<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for KBA&#039;s Lease Audit Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kbalease.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kbalease.com</link>
	<description>A Commerical Real Estate Lease Blog by Lease Experts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:29:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Capital Expenditures &#8211; Includable or Not? by LoriAnn</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2009/11/capital-expenditures-includable-or-not/comment-page-1/#comment-713</link>
		<dc:creator>LoriAnn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:29:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://visuallease.com/kbaleaseaudit/?p=1717#comment-713</guid>
		<description>While somewhat vintage, what a fantastic article nonetheless.  In that across all regions, we as real estate professionals are working to lease in the wake of multiple/extensive vacancies in both office and retail.  In many instances landlord&#039;s are working feverishly to recapture the losses realized predominantly in 2008-present.  As a tenant representative, I find a trend that is perplexing and frustrating in attempting to secure most basic OE data including any historic inclusion of capital expenditures in pass-thrus, the basic methods for a respective landlord&#039;s calculation of same BEFORE we consider a location for a candidate.  It is almost laughable the perpetual response from some brokerage entities that &quot;We&#039;ll work that out when we get to a lease&quot; - (of COURSE we will, when this important issue is riddled among planning, build-out and all other near commitment actions) Hardly.  Today&#039;s tenant is savvy, smart and want to know every detail reasonably possible when considering a site in CANDIDATE status.  It is no longer uncommon for wise, credit tenants to walk away from opportunities where the landlord is not straight forward about all expense details, assuring there are no surprises later in their lease.  You &quot;nailed&quot; a very predominant issues as capital expenditures are disguised in so many different ways - again, particularly in the wake of a plethora of vacancies making for a &quot;new day&quot; toward the manner in which information is gather BEFORE we talk about a lease.  Thanks and have a great day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While somewhat vintage, what a fantastic article nonetheless.  In that across all regions, we as real estate professionals are working to lease in the wake of multiple/extensive vacancies in both office and retail.  In many instances landlord&#8217;s are working feverishly to recapture the losses realized predominantly in 2008-present.  As a tenant representative, I find a trend that is perplexing and frustrating in attempting to secure most basic OE data including any historic inclusion of capital expenditures in pass-thrus, the basic methods for a respective landlord&#8217;s calculation of same BEFORE we consider a location for a candidate.  It is almost laughable the perpetual response from some brokerage entities that &#8220;We&#8217;ll work that out when we get to a lease&#8221; &#8211; (of COURSE we will, when this important issue is riddled among planning, build-out and all other near commitment actions) Hardly.  Today&#8217;s tenant is savvy, smart and want to know every detail reasonably possible when considering a site in CANDIDATE status.  It is no longer uncommon for wise, credit tenants to walk away from opportunities where the landlord is not straight forward about all expense details, assuring there are no surprises later in their lease.  You &#8220;nailed&#8221; a very predominant issues as capital expenditures are disguised in so many different ways &#8211; again, particularly in the wake of a plethora of vacancies making for a &#8220;new day&#8221; toward the manner in which information is gather BEFORE we talk about a lease.  Thanks and have a great day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FASB Lease Accounting UPDATE: The Fat Lady Refuses to Sing! by FASB Update: Lease Accounting Changes Further Delayed &#124; KBA&#039;s Lease Audit Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/07/fasb-lease-accounting-update-the-fat-lady-refuses-to-sing/comment-page-1/#comment-573</link>
		<dc:creator>FASB Update: Lease Accounting Changes Further Delayed &#124; KBA&#039;s Lease Audit Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3929#comment-573</guid>
		<description>[...] months their re-exposure has, in retrograde fashion, moved closer to the original draft.  See our Lease Tips Article from July, 7th.  Please stay tuned as we continue to follow the Boards’ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] months their re-exposure has, in retrograde fashion, moved closer to the original draft.  See our Lease Tips Article from July, 7th.  Please stay tuned as we continue to follow the Boards’ [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FASB Lease Accounting UPDATE: The Fat Lady Refuses to Sing! by Sean O'Shea</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/07/fasb-lease-accounting-update-the-fat-lady-refuses-to-sing/comment-page-1/#comment-572</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean O'Shea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:38:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3929#comment-572</guid>
		<description>Once again, KBA Lease serves as valuable intelligence resource and update.  Thank you</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Once again, KBA Lease serves as valuable intelligence resource and update.  Thank you</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Lease Audit Blog by commercial real estate, Updated:Top 77 Commercial Real Estate Blogs You Must Read! &#124; Duke Long</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/blog/lease-audit-blog.html/comment-page-1/#comment-542</link>
		<dc:creator>commercial real estate, Updated:Top 77 Commercial Real Estate Blogs You Must Read! &#124; Duke Long</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2011 16:12:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.christiandebotton.com/clients/kba/?page_id=81#comment-542</guid>
		<description>[...] 42.http://www.kbalease.com/blog/lease-audit-blog.html [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 42.<a href="http://www.kbalease.com/blog/lease-audit-blog.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.kbalease.com/blog/lease-audit-blog.html</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FASB Lease Accounting UPDATE: The Fat Lady Refuses to Sing! by Hal Alpert, CCIM</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/07/fasb-lease-accounting-update-the-fat-lady-refuses-to-sing/comment-page-1/#comment-540</link>
		<dc:creator>Hal Alpert, CCIM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 17:09:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3929#comment-540</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the update, it is still confusing to non accountants and maybe accountants too?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the update, it is still confusing to non accountants and maybe accountants too?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FASB Lease Accounting UPDATE: Our Voices Are Being Heard! by FASB Lease Accounting UPDATE: The Fat Lady Refuses to Sing! &#124; KBA&#039;s Lease Audit Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/02/fasb-lease-accounting-update-our-voices-are-being-heard/comment-page-1/#comment-535</link>
		<dc:creator>FASB Lease Accounting UPDATE: The Fat Lady Refuses to Sing! &#124; KBA&#039;s Lease Audit Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2011 14:03:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3726#comment-535</guid>
		<description>[...] a prior Lease Tips covering the forthcoming FASB changes to lease accounting, we reported that the FASB and IASB (the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a prior Lease Tips covering the forthcoming FASB changes to lease accounting, we reported that the FASB and IASB (the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Grossing Up Operating Expenses in Commercial Leases by Lou Ferro</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/07/grossing-up-operating-expenses-in-commercial-leases/comment-page-1/#comment-502</link>
		<dc:creator>Lou Ferro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:05:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3147#comment-502</guid>
		<description>How you handle this depends on the type of lease the vacant tenant has and the tenant mix in the building. If it is a modified gross lease (where the base rent is meant to cover the first year&#039;s operating expenses), the most accurate approach is to gross up the base year and lease year expenses. This year-to-year consistency keeps everyone on an even playing field. However, the vacant tenant that is not utilizing the building services should seek vacancy credits from the landlord for services like janitorial, premises electricity, HVAC, etc., as these services have been paid for through the rent, but are not being received, nor incurred by the landlord. 

If the vacant tenant has a net lease (tenant&#039;s share of expenses is paid in addition to the base rent), and other footage leased in the building is minimal, then billing actual (non-grossed-up) expenses is a short-cut way to make sure the vacant tenant is not paying for services not received. However, if the other tenants in the building are occupying their space and therefore using services, not grossing up will cause the occupying tenants to be underbilled (and the vacant tenant not getting the full value for the cost of services not used). Therefore, just like the modified gross lease above, the most accurate way to handle this and to assure that both the vacant tenants and occupying tenants are all treated fairly, is to gross up the annual expenses and then give vacancy credits to the vacant tenants. If the calculations are done correctly, you should end up with the occupying tenants paying their fair share of the services they received, the vacant tenants not paying for any services they did not receive and the landlord recouping from all the tenants in the aggregate, its actual annual costs incurred to provide the various services.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How you handle this depends on the type of lease the vacant tenant has and the tenant mix in the building. If it is a modified gross lease (where the base rent is meant to cover the first year&#8217;s operating expenses), the most accurate approach is to gross up the base year and lease year expenses. This year-to-year consistency keeps everyone on an even playing field. However, the vacant tenant that is not utilizing the building services should seek vacancy credits from the landlord for services like janitorial, premises electricity, HVAC, etc., as these services have been paid for through the rent, but are not being received, nor incurred by the landlord. </p>
<p>If the vacant tenant has a net lease (tenant&#8217;s share of expenses is paid in addition to the base rent), and other footage leased in the building is minimal, then billing actual (non-grossed-up) expenses is a short-cut way to make sure the vacant tenant is not paying for services not received. However, if the other tenants in the building are occupying their space and therefore using services, not grossing up will cause the occupying tenants to be underbilled (and the vacant tenant not getting the full value for the cost of services not used). Therefore, just like the modified gross lease above, the most accurate way to handle this and to assure that both the vacant tenants and occupying tenants are all treated fairly, is to gross up the annual expenses and then give vacancy credits to the vacant tenants. If the calculations are done correctly, you should end up with the occupying tenants paying their fair share of the services they received, the vacant tenants not paying for any services they did not receive and the landlord recouping from all the tenants in the aggregate, its actual annual costs incurred to provide the various services.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Video: Marc Betesh Talking FASB with Duke Long by Terry Barger</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/06/video-marc-betesh-talking-fasb-with-duke-long-2/comment-page-1/#comment-497</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry Barger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3926#comment-497</guid>
		<description>Great job!  Now let&#039;s see if corporate America is listening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great job!  Now let&#8217;s see if corporate America is listening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Video: Marc Betesh Talking FASB with Duke Long by Hal Alpert, CCIM</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/06/video-marc-betesh-talking-fasb-with-duke-long-2/comment-page-1/#comment-496</link>
		<dc:creator>Hal Alpert, CCIM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3926#comment-496</guid>
		<description>Great summary of a confusing subject.  A little more explanation of impact on corporate bottom line would have been good.  Thanks for sharing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great summary of a confusing subject.  A little more explanation of impact on corporate bottom line would have been good.  Thanks for sharing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Grossing Up Operating Expenses in Commercial Leases by Steve</title>
		<link>http://www.kbalease.com/2011/07/grossing-up-operating-expenses-in-commercial-leases/comment-page-1/#comment-492</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:35:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kbalease.com/?p=3147#comment-492</guid>
		<description>Thoughts on tenants who lease a large % of a building but are not currently occupying the space?  If they are paying rent but not using the building services would you still gross up those expenses that are low due to the tenant not occupying?  I have seen cases where a tenant is leasing 75+% of a building but not occupying/using the space and owners have chosen to not gross up because it is mainly impacting that tenant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thoughts on tenants who lease a large % of a building but are not currently occupying the space?  If they are paying rent but not using the building services would you still gross up those expenses that are low due to the tenant not occupying?  I have seen cases where a tenant is leasing 75+% of a building but not occupying/using the space and owners have chosen to not gross up because it is mainly impacting that tenant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

