Lease Option Folly for Bed & Breakfasts

During these difficult times of recession and the credit crisis, we have been thinking more about the use of Lease Options as a method of transferring Inns and Bed and Breakfasts. There clearly are some advantages for both Sellers and Buyers of Inns by allowing a faster closing period without the necessity of finding hard to secure financing. The universe of potential buyers is greater because the down payment (option price) and the closing costs are lower. Yet, I remain troubled about this method for both Sellers and Buyers. Here are the details.

First let’s describe the concept. The Lease Option is an alternative route to Innkeeping. It has been used over the years when financing gets tight or when the Inn in question is underperforming and cannot achieve normal financing. The way it works is that the Seller/Lessor leases the Inn property and business to the Buyer/Lessee for a five year term, keeping in place the existing financing on the Inn. The Buyer/Lessee pays an option price for the option which is less than a normal deposit for a purchase. The Lease is triple net, and the Lessee pays for all taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs. The rent is set at an amount sufficient for the Seller/Lessor to pay its mortgage on the Inn. In some cases the rent is lower at the beginning to enhance the ability of the Buyer/Lessee to improve the Inn’s business and make the Inn more capable of being financed in the future. In most cases a portion of the rent is also set aside as a credit against the ultimate option price, thus allowing the Buyer/Lessee to build up more “equity” in the Inn over the lease term. The Seller/Lessor retains title to the Inn and all tax incidences, including depreciation. Finally, the Option Price set by the Lease is received by the Seller/Lessee, but is not taxable until either the option is exercised or it expires by time or default.

From the Seller’s standpoint, they are able to get out of the active operation of the Inn and retain the tax benefits of ownership. They receive sufficient sums to continue to pay down their mortgage, and all operating costs are paid by the Buyer/Lessee. The Seller receives sufficient funds at the outset of the option to perhaps put a sufficient deposit on a new house or set aside funds for retirement without immediate tax consequences, but will not have a large payout to say buy a new business. One key point for the Sellers is that they still own the property, and thus, in the event of a default, can get back the Inn business faster than if they had to foreclose a mortgage. Overall, for a Seller that does not have immediate needs for the whole sales price, this looks on its face like a viable alternative, particularly where an outright sale is not possible.

From the buyer’s point of view, again, this looks attractive on its face for those Buyers who want to get into Innkeeping immediately, but lack the resources to make an outright purchase. It is clearly a cheaper route, with less of a down payment, and much lower closing costs (no appraisal or bank fees or transfer taxes). It gives the Buyer five years to develop and improve the business of the Inn, at the same time building up the equity under the lease and, hopefully, improving the overall value of the Inn while the option price remains fixed. However, for both Buyers and Sellers alike, this scheme is both illusory and full of risk.

Here is the main reason why this method is folly for both buying and selling Inns. The cash-strapped buyer is likely buying an underperforming Inn which usually requires an additional capital infusion of working capital in order to improve the business. Sweat equity is fine in a start-up situation, but does not necessarily work where real hospitality experience is needed to turn around a poorly performing Inn. Most of the Inns which are using lease options are full service Inns which are even more sensitive to needing qualified restaurant experience to improve the dining room parts of the Inn’s business. A new Innkeeper, even one with some restaurant or hospitality experience still has a huge learning curve just to run an Inn, let alone improve the restaurant business. The facts are clear that 50% of new restaurants in the United States fail after 3 years, with a whopping 90% failure rate after 5 years. This makes a lease option of a full service inn even more daunting when the new Innkeepers lack hands on restaurant experience.

Another issue follows directly from the fact that the costs are lower because no financial institution is involved. Without a bank being utilized for financing, there also is no third-party looking at the historical cash flow and tax returns of the Inn business, no independent appraisal of the Inn, and, in some cases, no real due diligence of such things as the structural integrity of the building and systems of the Inn. The simplicity of the transaction belies the fact that protections for the buyer are sometimes overlooked. For example, since no title insurance is needed for a bank, often this basic protection in a sale is not present in a lease option deal. If a title problem is found later in the process, perhaps when the option is being exercised, the buyer may be at risk after it has paid the option price and all of the lease payments. Thus, in reality, almost all of the normal sale due diligence needs to be done for lease options as well, making the cost saving factors perhaps irrelevant. Finally, in our experience, with this relatively unusual form of Inn transfer, Buyers do not always receive the legal protections that they need. For example, since the lease is subordinate to the Owner’s original mortgage, at closing of the lease, the Buyer/Lessee needs to receive a Non-Disturbance Agreement from the Seller/Lessors’s bank in order to protect the lease and the option from a foreclosure which may occur due to other issues of the Seller/Lessor with that bank. This simple legal protection may not always be included in such a deal.

Let’s not forget about the Sellers as well. If the deal fails, they get the pleasure of taking back their Inn, perhaps a long time after they had stopped being Innkeepers. The failure of the option is a hard thing to keep private from the buying public, and the result may be that they have to take back an Inn at a time when it is worse off from a business standpoint. Also, if the markets are as tight as they are today, the seller may really have lost a part of the value of the Inn, and be unable to sell it after such a failure.

What we have really seen in practice in the last five lease option deals in the New England area is the ultimate inability of the Buyers to turn around the operations, and the failure to either continue to make the lease payments or to achieve financing of the option. In those cases, each Buyer lost their option payments and ultimately lost the Inn. In some of the cases the causes were due to unforeseen maintenance issues arising after the lease commenced which stripped the Inns of needed working capital. In others, the new Innkeepers had transition difficulties and basically had little inability to run complex Inn operations including restaurants. In other cases, the importance of increasing web-based internet marketing eluded the new Innkeepers, making profit margins even more difficult to achieve. In some cases, the new Innkeepers just realized after a few years that the Innkeeping life was not to their liking, and they were willing to just walk away with nothing since they had no basic personal liability like what they would have for a mortgage in a purchase scenario. The likelihood, in most cases, is that the failure was a combination of all of the above, plus the post 9/11 weakening of the hospitality market that did them in. While all of these things can affect new Innkeepers who purchased Inns the normal way through financed sales, the fact that the financial institution utilized some independent review of the transaction seems to have had a moderating impact on the risk of failure. Most Buyers when facing the failure of their business will fight hard, and perhaps use other resources (such as a part of retirement funds) to make the Inn successful. In practice, we just do not seem to see that willingness to sacrifice all in a lease option situation.

With today’s tight financing and really slow real estate markets, there will be a lot of pressure on Inn Sellers to utilize lease options to achieve their goals. Likewise, Buyers may be convinced to go forward using these methods where they cannot put down sufficient deposits to achieve normal financing or where such financing is totally unavailable due to the performance of the Inn or the credit crisis. In either case, for the reasons stated above, we feel that using this method is both folly and very risky for both sides. It is highly unlikely that we will be recommending its continued use in our consulting practice.