Lease Rates and Lease Valuation

T-Mobile Sprint Merger Backup Plan?

June 12, 2019 by Ken Schmidt 2 Comments

One of our municipal clients has a water tower with T-Mobile and Sprint on it. T-Mobile has proposed to add antennas and equipment with Band 41 (Clearwire 2500 MHz spectrum) to T-Mobile’s rad center. See the image below with the antennas that service B41. Because the lease the client has with T-Mobile prevents the addition of new antennas, they are required to get an amendment. T-Mobile is seeking to have the amendment signed prior to the merger confirmation.

For us, it is difficult to price the amendment because the lease does not allow restriction of equipment based upon the specific frequency, but only on the size, weight, and the number of the antennas. Thus, if the merger occurs, we can make it more difficult for T-Mobile to merge the equipment and terminate the Sprint lease, but not impossible. However, if the merger does not occur, if the client signs an amendment that could allow Sprint to terminate their lease regardless of what happens with the merger.
When we inquired with the T-Mobile agent about making the amendment contingent upon the merger happening or not, we were told that T-Mobile’s legal department would never agree to such a limitation.

Is there a backup plan like spectrum sharing?

T-Mobile’s desire to sign the amendment but unwillingness to make it contingent upon the merger makes me wonder whether there is an alternative plan in the works in the event that the merger is not consummated. This could be a spectrum sharing agreement. This isn’t unprecedented- see this article. But in that case, the spectrum to be shared was PCS spectrum (1900 MHz), not Clearwire’s spectrum (2500 MHz). Thus, the existing agreement would need to be revised or a new one entered into.

Sprint has the spectrum but is a dead company walking without additional capex to deploy 5G. Over time, the distinction between those who invest in 5G specifically in densifying their network will prove greater than that with LTE and 4G. T-Mobile desperately needs mid-band spectrum as running 5G on 600 MHz will be sufficient in areas where there isn’t a significant amount of traffic but will limit their overall network performance elsewhere.

So What to Do?

First, off, it is hard to generalize a course of action that works for every site. Each situation will be different and tied to the specific lease language and exhibits. In this case, the easy but ultimately unfruitful answer is to either reject the request altogether or ask that the amendment rent match that which would be lost with a Sprint lease termination. T-Mobile won’t agree to the latter option so the only option we see is waiting until there is further clarification on the merger . The lawsuit filed yesterday by 10 states against the merger may delay the process and certainly makes the merger probability less certain.

We are curious about what others have done or will do in a similar situation. If you have successfully negotiated through this issue, please either leave a comment here or contact us or private message us if you don’t care to take it public.

Seem Like Offers to Buy or Extend Your Cell Tower Lease Are Getting Better?

May 31, 2019 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

It Is Not Your Imagination. The Offers Are Better.

In just the last week, we have received five separate inquiries from past and potential clients who had recently received a cell tower lease buyout offer that was noticeably better than ones they had received from the tower company previously. Those who reached out felt that there must be something going on in the industry. They are asking the question, “Is this related to 5G?”

Yes – Offers Are Related to 5G

There is so much hype about 5G out there now – it is hard to pick up a newspaper or browse the web without seeing multiple articles on what 5G is and what it can be. The investment community has definitely taken notice. We are seeing more new entrants with serious funding ready to purchase leases than we have since 2012-2013. We have been contacted by multiple financial groups who desperately want to “get in” on 5G and are seeking our consultation on how to do so. These groups sometimes have more conservative Return On Investment criteria and are willing to make higher offers as a result.

Tower Company Valuations Are Up.

It doesn’t hurt that tower company stock prices are up as well. Both American Tower Corporation ($AMT) and SBA Communications ($SBAC) are at all-time highs as of the end of May 2019, and Crown Castle ($CCI) is near its all-time high. When tower company stocks are up, they have more capital to purchase leases. Coupled with the low cost of capital and their recent conversions to REITs, tower companies have every incentive to convert leases (long-term operating expense) to easements (upfront capital expenditure).

Make No Mistake – It Is A Seller’s Market.

As new buyers come into the industry looking to acquire assets (leases or towers), the tower companies are forced to be more aggressive in their offers to purchase or extend their own leases lest they lose the lease to a third party that looks to capitalize on the lease in the future. Tower companies do not want to have to deal with a third-party owner, who is better informed than the landowner in most cases. The net result is that landowners are receiving escalated offers from the tower companies for lease buyouts and for lease extensions. One downside, though, is that the efforts by some of the outside agents who are trying to close these deals are getting more egregious, with some outright lying and suggesting to landowners that towers are going away due to 5G and small cells. (HINT: they wouldn’t be buying or extending if the towers were going away!)

Landowners now have more options than ever to sell their lease or to extend their lease. Tower companies and third-party lease buyout companies are becoming more creative in their offers. One of the techniques that they use to inflate their offers is to use payments over time. By showing you the overall amount they will pay, they hope that you aren’t smart enough to understand the time value of money and the additional risk you take on by doing a lease buyout under an installment payment plan. Either way, the offers are getting better, which is encouraging landowners to consider selling or extending. Clients we advised years ago are getting offers that are at or above what we recommended they ask for.

But It May Not Be The Perfect Storm.

We previously thought that the market couldn’t get much better given that interest rates are so low and tower company stocks were high at the time. Candidly, we don’t know. It remains to be seen whether the new entrants to the market are capable and serious. In Steel in the Air’s 15 years, we have seen multiple investors look to enter the sector but bow out when they realize how hard it is to scale the acquisition of leases or towers.

There are other factors that could influence offers positively or negatively. Will interest rates climb and cost of capital increase, thereby making it more expensive to buy leases? Will the tower companies continue to be the darling of the stock market as investors chase anything related to 5G? Will Sprint/T-Mobile be able to pull off a merger? If they do, will a fourth wireless carrier enter the market?

Need Help Deciphering Your Options?

We can help. We have advised 3,000 clients over the last 15 years with over 4,000 assessments. We track data from thousands of lease buyout and lease extension offers. Our breadth of data allows us to identify trends in the market when they start, not follow them after they have already changed direction.

We can provide consulting services on lease buyouts, andlease extensions/expirations. We can broker your lease(s) or tower(s) to maximize your sale price. We can help you determine whether you should consider selling, consider extending, or simply keep the lease as is for now. Our clients run the gamut from individual landowners to large multi-national corporations to large cities.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss your situation with you further. There is no cost for the initial call, and we do not pitch you services that you do not need. You may be worried about getting added to a mailing list or being called repeatedly if you take us up on our offer of a free initial consultation. Don’t worry! Just let us know up front and we will make sure you never hear from us unless you want to.

Call us for a free initial consultation.

Why Did My Crown Castle Lease Revenue Share Payments Go Up or Down?

October 22, 2018 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

A number of our clients have ground leases with Crown Castle that contain revenue sharing clauses. They contacted us recently to ask why their lease payments went down or up. Typically, the rent payment adjustments are being made because of what Crown Castle is referring to as adjustments in their master lease agreements with their wireless tenants.

What Is a Master Lease Agreement?

For those of you not familiar with a master lease agreement or MLA, it is an agreement between Crown Castle and a wireless company like AT&T or Verizon where the overall conditions and terms are addressed for all future leases between the two companies. The MLA typically contains the length of the agreement and normal boilerplate language that will be inserted in all the tower company/wireless company agreements. Then, as the carrier needs to lease a new site, a site lease amendment or site license agreement (SLA) is generated that has site-specific details. In some cases, the MLA will contain the specific lease rates for all sites to be leased. In other cases, each SLA will have a specific lease rate.

What Is a Ground Lease Revenue Share Payment?

This matters to landowners who have leases with a revenue share because the landowner typically receives a percentage of the revenue being paid by the wireless carrier to Crown Castle. For example, if the landowner has a revenue share clause of 20%, they will receive 20% of whatever Crown Castle is being paid by the wireless companies on the tower. The revenue share normally does not apply to the anchor tenant and only applies to wireless carriers who sublease space on the tower after the first anchor tenant. If AT&T pays Crown Castle $2000/mo, the landowner would get $400/mo. However, if Crown Castle and AT&T negotiate a new agreement at $1500/mo., the landowner's "share" would decrease to $300/mo. That is why they call it a revenue share.

In most cases, the rent that Crown Castle receives increases and, therefore, so does the share of the rent being paid to the landowner. However, in October 2018, landowners have been receiving notices indicating that the rent being paid to Crown Castle has decreased. How much? It varies. You might be asking yourself why Crown Castle would be agreeing to lower rent? Are they trying to avoid the revenue share requirement? Perhaps, but there are other reasons why Crown Castle would be interested in reducing the rent they receive.

Why Would Crown Castle Agree to Lower Rent?

First, it is quite possible that Crown Castle is seeking to level out their rents for a specific wireless carrier across all their towers. Some rents might go down, but some might go up. Rents that go down help Crown Castle make it less justifiable for that wireless carrier to relocate to another tower being built by a Crown Castle competitor. (See our previous article on how AT&T and Verizon are desperate to strike back at the tower companies) Secondly, Crown Castle may also have gained other concessions like higher escalation to their lease with the carrier or an agreement by the carrier not to terminate their sublease agreements for a fixed amount of time. Third, it is likely that Crown Castle carefully studied their revenue share obligations before agreeing to a revised amount to see whether they were net negative or positive in terms of income due to the adjustment. Lastly, and this may be specific to only Crown Castle, this could be part of an integrated master lease agreement for macrocells (towers) and small cells where collectively the overall income to Crown Castle increased.

Some landowners have lost income as a result of the sublease rent adjustment. Some will gain. It appears, though, that Crown Castle is retroactively applying the revenue share adjustment for past months. This is likely because the master lease agreement amendments were completed earlier this year and Crown Castle is now just getting to the point of adjusting the revenue share payments. To catch up with their overpayment or underpayment over the last five to seven months, they are adjusting the current revenue share accordingly. This can result in significant swings. One landowner we know of received a NEGATIVE five-figure revenue share, which essentially means that Crown Castle is asking for tens of thousands of dollars back because of alleged overpayments over the last five to seven months.

What Can I Do About It?

Unfortunately, Crown Castle hasn't been too transparent about the changes or how they arrived at the revised revenue share amounts. If you have received an adjustment to the revenue share calculation in your check, we recommend that you ask Crown Castle for a business summary affidavit (BSA). If your lease requires that Crown Castle share copies of the sublease agreements they have in place with their tenants, ask for those instead. Don't be afraid to ask for a specific accounting of how Crown Castle calculated the changes in rent. We aren't suggesting that Crown Castle is intentionally trying to cheat you, just that we have found mistakes previously in their revenue share calculations that were both positive and negative to the landowner.

If you have lost revenue and aren't sure what to make of it, please reach out to us. We can review your rent statement from the last three to six months and see why your rent went up or down. We can compare it to what our other clients are receiving due to their revenue share clause from that same carrier. If we think the calculations look correct, we will tell you that and won't charge you anything. If we think there is something wrong with the calculations, we can then talk further about helping you work through sending a formal notice to Crown Castle of the discrepancy.

Lendlease’s New Renegotiation Efforts on Sprint Rooftop Sites

May 25, 2018 by Ken Schmidt 3 Comments

If you have followed our musings over the years, you know that we don’t like the lease renegotiation industry. In the past we have observed some companies (not Lendlease, Tower Alliance, or Softbank/Sprint) use high-pressure tactics, sometimes outright misrepresentations, and downright aggressive salespeople to convince landowners to agree to terms that are not advantageous to the landowner. These tactics can tarnish the landowner/carrier relationship in our opinion. Some renegotiation is necessary, especially on overly high leases; however, the lease renegotiation industry often targets all leases, not just those that should be reduced – all in the vein of needing to reduce costs and to generate a fee for the lease optimization company. Again, we don’t object to the renegotiation efforts themselves, but we do strongly believe that the tactics used can be shady and manipulative. Recently, we have become aware of some letters and requests that Lendlease (or their agents, Tower Alliance) are using with building owners with Sprint leases that we believe are not advantageous for the landowner/building owner.

First a little background. In late 2017, Lendlease (a global infrastructure company that has formed a tower company) and Softbank (majority owner of Sprint) formed a joint venture to acquire 8,000 cell sites from Sprint across the US. We believe that these acquired sites are mostly rooftops. We suspected at the time that this was a financing transaction that Sprint entered into because it knew that if a Sprint/T-Mobile merger came to pass, Sprint might end up terminating a good number of those leases. We suspect that Lendlease/Softbank paid a reduced value for the leases as compared to what the market was paying, probably because both parties knew of the potential risk from a T-Mobile/Sprint transaction. You might ask why Lendlease/Softbank would buy these leases if there was potential risk? There are three reasons:

1. They know how long Sprint is likely to continue using those leases or have negotiated a guaranteed term.

2. They intend to try to “remarket” the Sprint lease space to other carriers if and when Sprint terminates.

3. Lendlease sees the potential to renegotiate with building owners to expand the Sprint lease area and, even if Sprint doesn’t terminate, still lease space to other carriers.

Fast forward to today and building owners whose Sprint leases were acquired by the Softbank/Lendlease joint venture are being contacted by third parties like Tower Alliance to “renegotiate” their leases. Tower Alliance (hired by Lendlease to renegotiate on the JV’s behalf) shares industry articles like “A merged Sprint/T-Mobile will shutter 25,000 towers, and Crown Castle with suffer most” and “Sprint and T-Mobile to Merge, in Bid to Remake Wireless Market”. The email our client received contains these articles and includes the following justification:

It was a pleasure speaking with you this morning. The intent of my telephone call and this follow up email is to inform you of the project currently underway in the US by the Sprint/Lendlease Joint Venture as described in the press release and Letters of Authorizations. Sprint is assessing all of its rooftop network real estate in order to assure maximum cost efficiency. It has relocated many sites that are not efficient. The site as referenced above currently remains one of a group of sites identified as a cost efficiency target in the Sprint/Lendlease Joint Venture. In addition, I have attached some press releases speculating on the outcome of the announcement regarding the possible merger of Sprint/T-Mobile for informational purposes only. My goal is to have an amended and restated lease executed once we have negotiated the most favorable terms for the mutual benefit of both Landlord and Tenant.

Before we go on to the “ask” from Lendlease and why we recommend that building owners don’t consider it seriously, we have to question the statement, “It (Sprint) has relocated many sites that are not efficient.” Unless they are referring to lease decommissions from the Clearwire/Nextel portfolios, we are unaware of any sites that have been relocated by Sprint due to cost efficiency. Perhaps there are some, but we haven’t seen them. At any rate, we highly doubt many is more than 50.

Tower Alliance on behalf of Lendlease then asks for a number of concessions from the building owner on the new lease, which we have listed below along with our thoughts on why such changes are ultimately really bad for the building owner.

What happens if the landowner doesn’t agree to these really bad terms? Tower Alliance suggests that “if we aren’t able to come to a new agreement, the tenant will be forced to evaluate alternative site locations.” Note that they don’t say they will terminate the agreement – there has been litigation previously between landowners and another carrier that clearly prevent carriers from saying they will terminate if they don’t get their desired terms. However, the language is carefully worded to imply that termination is a risk. In reality, by not signing, in most cases, the landowner will be in exactly the same position both now and in the future. Sprint is either going to terminate or not. Another replacement carrier will either be interested in your rooftop or not. This deal doesn’t change either of those eventualities for most landowners. There will be a small subset of high-dollar Sprint rooftop leases where Lendlease may end up terminating and moving to a new rooftop. But for most landowners, this proposal from Lendlease is not a good deal and is one we would advise against. If Sprint and T-Mobile don’t merge, there is even less of a reason to agree to these terms. Fundamentally, we don’t like this type of renegotiation effort and will strongly counsel our clients against agreeing to these terms.

Got a Sprint lease and feel anguish over what to do? Contact us and we will be happy to discuss your situation and identify whether we can provide any value to you in your decision-making process.

Weird Revenue Sharing Clause

April 11, 2018 by Ken Schmidt 2 Comments

One of our clients received a proposal from a tower company that included a revenue share clause. Generally, revenue shares are not proposed by wireless carriers and even less so by tower companies. However, because our client is a governmental entity, I assume the tower company figured it would be better to put a revenue share out for discussion instead of waiting for it to be added.

However, this particular revenue share being proposed is a bit odd. For tenants added in the first 5 years of the lease, the landowner will get $150/mo. per tenant. For tenants added after year 5, the rate drops to $75/mo. For tenants other than AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, or T-Mobile, the rate is $50/mo. no matter when they are added.

There are a number of issues with this proposed revenue share language. First, we generally advise landowners not to accept fixed-rate revenue shares; instead, they should look for a % of revenue. A revenue share is intended to give the landowner participation in the revenue and often comes with a lower base lease rate to accommodate the future upside. A fixed revenue share though does not tie the landowner’s upside to that of the tower company- instead, it limits it no matter how much the tower company is getting for the lease. Furthermore, the reduction here from $150/mo. to $75/mo. after year 5 is ridiculous and serves no benefit other than to take advantage of lesser informed landowners. Even worse is the $50/mo. for any other tenant – which could include tenants that will pay more than traditional cellular tenants and would exclude future entities that enter the business regardless of how much they pay. From the tower company standpoint, having a fixed rate revenue share is much simpler from an accounting standpoint and much more profitable.

This particular proposal won’t be accepted by the landowner- who will and can counter with a % based revenue share given the fact that they own pretty much everything around this location. However, in other situations, the landowner may have to accept these types of terms especially if there are other readily available options. The key of course if trying to figure out whether your property is unique or not. If you need help, please contact the experts at Steel in the Air.

For those of you in the industry- have you seen other revenue share proposals that are innovative or outright ridiculous?

T-Mobile Sued for Alleged Unauthorized Attachment to High Tension Electric Tower

July 20, 2017 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

A few times a year, we are contacted by someone that believes that a wireless company attached equipment to an electric tower (not a small wood utility pole) on their property but that isn't getting compensation for it. We just came across this news story where T-Mobile has a cell site attached to a utility pole and the landowners are not receiving any rent for the access to their property. They are suing T-Mobile alleging that T-Mobile does not have the legal right to use the pole. In the mid-2000's, there were a number of lawsuits, some class action, on this same issue. In some, the landowners won and in others, the wireless carrier won.

The key to whether a landowner should be compensated is based upon the language in the underlying utility easement for the electric towers. The more specific the language is regarding what the easement is for, the better it is for the landowner. If the easement language includes the right to provide telecommunication services or communication services, in many cases, that means that the utility company is within its rights to grant access to the wireless company without paying rent or getting landowner consent. If the easement is specifically for the transmission of power, the wireless carrier may need your approval to be on the property which may mean additional rent.

If you believe that the wireless carrier who has equipment on one of the electric towers on your property is improperly doing so, go to the clerk of court for your county or city and ask to see a copy of the utility easement across your property. They are normally very helpful. Get a copy and reach out to us. While we cannot provide a legal interpretation of the easement language, we can advise whether you should spend the time and money to visit a local attorney. If the attorney believes you should be compensated, we can help determine the appropriate amount for the lease or consent.

Sprint Enters the Lease Renegotiation Game Again

April 11, 2017 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

A landowner client of ours received this email from LCC, a company allegedly acting on behalf of Sprint where they claim that if the landowner doesn't agree to concessions, that Lendlease will consider relocating the Sprint site.

Screen shot of email from Sprint — Email from Sprint Representative to Landowner

If you receive a similar request from Sprint, LCC, or Lendlease or another cell tower lease optimization company, please contact us. We can help you evaluate the proposal and determine whether it is probable that Sprint would move in the event you choose not to accept their proposed rent reduction.

Rooftop Small Cell in Syracuse, NY (Ken’s Hometown)

January 30, 2017 by Ken Schmidt Leave a Comment

Despite living here for over a year now, I just came across my first small cell in the City of Syracuse. The site and equipment are located on and adjacent to the rooftop of Rosie’s Bar & Grill just west of Syracuse.

Below is a photo showing the rooftop small cell- which includes a small antenna mount along with an omni type antenna. Based on what we have seen in proposed Verizon rooftop small cell plans for other clients- this appears to be a Verizon installation.

Small Cell Photo — Rooftop Verizon Small Cell

The Verizon small cell connects to an approximately 4′ tall equipment cabinet mounted on a steel platform on the side of the building. Verizon has likely entered into a small cell lease agreement with Rosie’s for the placement of the equipment. They typically offer $250/month to $300/mo. for this type of lease although like anything that is negotiable. If Verizon or another small cell provider contacts you for a similar proposal- give us a call at (877) 428-6937 or contact us.

Small Cell Equipment

Towers and Tenant Collocation Rent Trends: 2016-Beyond

January 20, 2016 by Ken Schmidt 3 Comments

In their article “Tower Rents May See Pressure from Carriers”, AGL Magazine cites three sources to justify their overreaching conclusion that cell tower collocation rents may soon see downward pressure. Incorporating statements from Ron Bizick II of Tarpon Towers, Jennifer Fritzche of Wells Fargo Securities, and Alex Gellman of Vertical Bridge, AGL surmises that the traditional tower development business model is transforming. Following is SITA’s response to that assertion. [Read more…] about Towers and Tenant Collocation Rent Trends: 2016-Beyond

Sprint’s Network Overhaul- Radical Impact on AMT, CCI, and SBAC?

January 18, 2016 by Ken Schmidt 4 Comments

The website Re/code posted an unconfirmed article on Friday re: Sprint’s Next Generation Network which stated “sources familiar with the initiative said Sprint plans to cut its network costs by relocating its radio equipment from tower space it has leased from Crown Castle and American Tower to spots on government owned properties which costs much less.” [Read more…] about Sprint’s Network Overhaul- Radical Impact on AMT, CCI, and SBAC?