Check out this beauty

Not surprised when they put the rent in the "sales price" box.


I thought an interesting one was the HQ of Qantas coming up for sale in Sydney there. It's been advertised in all of the newspapers. Big long Lease of 20 years I think, with a starting rent of 14.1m per year.


Maybe a few of us on Somersoft here could get together and form a little group. Who'd be interested in being Qantas' Landlord ??


Do you reckon Qantas is a dodgy Tenant, or do you reckon they'd hang around and pay their bill ??
 
I thought an interesting one was the HQ of Qantas coming up for sale in Sydney there. It's been advertised in all of the newspapers. Big long Lease of 20 years I think, with a starting rent of 14.1m per year.


Maybe a few of us on Somersoft here could get together and form a little group. Who'd be interested in being Qantas' Landlord ??


Do you reckon Qantas is a dodgy Tenant, or do you reckon they'd hang around and pay their bill ??

I'm all hat and no cattle, but out of curiosity, how much equity would be considered a minimum for such a syndicate? :D

Dazz you mentioned a family syndicate that was started/starting in another thread (on an office floor in Sydney from memory), excuse my laziness on not following up on the details from that thread, but on that deal what did you consider the minimum buy in?
 
Who'd be interested in being Qantas' Landlord ??
Do you reckon Qantas is a dodgy Tenant, or do you reckon they'd hang around and pay their bill ??

I can't see Qantas have a lot of upside. :)

They've had non engineering CEOs slashing costs for years....ridiculously so. Methinks they need to start putting serious dollars back into maintenance.

Makes you wonder why they are selling.
And if the economy picks up, they'll be hurt by rising fuel prices.

Now if I could get a power utility company or private hospital for a tenant, that would be something.
 
Not sure they are Winnie. Don't know who the Vendor is as yet.

So you're saying they'll happily pay the oil companies but not the Landlord ??

If that's the case maybe I should stop this property malarkey and start investing in oil companies....:D


oil goes up, airfares go up, less people travel, overall less revenue.

Just as I wouldn't own Qantas shares, I wouldn't want to be dependent on a growing and stable rental income stream from them.

I'd rather have tenants in a sector with better prospects.

Sure they'll pay the LL until their lease expires and another Geoff Dixon thinks of some weak cost cutting measure to get his $12m bonus.

Considering they've been downsizing and making staff cuts for years, I don't think anything about their business will be the same in 5-10 years. I've seen a steady stream of Qantas employees through the clinic who tell me how downhill conditions have gone over the last 15 years.
 
Having a public corp as tenant can be a plus.
Anything they do wrong is market news.
I just get weary of builders/occupier/vendors as they generally write their own lease conditions.
WW the HQ is the last place to go, if anything it gets upgraded not downsized regardless of market conditions.
Most would go bankrupt (and have) before considering downsizing head office.
The people at the bottom can make do, but not the office boys.
 
Most would go bankrupt (and have) before considering downsizing head office.
The people at the bottom can make do, but not the office boys.

Wherever the CEO sits, is usually well looked after and paid up. Image baby - roll with the flow and scoop up the dough.

I try not to buy stuff where the workers are, they naturally get shafted.
 
According to the press releases it seems Quantas are wanting a "major refurbishment to the complex" as part of their new 10 yr lease.
I don't think there's gonna be good value here.
 
According to the press releases it seems Quantas are wanting a "major refurbishment to the complex" as part of their new 10 yr lease.


I assume from this PB, that they are both the Seller and the intended Tenant.


If that is the case, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.....


Reason being, they are the dominant player in the dominant game, and the weaker player in the minor game.


The Purchaser would be the weaker player in the dominant game, and the dominant player in the minor game......not a good place to be. Why ??


Because you don't get to play the minor game until the dominant game has finished.....and by the type they have finished getting their way in the dominant game, the minor game isn't worth playing anymore.
 
I assume from this PB, that they are both the Seller and the intended Tenant.
If that is the case, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.....

Absolutely agree.
Though not 100% sure if they own it, or are making it a condition of a new lease.
Either way the result is the same.
The Quantas HQ is being marketed as the "star" of the portfolio, not the performer of it. Which means much glory, but no money.

Years ago I tagged along a few others looking at buying some big warehouse retailer type buildings in fairly newly developed areas.
I was a little naive at the time and though they were ok.
They read the lease took a look around, once glance at each other, and thanked them for their time to show'em around.
The situation was simple.
They (Big retailer) decided where they wanted a (huge) store.
They bought the land, built their store, which in turn made the rest more valuable as they are "anchors" and sold it off to others either to built or already built.
Once it was built up, then their own property was worth a little more, so they write there own lease the way they like it, and put the place up for sale with something that looks nice like a 10+5+5 lease.
 
Top