Mall REITs and The Aspirations of Forever 21
Forever 21 is slated to open in six quality General Growth Properties (GGP) regional malls in 2010. The collective size of these units totals nearly 600,000 square feet, thus averaging almost 100,000 sq. ft. per unit for Forever 21. This comes on the heels of Forever 21 taking over leases on Mervyn’s stores in California earlier this year. This typical Mervyn’s box is in the range of 80,000-90,000 sq. ft. Forever 21 has also announced numerous new 30,000-40,000 sq. ft. units at various high quality regional malls across the country, including malls owned by Simon Property Group. This is a dramatic shift upwards for Forever 21 in terms of the size of their stores. (These units are going to increase the total mall space devoted to this juniors segment by as much at 50% in some properties.) Previously, Forever 21 was principally found operating as an in-line tenant in regional malls with units sized in the 7,000-10,000 sq. ft. range. It is also a testament to mall landlord’s willingness to put Forever 21 in very high quality regional malls, in an environment where there are few other opportunities for new retail formats of this size. I would consider a good portion of the malls where these new stores have been announced to be A class properties ($400-$600 PSF+). The same cannot be said for all of the Mervyn’s units which include both B and C class properties.
The aspirations of Forever 21 begs the question, is there a need for ~100,000 sq. ft. of juniors apparel and accessories under one roof in anchor-like positions in regional malls? And secondly, what will be the impact on mall landlords with the introduction of this new format?
My first inclination is to consider previous attempts by Limited Stores/Limited Brands as well as Gap, Inc. to “upsize” their mall offerings to create a department store-like box, marrying their various store concepts under one roof. These operators also went through a period of simply “upsizing” individual store nameplates to a larger format. This was popular particularly in the late 1980s and the early to mid 1990s. Unfortunately, this did not work well for these particular operators. In fact, a few years later they reversed course and proceeded to work on downsizing many store units from Limited to Express to Old Navy as well as others. In short they, found the sales productivity did not justify the store size and costs associated with running the format, including occupancy costs. Occupancy costs typically average 15%-16% of store sales, although the range of occupancy costs can be quite large from the high single digits to over 20% at times. In the case of Limited divisions and Gap divisions, these companies have a long history of being able to negotiate below market rents with mall operators. It would not be uncommon for Gap or Limited divisions to negotiate up to a 50% discount on the market rental rate at a particular regional mall. That said, the larger juniors store format for these companies still could not justify the costs of running it. Overall these larger stores fared unfavorably relative to smaller units, and did not stand the test of time. They never reached the 80,000-100,000 sq. ft. that Forever 21 is envisioning for these new units. The Limited and Gap experience topped out at 40,000-50,000 sq. ft. and those were pretty rare.
Last month I visited the new Forever 21 (Forever XXI) store at Polaris Fashion Place, the newest regional mall in Columbus, Ohio. The store contains the typical trendy merchandise in the so-called “cheap fashions” segment also occupied by competitors Charlotte Russe and H&M. The store occupies roughly 40,000-50,000 sq. ft. on two levels and is an example of Forever 21’s march to larger store formats. It is part of the “lifestyle wing” at Polaris, essentially an outdoor court of shops and restaurants attached to the mall. My first observation was the store was merchandised at a lower level on a sq. ft. basis than the typical in-line mall format. Also when compared to traditional department store operators, such as Macy’s, the store is again merchandised to a lower level on a goods per foot basis. The store also contained a small young mens presentation, occupying a few thousand sq. ft. I have to believe that less merchandise per foot equals lower productivity. And a larger store format always equals lower productivity.
From the mall landlord perspective, this is an idea whose time has come. There are few if any retailers willing to take 30,000-100,000 sq. ft. positions in regional malls these days. While these store are being subsidized at healthy levels with allowances for store build-out provided by the landlord, the rents are by no means dramatically below market. In fact other small formats in juniors apparel are paying less for smaller store units at the same properties. At best the rents are 1/3 off market — and the market would be for a store size in the 7,000-10,000 sq. ft. range. This will likely be a boon to mall landlords in the short run. However, paying fairly high rents for an untested concept that dramatically increases the juniors merchandise, even at quality regional malls is not without risk. In fact, the sales productivity these units can generate will be the key determinant of success for both Forever 21 and the landlord. Given the rent structure, these units will have to be highly productive (~300 $PSF) when compared to other mall anchors and junior anchors. Intuition, observation and past experience suggest this is a low probability outcome. I can’t help but think of Steve & Barry’s which a few years ago was also thought of as an idea whose time had come.
Most department stores are struggling to find a message and an offering that resonates with shoppers. Most department stores are also paying little or no rent in regional mall anchor positions. Will Forever 21 be the answer? Or does Forever 21’s larger format represent an answer to a question that no one is asking?
My analysis strongly suggests the rent structure is out of line with the potential sales productivity to the point where there will be little if any margin for error with this concept. It is also likely to put significant pressure on other juniors stores in regional malls through market share capture by Forever 21 simply due to the critical mass of these larger units (negatively impacting landlords in other areas). And as noted previously, past experience does not favor this transition from in-line mall retailer to junior department store. The future 100,000 sq. ft. units are being rolled out aggressively with no proof of concept, let alone any testing for viability. And then, there is the economy and poor retailing climate. All in all, history, analysis and sentiment do not favor these aspirations.
Tags: charlotte russe, forever 21, H&M, junior department stores, Mall REITs, new retail formats Posted in
