5 ms·
A Cleveland-area landlord was offering a year's free rent for a somewhat urban restaurant space (Shaker Square for the locals here). I presume a longer-term le
by ShabbyDoo 17y ago
A Cleveland-area landlord was offering a year's free rent for a somewhat urban restaurant space (Shaker Square for the locals here). I presume a longer-term lease was required at the beginning of the deal. For the tenant, it was like some mix between venture capital and an option. If he fails, he can leave and not have spent as much compared to a normal lease deal. But, if he is successful, the landlord wins with a long-term tenant, and the tenant sticks around because of the signed lease and the switching costs of moving.
I don't know a lot about lease deals, but it seems that some additional complexity would make the market more efficient. The article repeated the question, "What restaurant would sign a one year lease?" I presume the restaurant owner was referring to a contract that offered no guarantees about renewability or the price at renewal time. Why not structure a lease as a combination of rent and an option on a future contract? At the end of a one-year lease, the restaurant could pay $X to get out or sign a similar contract for no more than $X/month. This is just one of many examples.
In general, markets are less efficient because parties stick to contractual terms that are standard for an industry rather than being creative for mutual benefit. Fear, stupidity, and irrational doubt lead to this. When I bought my house, I modified the contract (at an attorney's suggestion) to include a "liquidated damages clause" which limited both the liability of both sides to the amount of earnest money provided. And, I provided a significantly above average amount of earnest money to reduce the seller's risk of taking the home off the market. The seller's real estate agent did not understand the economics of the change and therefore did not help the seller understand the mutual benefits. So, the seller ended up hiring his own attorney to review the contract, and the deal was almost delayed.
- netsp 17y agoI think the your second paragraph answers your first. In economics this tends to be called transaction costs, though I think that is typical economists avoidance of ever dealing with mess. Standardised contracts allow buyers & sellers to compare, potential deals or other deals in their area. A restaurant owner may not have trained his mind to value options or futures. He almost certainly can't see through the legalese. Besides the direct cost of having this explained to him by a lawyer (times how many contracts he has reviewed), I don't think it is preferable to hand over decision making power to a lawyer. They tend to undervalue upside. Short answer: It's simpler.
- ShabbyDoo 17y agoI agree that standardization reduces transaction costs, but the cost to the landlord of having a unit sit vacant for a year seems significantly higher. And, there are probably restaurant owners who are operating sub-optimally -- maybe they aren't remodeling because they are scared of what the terms of the next lease will be like.
- netsp 17y agoI think that it is not unusual for lease terms to be negotiated on commercial property.