|
One of the problems that banks and insurance companies have is disposing of their real estate owned.
November 01, 2003 -- This can cause a problem for the lender, whether they wish to dispose of the property immediately or hold it for a period of time to hope for an improvement in the market.
Whether the market is booming as it has during 1998, or if the market is down, lenders have a flow of "Real Estate Owned" as they take property back from unpaid loans. Often they try to market the property themselves, rather than hire professionals.
Realtors have the know how and all of the tools already in place to sell, rent or manage homes or income properties. Management while the property is "inventory" is all important to preserve value.
Lenders would like to see the value of the REO increase to equal the loan amount. The problem is that the lenders are reluctant to invest any additional money in the properties; this problem is compounded because a troubled property needs more attention than does a healthy one. An alternative is the service joint venture. The service joint venture allows the lender to minimize management fees until the property is generating cash flow again.
Getting Together With Management
The service joint venture is a form of incentive compensation by which the lender retains an asset management firm as its agent, with the firm agreeing to defer a portion of its fees until payment can be made out of future cash flow. The relationship may be a straight principal-agent one, or a new joint venture can be created in which both the lender and the management firm are partners. This approach is desired by some lenders who want to avoid a formal ownership position in distressed property.
The differences between the fee structure of a service joint venture and more traditional arrangements are as follows:
Management fee.
In a service joint venture, the agent receives anything from a below-market fee to no fee at all until the project achieves a specified level of net operating income (NOI). After that, the asset manager receives a designated portion (for example, 50%) of the NOI over the threshold amount. By comparison, the traditional management firm receives either a fixed fee or a fee based on a percent of the gross income.
Lease-up fee.
In a service joint venture, the agent may receive anywhere from a full leasing fee to none at all. The variable relates to the type of property involved. In the case of an office building, retail property, or industrial project, the agent normally receives the full market fee because payment is usually a commission rather than a straight salary. On the other hand, for residential properties, the fee often is deferred until a future date.
Commissions upon sale.
In a service joint venture, the manager receives a substantial portion of the sales price over a threshold price, together with a negotiated commission that is slightly below the traditional percentage. By comparison, a traditional arrangement gives the agent a higher percentage of the total sales price but no share of the amount over a designated threshold.
On-site marketing and management.
Here, both the service joint venture and the conventional agent receives a fee as provided for in the property budget.
The value of the service joint venture is that the management company is co-opted because it receives incentives in exchange for fees. In this way, the management company shares the objectives of the lender to maximize NOI and value as fast as possible. |
