I think the same as a lender. Don\u2019t even ask me to engage in discussions until you pay 4/1 debt service. You collected that income in March. It\u2019s mine.", "replies": [{"id": "fm2ffjy", "text": "Everyone answers to someone - BUT as a sponsor, I hate you ;)", "replies": [{"id": "fm37wct", "text": "You guys had it good for a long time", "replies": [{"id": "fm5de61", "text": "Haha true knockin my friend", "replies": [], "depth": 5}], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm1kfq2", "text": "When the going gets tough, everyone's a socialist...", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm2eu5g", "text": "It\u2019s funny borrowers distribute all of their earnings in the good years but expect lenders to provide forbearance in the bad years", "replies": [{"id": "fm2mtkc", "text": "Strange comment.  Without loans, asset values would plummet, leaving banks under capitalized.\n\nBanks are going to share some of the pain from this total shutdown, so may as figure out a way to minimize losses for everyone.", "replies": [{"id": "fm37sne", "text": "The comment was to illustrate that Landlords shouldn\u2019t talk out of both sides of their mouths, complaining about tenants not saving up for a rainy day. Lenders only participate in the downside.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm2u1qj", "text": "I don't believe there is a clear advantage for either party to any of the commercial real estate lease structures, NNN, Gross, modified gross, overage.. They all give a little and take a little..\n\nI do not think any of our multinational credit tenants have a document or business structure where they could easily cut us landlords into equity or profits. Then again, I'm not an attorney. Maybe a lease amendment is all it takes.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm2ufts", "text": "I would like to have a conversation with someone in business interruption insurance. From everyone that has reached out to me, an act of god isn\u2019t covered.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "fm2yrte", "text": "We purchased a large commercial building earlier this year in our town (where the 2 existing businesses we own operate out of).\n\nAll of our tenants have been forced to close = no rent to us (they all say they can\u2019t afford anything) yet we are still on the line for the $7k mortgage every month.\n\nWe just wanted to secure the property since we have no plans of going anywhere (the rents collected just cover the mortgage)\n\nWe are kind of caught in the middle of all of this - if banks unilaterally paused mortgage payments under the condition it passed down to tenants, I think that would alleviate a LOT of problems that I see coming down the road after all of the dust settles.\n\nSo... we have no tenant income coming in, but the $7k comes around every month like clockwork.", "replies": [{"id": "fm3czbd", "text": "That's tough, I hope you can make it work.", "replies": [{"id": "fm3h7n1", "text": "Thanks, fortunately we have investments and savings if worst comes to worst... which is looking that way.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}]