Carol W emailed me this reader's letter from the FT back in May:
Sir, I read with interest the article “Retailers struggle to account for sales” (April 29), which focused on the continuing dilemma of how retailers report online and in store sales.
It is not only investors and analysts who need more transparency, however. Landlords also have a stake in better understanding where sales are transacted. Transparency benefits both landlords and tenants. If online activity is skewing the picture for like-for-like sales it is also impacting the value of rents...
We will get to the answers eventually. In the meantime, landlords could do worse than adopting a common approach in response to evolving new models of retailing. Ultimately, both retailers and landlords have a vested interest in ensuring that, between us, we maintain vibrant and successful retail destinations across the UK.
Ed Jenkins, Head of UK Retail, Real Estate Investments, Standard Life Investments, Edinburgh.
Thursday, 24 October 2013
Muggers would like to know how much is in your wallet
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Interesting, usually if someone wants a 'cut' of your sales, they have to invest money.
"Transparency benefits both landlords and tenants."
Well, I suppose it does. It's worth letting your landlord know if the bulk of your sales are online, because there is no particular benefit to you in being in his property if so and so he will realise that his ability to raise the rent is somewhat limited.
vibrant and successful retail destinations
Uh-huh.
This is a great letter. It proudly proclaims that landlords charge what the market will bear, yet no-one believes us when *we* say it.
Fraggle: isn´t that the truth. I feel the next step for the bold landlord, is advocating access to everyone´s paychecks, so they an get a good picture on what they can get from housing tenants as well.
M, that's the beauty of the system! Other people work, you get money.
B, re-read the letter, what he says is that LL wants a cut of online sales as well, i.e. you visit a range of stores to see the goods for real, and then you go home and order online. The LL says that a large part of online sales is at least indirectly related to actual bricks and mortar premises/location.
JH, the trick is to suck out as much blood as possible without killing the victim.
F, yes, that baffles me. They call it "Location location location" and we call it "community generated land values". They boast about the homer but deny the latter exists.
Kj, English letting agents do ask you for proof of earnings. It's the same thing.
"re-read the letter, what he says is that LL wants a cut of online sales as well"
Well, obviously, but the trump card the tenant holds is that he can make those online sales from anywhere, so even if he doesn't gain much by moving, his landlord stands to lose a lot by being lumbered with an empty property, whose new rent will have to reflect its earning potential without any online sales.
B, true. Just because the landlords WANT a cut of online doesn't mean they'll actually get it.
What annoyed me was the sheer cheek of these bastards. It's like a mugger not just asking how much is in your wallet but whether you have any more credit cards at home and what the limit on them is. Oh, and would you mind popping home and getting them?
Well, as they say, there's no harm in asking. AFAIK, in these sort of cases, I have no problem with the tryer-on trying it on, it's what one has come to expect. What annoys me is the tryee-on letting them get away with it, especially if there is public money involved, when they almost always do.
Post a Comment