What the office model cannot see

Two buildings, same road, same vintage, same land cost.

In the first, one person’s professional standing rests on how the building did last month. She knows the rate, the margin, the three competitors she is measured against and exactly where she sits among them. If the arrival is miserable on Tuesday morning, it is her problem by Tuesday afternoon.

In the second, there is a fund manager, an asset manager, a property manager and a leasing agent. All four are good at their jobs. None of them would say the arrival is theirs, and each would be right.

The first building is a hotel. The second is an office. That nobody finds this strange is the most interesting thing about it.

Read also: Frasers Property's walk, run, cycle campaign raises over $214,000 for seniors and persons with disabilities

Singapore runs its hotels as businesses. It runs its malls as businesses. Its offices are still run as leases — and the spread that made that acceptable has gone.

What a general manager actually does

I spent several years building hotels in Bangkok before I ever ran anything, which is a useful order to do it in. You learn early that the building is the easy part.

A general manager walks her building before the guests are up. Not an inspection — a reading. What the lobby smells like at seven. Whether the doorman is talking to anybody. How long the queue at the desk has been standing, and whether last night’s complaint has quietly become a review.

By the time she sits down she has formed a view of the day that no report will confirm for another month, and she is usually right, which is either experience or witchcraft; and after a while, you stop asking.

Then she looks at the numbers, and they are the right numbers. Not how full the building is — anyone can fill a building, by ruining the rate — but what it earns per available room, and how that sits against three named competitors on the same street.

If she is behind them she will know by how much. She will also be asked, which is the part that concentrates the mind.

Read also: Prime Orchard malls' retail rents inch up 0.3% in second quarter; limited new supply ahead

None of this is heroic. It is the ordinary conduct of somebody whose reputation is attached to an address.

The strange thing is not that hotels are run this way. It is that we looked at the tower next door, with its lobby and its lifts and its several thousand people, and concluded it needed nothing of the sort.

What hospitality gave up, and what it got back

Hotels were once owned and run by the same people.

Then the industry pulled the two apart — the real estate here, the operating business there — and discovered several things it had not been looking for.

Once the operator no longer owned the building, the operator had to be paid for something other than owning it. So the fee became a base on revenue plus an incentive that pays only after the owner has taken his return.

The operator eats last. One mechanical fact, doing more work than any quantity of alignment language in a management agreement.

Paying on performance requires performance to be measurable, and measurable against something.

So hospitality standardised its accounts until two hotels on two continents could be read line against line, then built the benchmarking to say whether a result was good or merely positive.

Read also: Therme, Marriott to explore wellbeing initiatives in travel and hospitality

Commercial property mandates rarely contain anything of the sort. We report. We do not compare.

And once you are measuring performance rather than occupancy, you start measuring the guest rather than the room.

Beneath all of it sits one person. The general manager is not a facilities role. She runs a business that happens to have a building around it.

Who is accountable for the lobby?

Ask that of a Singapore office tower.

Not the Reit manager, whose fee turns on assets under management and whose horizon is a distribution.

Not the property manager, engaged against a scope that specifies cleaning frequencies and response times, and who would be exceeding both his mandate and his margin by proposing the ground floor be reconceived.

Not the leasing agent, paid on transactions, measured on filling the space in front of him rather than on what the building becomes in year seven.

Not the asset manager, who may see the whole thing perfectly clearly from three removes.

Follow the question far enough and it does not get answered. It dissolves.

This is not a shortage of talent. Singapore’s property managers are as good as any in Asia and the institutional platforms here are genuinely sophisticated. Everyone is doing their job.

The trouble is that the sum of four well-executed mandates is not a business. It is a building in good repair.

In defence of the lease

At which point the landlords deserve a hearing, and a better one than my side of this argument usually gives them.

The lease is not laziness. It is a machine for turning something unpredictable into something predictable, and predictability is precisely what most owners of Singapore offices are contractually obliged to produce.

A Reit distributing every quarter cannot absorb the moods of an operating business. Its unitholders did not buy volatility. They bought an income stream with a covenant behind it, and a manager who quietly swapped the one for the other would be explaining himself at the next results briefing, at length.

There is a structural dimension too. The rules governing property funds here limit how much of a Reit’s income may come from operating rather than renting. So a Reit manager who woke up tomorrow persuaded by this article would find the vehicle itself standing in his way.

That is not an excuse. It is a real constraint, and one the industry is oddly shy about naming — perhaps because it sounds less like strategy than like paperwork.

And the custodial model was right for a long time. For two decades it produced perfectly good outcomes at low cost, and paying for operating intensity would have meant paying for something the market was handing out free.

Prudence is not a character flaw. It becomes one only when the conditions that rewarded it quietly expire and nobody sends a notice.

So the honest version of my argument is narrower than the one I started with, and better for it.

The constraint is real — but it constrains the vehicle, not the asset class. Private capital has no such limit. Neither does a family owner, a developer holding for the long term, or a structure built for the purpose.

Which turns the question inside out. If a building now needs running, and your structure cannot run it, the conclusion is not that the building should be left alone to think about what it has done.

It is that you are the wrong owner for it.

Some assets belong in a passive vehicle. A steadily increasing number do not, and the sorting is already underway — quietly, deal by deal, in a market that has not yet agreed to call it that.

Custodial is not the same as active

Any large landlord will object, reasonably: we do active asset management, we have the teams.

They do, and much of it is skilled. But most of what this market calls active management is more accurately custodial. Renewals. Capex on a cycle. Service charge discipline. New finishes when the old ones date.

Necessary, defensive, and all of it in service of maintaining a revenue model rather than changing one.

Active, in the sense worth arguing about, changes what the building is for — who occupies it, how they use it, what it can charge, and the part underwriters skip: who will be allowed to buy it from you at the end.

We took a tired heritage shophouse that the market had priced as retail-and-storage and rebuilt what it was for, from the conservation works to the tenant mix to how the ground floor met the street. Net operating income grew 233%. None of that was available in the entry price.

The reverse holds too. A building we opened at 5% occupancy stayed above 95% for the following decade. The occupancy is not the point. A decade of retention is not a leasing outcome. It is a thousand small operating decisions, none of which anybody wrote down.

Why this has stopped being free

For most of the last cycle none of it mattered, because the spread did the work. You bought well, signed long, held costs, and let falling cap rates and cheap debt supply the return.

Then rates moved and stayed moved. Cap rates adjusted more slowly than sentiment.

And a regulatory clock started running on the physical fabric of the stock itself, which turns deferred capex from prudence into a liability with a date on it.

Doing nothing was always the cheapest option. It is now the most expensive.

Look across the street, not overseas

The convention at this point is to point abroad. I would rather point across the street.

Singapore does not need to import this model. It runs two asset classes on it already.

Our hotels have general managers. Our malls have centre managers, curated tenant mixes and turnover rent — the landlord’s income moving with the tenant’s trade.

That makes a mall owner structurally curious about footfall, about adjacency, about whether the third floor is quietly dying. Mall owners here think about their tenants’ businesses because they are paid to.

Office is the only one of the three where the landlord’s income is deliberately insulated from whether the occupier is doing well.

We call this the defensiveness of the lease. It is also why the office landlord is the last to know.

The sectors sort themselves along a single line: whether the owner’s income moves with the occupier’s success.

Hospitality never had the choice — a hotel is so obviously a business that pretending otherwise would require effort.

Retail learnt the hard way, because e-commerce made not learning fatal, and turnover rent is the scar tissue.

Industrial and logistics dodge the question rather than answer it: a single tenant on a long lease does its own operating, and the landlord is passive by design rather than by temperament, which is perfectly respectable when the occupier’s business is the only reason the building exists.

Office is the odd one out. Multiple occupiers, shared ground, a common experience that somebody has to author — every characteristic of a managed asset, and none of the machinery.

Mixed-use makes the point most cruelly of all. In a single scheme, under one owner, the mall downstairs is run by a person with a name and a target. The tower above it is run by a document.

Three uncomfortable requirements

None of this needs a new team, or a rebrand of the existing one.

It needs three things, each awkward in its own way.

Someone accountable for the whole building. Named, with authority over the ground floor and the tenant mix, not merely the budget variance. This is the cheapest of the three and the most resisted, because it makes visible an accountability that currently enjoys being nobody’s.

A fee that eats last. Pay a manager on assets under management and he will optimise for assets under management. There is nothing cynical in the observation. It is only what incentives do.

And a measure of the occupier rather than the tenancy. Occupancy counts leases, not people. There are buildings in this city that are full on paper and dark by four.

The gap between leased and used is the leading indicator of the next repricing, and anyone who has stood in a lobby at half past eight knows it. Almost nobody underwrites it.

The question nobody asks the office

Return to the two buildings on the same road.

Next month, somebody will ask the first building’s general manager how it did. She will have an answer, measured against named competitors, with consequences attached to it.

If the answer disappoints twice running, she will be having a rather different sort of conversation by the third.

Nobody will ask the second building anything at all. Its owner will receive a rent roll and a service charge reconciliation.

Both will be accurate. Neither describes whether the building is any good — because nothing produced in the ordinary running of an office tower was ever designed to answer that, and nobody in the chain has been asked to try.

That is the whole of it. Not ambition, not talent, not capital. Simply the difference between a building somebody has to explain and a building nobody does.

We have known how to do this in Singapore for decades. We filed it under hospitality, and under retail, and never thought to ask why the tower on the same street was exempt.