Rollover
Schedule concentration can make an occupied building feel riskier than it first appears.
An occupied office building can still carry meaningful rollover and income risk if the suite mix, tenant profile, and local office demand are weaker than the headline occupancy suggests. The real question is how replaceable the income is after change begins.
That is why investors should examine lease rollover, suite-size depth, tenant concentration, and market replacement logic carefully. Multi-tenant office often feels stable right up until several small risks begin to compound at once.
In smaller and mid-sized office markets, the replacement tenant is often the real underwriting story. When that tenant is hard to picture, the rent roll deserves a harder read.
Schedule concentration can make an occupied building feel riskier than it first appears.
The broader the likely replacement pool, the more durable the income base becomes.
In-place rents should be compared to believable leasing assumptions, not aspirational ones.
Because a building can look full today while still carrying significant rollover, tenant concentration, or replacement-risk issues beneath the surface.
They should review lease expirations, suite sizes, tenant quality, in-place rents, and how realistic replacement leasing looks in the local office market.
Because some suite sizes are easier to backfill than others, and a building with awkward demand depth can become much riskier at rollover.
A common mistake is treating current occupancy as proof of long-term stability without testing how durable that income actually is.