Market Insight Editorial & Advice to Tenants: 1Q2007

Editorial from Dan Mihalovich, Principal of Mihalovich Partners and Founder of The Space Place®

If you’re a commercial tenant in the San Francisco area, you’ve come to the right place, The Space Place. If you are a first-timer at our site, know that we are totally and unequivocally committed to serving and representing the tenant community—and that my Editorials are not only meant to be instructive; they are a written record of our market analyses and recommendations; and, from my perspective, an easy way for you to differentiate the quality of our thinking and strategy with those of our competitors.

Tenants, You’re Awake, Now

By now you’ve gotten tired of reading the bad news for tenants…and all the broker calls each week. While the roar of the landlord community has reached a crescendo, tenants should nevertheless gather yourselves quietly and methodically to study and plan out a strategy to deal with your next office leasing negotiation. We would love to help you. We are quite long on advice, at this website and company. This quarterly Editorial, I’ve spent some time trying to point out the obvious—obvious, that is, to those who study the markets and the statistics. There is significant weakness in the national economy and we’ve pulled in some sage words from a few economic experts. There are signs that office market demand is fraying and little evidence to support the landlord community’s assertion that San Francisco rental rates should trade on par with the heady rates of New York, London or elsewhere. There is no volume of closed transactions in the stratosphere in the City, yet there are—as always—a few tenants who have gone off to charter their own demise. The question is how to create a workable strategy to deal with the market the way it is. Choosing the most qualified broker to represent you is paramount these days, as ever. Yet most tenants show only mild enthusiasm toward a well-thought process to uncover the “best” broker for your assignment. So, we’ve posed a list of questions for you to consider asking. To our competitors, “You’re welcome”.

I am so proud of the collective efforts made on this website to bring you, Tenants, the enormous body of educational information available. This quarter I want to thank and highlight several recent additions to our Guest Columns…especially those on the topic of GREEN GREEN GREEN. Please call us if you are curious or seriously considering the orchestration of a LEED-compliant renovation or newly constructed space. Unlike some of our competitors, we do not feel the need to create a new Green Department, a Sustainability Division, or a Green Lease. Going “green”, as you’ll hopefully read in Ned Fennie’s article, should simply become a part of our lives. Are we intimately familiar with the LEED process and its complexities? Absolutely. But we don’t see the point in trying to re-brand ourselves as a result of our compulsion to be aware and sensitive to global warming. Recently we attended a conference, hosted by the Sustainability group of a major law firm in San Francisco, where the keynote speaker was the founder of a Green bank. Were ANY of the attendees working in LEED-compliant work spaces, I asked? Not a single one. But, the conference was well attended and well intended!

Read on about GREEN:

Don’t overlook some other GREAT, free, educational counsel from one of the Bay Area’s best in lease auditing:

If you reside in an EOP building, or another of the scores of buildings recently sold—and about to be reassessed—you might study up with tax expert, Ted Bayer, Esq. to see how severely you may be hit:

Selecting An Objective Broker To Represent Your Interests: Why Bother?

Seriously, Tenants, I’ve been representing tenants in San Francisco for 25 years…and it boggles the mind how many of you go about selecting a broker to represent your interests. In keeping with the raison-d’etre of this website—to assist and educate the tenant community—I’ve posted a rather long list of questions you might consider asking a select group of us when you next consider aligning yourselves with an advocate to serve your interests. But, with all due respect, I ask you—why bother with these questions if you’re simply going to hire your neighbor; or member of your favorite club; a golfing buddy; your landlord’s broker, who’s been calling on you to “service” your needs; or someone else who is not imminently qualified and totally focused on serving your interests to oversee one of the most complicated and mine-laden projects for your company?

Assuming that your requirement is worthy of the attention of the most seasoned of brokers in San Francisco, why not do some homework before “the presentation” and be prepared to spend some time getting to know the candidates? Visit their/our websites. Check their research and ADVICE online. Most importantly, make “the presentation” a good working session for YOU by advancing information to the brokers so that they may use your meeting time together to be responsive…and informative…in specifics. If you invest the time in your homework and allow the competing brokers to complete some research for you, your interviewing process will be optimized. It is not unusual, unfortunately, for many tenants to walk into “the presentation” without having conducted ANY research about the brokers; then limiting the session to 45 minutes; and, magically, make a decision based upon “the presentation”. Are you hiring a salesman…or a highly educated, seasoned, professional negotiator with highly developed organizational and analytical skills? Here are a few questions to consider posing:

  • Tell me how you’ll spend time on our project. Where does our requirement fit in your list of every-day, personal priorities?
  • Will you inform us if you or anyone in your company takes on a tenant-representation assignment which conflicts with ours?
  • Are you financially motivated to work on our project? How much will you earn?
  • How are your fees shared between yourself and your company? Between yourself and your partners?
  • Do you, or does anyone in your company, maintain an allegiance to ANY building owner?
  • Do you, or does anyone in your company, maintain an allegiance to ANY tenants currently offering sublease space available which could put you in a conflict-of-interest position, with respect to our requirements?
  • Are you a salesman, first and foremost? Do you, personally, conduct your own market research or is market analysis performed by others in your company?
  • Do you have a degree in economics? How do you understand the supply/demand conditions in San Francisco? How do you argue for our concessions?
  • Where are you likely to leave my/our money on the table in lease negotiations?
  • Are you a successful, compelling and detail-oriented negotiator?
  • ADA compliance in the common areas? Shouldn’t the landlord pay for this?
  • The rent commencement date for our new lease? We don’t want to pay for space we can’t use.
  • Negotiating after-hours air conditioning charges? Is this a negotiable item?
  • Prop-13 real estate tax pass through expenses? Why should we pay if we don’t benefit?
  • Proper measurement of our space? Can we challenge the landlord’s calculations?
  • Negotiating the language for our renewal option? Future/option rent not less than we’ll be paying at the end of the term. OK?
  • Protecting us by including our architect and builder in the LOI? Why not use the landlord’s team? Or bid it out?
  • Securing our tenant improvement allowance funds for release during, not after, construction? Should we/the tenant finance the TIs?
  • Negotiating landlord supervision fees? How much do they charge…and why? Is this negotiable?
  • Financing soft-costs (purchases of furniture, fixtures & equipment; moving expenses; architectural/mechanical/electrical design drawings); will the landlord loan these amounts?
  • Personal guarantees of the lease; letters of credit; security deposits. What is typical? Must we tie up so much working capital?
  • Restoration of our space. Must we pay to return our space to the condition we started with?
  • Relocation by the landlord. Is the landlord serious?! Why would we agree in advance to be relocated within the term of our lease?

Don’t Flip Out

Consumers have slowly arisen from their advertising-induced stupors to notice the mountain of debt they’re in. And they’re not alone, but we won’t bore you again with a discussion about the Gov’s dour financial wherewithal. It’s the almighty consumer who drives 2/3 of this economy…and confidence is waning. March home sales took their sharpest drop in 18 years. Prices for single-family homes fell in more than half of the nation’s 149 biggest metropolitan areas in the last three months of 2006, according to data released by the National Association of Realtors. “You have two kinds of weakness here,” said Jan Hatzius, Chief United States Economist at Goldman Sachs: “there is the traditional economic-driven weakness in parts of the Midwest, and there is the bubble-bursting weakness.”

Foreclosures have spiked. According to Realty Trac Inc., a foreclosure listing service, foreclosure filings across the U.S. soared in March, 47% over a year ago. And for the third straight month, Nevada’s foreclosure rate led the nation when it spiked 220% over last year. Since early 2005, the Vegas downtown inventory of vacant condos has soared five-fold. Perhaps we should have anticipated such speculation from a gambling-centric mecca. But Vegas isn’t alone, obviously, in the downturn. California’s foreclosure filings were up 79% over last year, to a 10-year high. Florida’s were up 54%.

Consumer Confidence Falls; Declining Expectations To Blame

According to the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University, “…the Index of Consumer Sentiment for California now stands at 89.8, down nearly three index points from 92.7 in January… and the forward-looking Index of Consumer Expectations fell to 83.4, down more than five index points from 88.5.”

And, as measured by the University of Michigan, the national Index of Consumer Sentiment stood at 88.4 in March—down from 96.9 in January, Assessments of business conditions in the country fell in the first quarter of the year. In March, 29% of California consumers said that business conditions in the country were better now than they were one year ago, down from 36% in January, while 46% said they were worse, compared to 37% in January.

True State Of Economy Not Grasped By The Public

During my first career, as a grain trader for one of the largest export companies in the world (Louis Dreyfus Corp), I traded $1 billion worth of corn, wheat and soybeans before returning to my hometown, San Francisco, to begin “trading” space. So, I greatly appreciate clear-headed, no-nonsense economic analysis and forecasting…something I had to do every day in the grain business. John Embry’s writings have appealed to me, so I share them with you, here. As the Chief Investment Strategist at Sprott Asset Management (see, he shapes trading policy and decision making for a wealth of investors. Try to find the holes in his thinking. Beware of the herd you hear elsewhere. After all, it’s your money and future at stake:

Embry wrote, “More and more liquidity is being pumped into world finances in an increasingly frantic effort to keep the system intact and the world economy moving forward. The result has been a series of bubbles and the absolute necessity of recurring liquidity injections to paper over the growing number of cracks. If a deflationary episode is to be avoided, one of the costs will most assuredly be accelerating inflation in a textbook case of ever more paper chasing a limited amount of real goods and services.”

President of the European Central Bank, Jean-Claude Trichet suggested that acknowledging that financial markets were potentially unstable, “investors need to prepare themselves for a significant re-pricing of some assets.” … Embry continued, that this is “not just bullish for gold but spectacularly bullish because it speaks to an unavoidable, ongoing debasement of paper money…Mainstream view peddles the notion that inflation is moderating, the U.S. housing bust is bottoming and any deceleration in economic growth is transient, soon to be followed by renewed robust growth. In my opinion, nothing could be further from the truth.”

“A longstanding definition of human stupidity is to do the same thing over again and expect a different outcome. The western central banks can be accused of undertaking just such a course of action. I must, once again, point out the sordid beginnings of the last great gold-bull market, when the London Gold Pool, a co-operative effort between major central banks to maintain the fixed price at US$35 an ounce, was in operation. Initially, the Gold Pool was successful in its mission, but in the late 1960s, the scheme fell apart as private-sector demand overwhelmed the central banks. On its last day of operation in 1968, the Pool is said to have lost 400 tonnes of gold defending the official gold price. Twelve years later, amidst a speculative frenzy, the price of bullion peaked at US$850 an ounce, capping a remarkable decade in which the folly of central banks was revealed for all to see.

“In today’s world, where the financial and geopolitical issues dwarf those of that era, the central banks have attempted exactly the same ploy. I have no doubt that it will result in precisely the same outcome as last time.”

Crisis Looms In Mortgages

With all the clarity of 20-20 hindsight, we can say that Dot-Com rental rates (and the ensuing heady hysteria) have returned to San Francisco. Fortunately, there has been no volume of over-the-top transactions closed—but true to form, landlords are doing their best to ramp up rates every week. But what does this froth and hype have to do with a crisis in the mortgage market? Everything. As Columnist, Gretchen Morgenson, put it, “Hanging in the balance is the nation’s housing market, which has been a big driver of the economy.” As the consumer goes, so goes the economy—and San Francisco is not immune to such financial setbacks. Wall Street is deep into this problem—up to their eyeballs, actually. We’re long on securities firms in the City. If you believe the mortgage crisis is going to just blow over, we have some warrants in New Century to sell you. So, listen to what Gretchen had to say:

“Now, as then, Wall Street firms and entrepreneurs made fortunes issuing questionable securities, in this case pools of home loans taken out by risky borrowers. Now, as then, bullish stock and credit analysts for some of those same Wall Street firms, which profited in the underwriting and rating of those investments, lulled investors with upbeat pronouncements even as loan defaults ballooned. Now, as then, regulators stood by as the mania churned, fed by lax standards and anything-goes lending. Investment manias are nothing new, of course. But the demise of this one has been broadly viewed as troubling, as it involves the nation’s $6.5 trillion mortgage securities market, which is larger even than the United States treasury market.”

Hanging in the balance is the nation’s housing market, which has been a big driver of the economy. “Fewer lenders means many potential homebuyers will find it more difficult to get credit, while hundreds of thousands of homes will go up for sale as borrowers default, further swamping a stalled market”…Said Josh Rosner, a managing director at Graham-Fisher & Company, an independent investment research firm in New York, and an expert on mortgage securities, “This is far more dramatic than what led to Sarbanes-Oxley” …he added, referring to the legislation that followed the WorldCom and Enron scandals, “both in conflicts and in terms of absolute economic impact…At the heart of the turmoil is the subprime mortgage market, which developed to give loans to shaky borrowers or to those with little cash to put down as collateral. Some 35 percent of all mortgage securities issued last year were in that category, up from 13 percent in 2003.”

In 2000, according to Banc of America Securities, the average loan to a subprime lender was 48 percent of the value of the underlying property. By 2006, that figure reached 82 percent. The resulting differences were significant: in 90 percent of loans, borrowers overstated their incomes 5 percent or more. But in almost 60 percent of cases, borrowers inflated their incomes by more than half. A Deutsche Bank report said liar loans accounted for 40 percent of the subprime mortgage issuance last year, up from 25 percent in 2001. By 2006, Wall Street had a commanding share--60 percent--of the mortgage financing market, Federal Reserve data show. They buy mortgages from issuers, put thousands of them into pools to spread out the risks and then divide them into slices, known as tranches, based on quality. Then they sell them.

The average daily trading volume of mortgage securities issued by government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example, exceeded $250 billion last year. That’s up from about $60 billion in 2000. Some investors wonder whether the rating agencies have the stomach to downgrade these securities because of the selling stampede that would follow. Many mortgage buyers cannot hold securities that are rated below investment grade--insurance companies are an example. So if the securities were downgraded, forced selling would ensue, further pressuring an already beleaguered market.

The Cost Of War: Human, Economic Tragedy

Try as we must, on this business website, to refrain from political comment—we must continue to highlight the enormity of the cost of The War on Terror, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Economic Nobel laureates were on news channels recently projecting the financial cost of the war to the United States at approximately two trillion dollars ($2,000,000,000,000). Most have not disputed the monthly allocation to be about $10 billion. Loss of life continues at a tragic rate, now over 3,700 allied forces. Estimates are that more than 200,000 wounded American troops are being treated by Walter Reed Army Hospital. One might wonder, where do your tax dollars go? Here’s one accounting for those of you in San Francisco:

Military, health and interest on the debt consume two-thirds of every income tax dollar.
The median income family in San Francisco, California paid $6,375 in federal income taxes in 2006. Here is how that amount was spent:

Interest on the Debt (Military)$580
Interest on the Debt (Non-Military)$657
Income Security$383
Veterans’ Benefits$214
Natural Resources$97
Job Training$19

Notes: The breakdown of the income tax dollar is based on an analysis of each agency’s federal fund outlays according to function and sub-function (category) for fiscal year 2006, which can be found in OMB, Budget of the U.S. Government, FY2008, Analytical Perspectives. Numbers may not add up due to rounding. Military includes the government definition of national defense, international security assistance and Iraq-related spending in the Executive Office of the President. Income security includes Supplemental Security Income (aimed at elderly, disabled and blind with low income), tax credit programs, TANF, child care spending and other programs aimed at families. Other includes the following function and sub-function areas: general science, space and technology, international affairs other than military assistance, energy, agriculture, commerce and housing credit, transportation, community and regional development, labor and social services other than job training, justice, general government, and undistributed offsetting receipts. For more information on the analysis, go to Where do Your Tax Dollars Go? Notes and Sources

National Priorities Project • 17 New South Street, Suite 302 • Northampton, MA 01060 • 413.584.9556
©2007 National Priorities Project, Inc.

Tenants: Get it Straight

Mihalovich Partners represents tenants, only. Our core business is driven toward educating and objectively and aggressively representing TENANTS, only. If you are looking for biased market information serving the LANDLORD community, please see one of Cushman & Wakefield; The CAC Group; Colliers; CB Richard Ellis; Grubb & Ellis; or Cornish & Carey—whom collectively represent over 45% of the 12.5 million square feet of space currently on the market. Those six firms have pledged their allegiance to over 270 local landlords.

Strange as it may seem, bearing in mind their conflicts of interest, we compete with them every day for YOUR business—for the opportunity to represent you, the tenant, in leasing negotiations. C&W, CAC, Colliers, CB, G&E and C&C control more space than nearly any landlord in San Francisco. Mihalovich Partners’ business and approach is diametrically opposed to that of brokers who represent landlords. Are you, the tenant, looking for advice and counsel? You can count on straight talk from us. Advice for tenants, pure and simple. Serving the tenant community in San Francisco for 24 years.

Dan Mihalovich (
Principal of Mihalovich Partners and Founder of The Space Place®

San Francisco Market Overview

Tenants Answer Landlords—With Their Feet

After waking up the crowd with the surge of demand in Q4, 2006, San Francisco posted some new LOWs in Q1, 2007:

  • Direct (leasing from landlords) net absorption of space went NEGATIVE…to MINUS 165,000 square feet for the first time since Q1, 2005. When including sublease activity, total net absorption, Citywide, was only 37,000 square feet!
  • Direct gross absorption of space, Citywide, was 1.6 million square feet, the LOWEST since Q1, 2004. Google’s 200,000 square foot sublease deal is included in this quarter’s stats.
  • Total # of deals in Q4 and Q1 were the LOWEST since Q2, 2005.
  • Direct square footage leased in Q1, 2007 was only lower in Q4, 2005; and Q1, 2002, prior.
  • Sublease asking rates DECLINED for the first time since Q3, 2003.

San Mateo County posted its lowest absorption rate in a year. Direct gross absorption was the lowest since Q1, 2004. The # of deals was lowest since Q3, 2004.

East Bay Counties (Contra Costa & Alameda) reported mildly positive net absorption, at 150,000 square feet; BUT gross square footage leased in Q4, 2006 and Q1, 2007 were the lowest since Q1, 2004.

In contrast, the South Bay (Santa Clara County) reported its highest net and gross absorption of space since Q3, 2004.

Is it purely a coincidence that South Bay’s demand rates surged, versus the other Bay markets—since their asking rental rates are lower than all others? A quick look at the “spreads” is interesting. Consider average asking rent, fully serviced, Citywide (all classes of space) for each of the markets:

San Francisco County:$32.06 per square foot per year
San Mateo County:$29.52
East Bay Counties:$23.02
Santa Clara County:$22.82

Given an opportunity to secure office space at a $2.50—$9.50 per square foot per year discount to San Francisco’s rates, perhaps City tenants should consider leaving the City—especially when considering other advantages, such as payroll tax relief; potentially lower housing costs; lower labor costs; avoiding the hassle-factor of building in the City…etc.

For those of you beginning to doubt the supply of space available, or the notion that space is still coming on the market—and what tenants wouldn’t, based on the hype from the landlord and investment community—note the amount of square footage which came online during the last 45 days of Q1:

San Francisco County:Added 1,035,000 square feet
San Mateo County:Added 688,000 square feet
Santa Clara County:Added 2,160,000 square feet
East Bay Counties:Added 1,526,000 square feet

Morgan Stanley Doesn’t Make The Market

Much has been made recently, rightfully so, of the purchase by Blackstone of Equity Office Properties. And, rightfully so, of the major league “flipping” of most of Blackstone’s new assets — in San Francisco — to Morgan Stanley…10 of the many buildings to trade, recently. Cheers to the scores of MBAs, analysts and investment banking partners who packaged up these “investments” for resale once again. Ownership moves on to OPM (other people’s money). Morgan Stanley’s heaviest purchase in the City? One Market Plaza, EOP’s first acquisition in town, rumored to be re-packaged for partial sale already! Perhaps it is Morgan Stanley’s objective to reduce its risk and chalk up some additional fees. In the meantime, however, Morgan Stanley is ever mindful of its prognostications to its investors…so the word is out that existing and new tenants will have to pay and pay dearly to belong to that Club. $100 per square foot per year for the big Bay view space…so the asking rent goes. Many of One Market’s tenants are already on the run, looking for “affordable” alternatives. To add insult, current tenants must also absorb the cost of tax pass-throughs due on reassessment of the property (unless their lease language offers protection from Prop 13 taxes). The City, of course, is thrilled in anticipation of receiving $18 million in tax hikes due on the sale of these ten properties. So, to the tenants of the following list of buildings, meet your new and friendly building owner: Morgan Stanley. The squeeze play begins:

One Market Plaza
One Maritime Plaza
150 California
201 California
60 Spear
188 The Embarcadero
75 Howard (the parking garage…a development site)
1 Post
580 California
201 Mission

Granted, the market (landlords, tenants and brokers) is unaccustomed to portfolio sales of the magnitude of the EOP domain. However, did EOP ever control or dominate the marketplace in San Francisco? Absolutely not and neither will Morgan Stanley, no matter how much they covet their own space. The proverbial question for you, TENANTS, is whether you will drink the Kool Aid and pay what is asked of you, or will you exert all the free-market leverage you control by forcing competition for your business. We always love a good fight and we’re here to organize the effort on your behalf to see what the market will bear for your tenancy. San Francisco remains a diverse market, replete with plenty of alternatives to the heady heights of Morgan Stanley. Are there some of you for whom nothing else will do? Sure. There are those for whom rent is just a tiny sliver of total gross revenue. Beware pushing beyond 8-9% of your gross. After representing tenants for 25 years, we know a few good rules of thumb.

Vacancy Rates: Are Your Options Fading?

Landlords, their listing brokers and developers dance to the tune of lower vacancy rates, so tenants should watch carefully to detect how and to what extent your field of options declines. In the City, Q1 vacancy rates declined from 9.2% to 9.1%…only a 1% decline. But which size blocks of space are getting leased? Discussing vacancy and absorption rates can be confusing to some. What language makes sense to tenants? Tenants ask, “Tell me about my specific options. How many choices do I have?” Are your options fading, as a result of recent leasing activity? Review the chart, below, and let’s discuss.

Here’s an intriguing statistic for you. BET YOU’LL BE BAFFLED:

In Q2 of 2001, Bay Area Counties had a supply of 42 million square feet available for lease on the market. Today the Bay Area markets have 44.8 million square feet on the market (UP from 44 million in Q4, 2006). Tenants in San Francisco have a LARGER number of parcels to choose from in today’s market than in Q2 of 2001—the period just before our markets crashed. Today, of course, the trend for absorption is still “up”…but the stats should give you reason to wonder—what kind of Kool-Aid is the landlord community drinking? [In Q2, 2001, there were only 202 parcels of spaces available in the 5-10,000 sf range; only 173 parcels in the 10-20,000 sf range; and only 67 parcels in the 20-40,000 sf range.]

Please note: We provide Bay Area market data and analyses for the current year only. To request commercial real estate market data for previous quarters, please contact us.

You can request a free space survey, containing all direct and sublease space meeting your specific requirements. We can also provide building photographs, floor plans, leasing histories and more. You’ll receive your survey within one business day. To discuss your space needs in person, call 415-434-2820 or email

Take Me Straight to the Numbers: San Francisco Bay Area Rental Rates. Supply/Demand.

Please note: We provide Bay Area market data and analyses for the current year only. To request commercial real estate market data for previous quarters, please contact us.

Who Has the Most Space in San Francisco? Surprise…

When we approach a prospective new tenant client, we tell them that we NEVER represent landlords, always avoiding this conflict of interest. So, which of our competitors—leasing firms—are most entangled in landlord representation in San Francisco? And, most importantly, why would you feel comfortable having them represent YOU?

Below we’ve surveyed the entire 103 million square foot inventory of San Francisco, and illustrated the companies with the most control of space on the market, the Top 25. You know from our other stats that 13.3 million square feet is now on the market in San Francisco. Of the top 7 companies, six are office leasing brokerage firms, controlling 54% of the City’s vacancy! These brokerage firms are beholden to more than 300 local landlords. Since their allegiance is committed to so many landlords, how can they possibly represent YOUR interests—the tenant’s interests—objectively and aggressively? The top brokerage companies on the list control more of the City’s vacancy than Tishman Speyer (#8); Boston Properties (#9); Equity Office Properties, the country’s largest REIT (#11); and more than Hines (#16). Surprised, are you not? In the case of Staubach, our friendly tenant-representation competitor, they represent ~116,000 square feet of space available in 13 different buildings. How can they objectively represent YOU, the tenant, if you choose to pursue any of their sublease space?!

% Market Share Square Feet # of Landlords/ Buildings

% refers to the percentage of vacant space under exclusive listing by each company. The accompanying figure is the actual square footage available for lease. We have also noted the number of landlords/buildings represented by each entity.

* denotes listing brokers. All other companies listed are landlordselopers.

1 *The CAC Group 16.1% 2,148,703 52
2 *Cushman & Wakefield 10.1% 1,344,876 59
3 *CB Richard Ellis 9.5% 1,275,300 26
4 *Grubb & Ellis 6.6% 887,960 60
5 Shorenstein Company 6.4% 849,508 13
6 *Colliers International 6.1% 815,341 74
7 *Jones Lang LaSalle 5.4% 722,326 18
8 Tishman Speyer 4.7% 634,655 2
9 Boston Properties 3.1% 418,415 4
10 *GVA Kidder Matthews 3.1% 417,476 27
11 Equity Office Management 2.3% 300,940 10
12 *TRI Commercial / CORFAC Intl 2.1% 283,005 39
13 *Starboard TCN 1.7% 222,010 91
14 McCarthy Cook & Co 1.6% 215,488 4
15 Higgins Development Partners 1.6% 209,990 1
16 Hines 1.4% 180,919 7
17 *Cornish & Carey Commercial 1.2% 163,922 12
18 *Pacific Union Commercial 0.9% 122,457 5
19 *The Staubach Company 0.9% 116,479 13
20 *Ritchie Commercial 0.8% 113,305 39
21 Pacific Eagle Holdings 0.8% 108,730 3
22 *Charles Dunn Company 0.7% 97,907 18
23 *NAI BT Commercial 0.7% 65,120 25
24 *HC&M Commercial Properties 0.7% 94,313 4
25 The Presidio Trust 0.7% 91,556 2
  All Others 10.8% 1,437,540 635
  Total   13,368,241  

« back to news archives

Bookmark and Share