Found a public SEC lease where one amendment nearly 4x'd the tenant's CAM share

Commercial Real Estate Investing
1wFollow

Found a public SEC lease where one amendment nearly 4x'd the tenant's CAM share

Nikita Loika
Minsk, Belarus · Member since 2026 · 16 posts · 1 vote

Been testing a lease abstraction pipeline I'm building against SEC filed commercial leases (mentioned this in my intro post a couple weeks back), and one of them has been stuck in my head since I found it.

2021 office lease, Pittsburgh. Section 1.W of the original lease: tenant's proportionate share, 15.16 percent. That's the number anyone working off just the base lease carries into every CAM calc from then on.

Except there's a First Amendment. Section 8: "Tenant's Percentage shall be 58.83 percent," effective August 1, 2025. Second parcel got folded into the deal, 110,008 sf, its own base year. All filed, nothing hidden about it — but if the only doc you were handed is the original lease PDF, which is usually all anyone gets handed, that number just doesn't exist for you.

400k expense pool. 15 percent vs 59 percent is roughly 175k a year going the wrong direction, and it keeps happening every year until someone actually opens the amendment.

I only found it because I searched EDGAR by landlord name and property address instead of tenant name. Search by tenant and you get the original lease, maybe the CDA if you're lucky — that's usually where people stop.

Anyone else run into a number like this? Technically correct off one document, dead wrong once you've got the whole file.

0Reply
379 views

Most Popular Reply

Evan Polaski
Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
1w

Two things: first, the only thing I really learned from this is that there are some leases filed on EDGAR. I am curious how many leases you have uncovered on EDGAR, since in general, this is not a common place that anyone would file leases.

Second, so what? You found a lease and an amendment. In the real world, 110k, roughly 40% of GLA does not get "lost" in any reconciliation. The amendment clearly rolled 110k sq ft from two separate reconciliations into one. So, even before the amendment, the money wasn't lost, it was simply tied to a different lease. When they amended the lease, the "second" lease was deleted and the GLA was included into the first lease. This is something that is done with relative regularity in MRI, Yardi and other ERPs for CRE.

I am not trying to be cruel, but the best way to learn in the real world is to work in a CAM department for any major CRE operator. First, most leases are not recorded, so you simply can't learn without working for someone with a lot of leases. Second, CAM is the biggest point of contention between tenants and landlords because it is the most variable. As such, there are already prepackaged, off the shelf software packages designed specifically for this. And third, the biggest variable in reconciliations is not sq ft or reimbursement percent, it is the actual expenses being pushed through: landlord pushes through more than tenant believes is allowed per lease. Talk to any real estate administrator for a company that leases a lot of space, and they will say that from March through May, roughly, most of their time is spent sifting through cam recs line by line and requesting backup from the landlord on many of the expenses.

1Reply
See this reply in the discussion

14 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Michael K GallagherBusiness Member
    Real Estate Agent · Columbus OH · Member since 2018 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
    1w

    might be a little behind here but you are investigating leases that are filed in the public domain? curious what would require a lease to be filed publicly? Not something I have run into but sounds interesting in general

    [email protected]614-362-2231
    0Reply
    • Nikita Loika
      OP
      Minsk, Belarus · Member since 2026 · 16 posts · 1 vote
      1w

      Yeah, that's EDGAR. Has nothing to do with the lease being "filed" for its own sake — it's on there because one party is a public company, and the SEC makes them attach material contracts as exhibits to 10-Ks, 10-Qs, 8-Ks. A big office lease usually counts as material for a company that size. So really it's just public-company disclosure spilling the lease PDF into a searchable archive, not some lease-specific filing requirement.

      0Reply
  • Evan Polaski
    Cincinnati, OH · Member since 2020 · 4k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    1w

    Two things: first, the only thing I really learned from this is that there are some leases filed on EDGAR. I am curious how many leases you have uncovered on EDGAR, since in general, this is not a common place that anyone would file leases.

    Second, so what? You found a lease and an amendment. In the real world, 110k, roughly 40% of GLA does not get "lost" in any reconciliation. The amendment clearly rolled 110k sq ft from two separate reconciliations into one. So, even before the amendment, the money wasn't lost, it was simply tied to a different lease. When they amended the lease, the "second" lease was deleted and the GLA was included into the first lease. This is something that is done with relative regularity in MRI, Yardi and other ERPs for CRE.

    I am not trying to be cruel, but the best way to learn in the real world is to work in a CAM department for any major CRE operator. First, most leases are not recorded, so you simply can't learn without working for someone with a lot of leases. Second, CAM is the biggest point of contention between tenants and landlords because it is the most variable. As such, there are already prepackaged, off the shelf software packages designed specifically for this. And third, the biggest variable in reconciliations is not sq ft or reimbursement percent, it is the actual expenses being pushed through: landlord pushes through more than tenant believes is allowed per lease. Talk to any real estate administrator for a company that leases a lot of space, and they will say that from March through May, roughly, most of their time is spent sifting through cam recs line by line and requesting backup from the landlord on many of the expenses.

    1Reply
    • Nikita Loika
      OP
      Minsk, Belarus · Member since 2026 · 16 posts · 1 vote
      1w

      The 8-K on this amendment is explicit: sf goes from 38,258 to 148,266, effective Aug 2025. That's floors 4, 5, 6 plus the old fitness center — none of it held by Duolingo before. So no second lease to merge, they didn't occupy that space, period. It's a straight expansion, not an ERP consolidation. Also explains the fresh 2025 base year the amendment sets just for that space — that's for a new obligation, not renumbering old accounting.

      Fair point on volume though — one of six leases I've pulled off EDGAR so far, not a database. Wasn't claiming otherwise.

      0Reply
  • Diana Khan
    Attorney · 10451 Mill Run Cir #755 Owings Mills, MD 21117 · Member since 2024 · 360 posts · 137 votes
    1w
    Quote from @Nikita Loika:

    Been testing a lease abstraction pipeline I'm building against SEC filed commercial leases (mentioned this in my intro post a couple weeks back), and one of them has been stuck in my head since I found it.

    2021 office lease, Pittsburgh. Section 1.W of the original lease: tenant's proportionate share, 15.16 percent. That's the number anyone working off just the base lease carries into every CAM calc from then on.

    Except there's a First Amendment. Section 8: "Tenant's Percentage shall be 58.83 percent," effective August 1, 2025. Second parcel got folded into the deal, 110,008 sf, its own base year. All filed, nothing hidden about it — but if the only doc you were handed is the original lease PDF, which is usually all anyone gets handed, that number just doesn't exist for you.

    400k expense pool. 15 percent vs 59 percent is roughly 175k a year going the wrong direction, and it keeps happening every year until someone actually opens the amendment.

    I only found it because I searched EDGAR by landlord name and property address instead of tenant name. Search by tenant and you get the original lease, maybe the CDA if you're lucky — that's usually where people stop.

    Anyone else run into a number like this? Technically correct off one document, dead wrong once you've got the whole file.

    @Nikita Loika, this is the part that stood out to me. I’ve worked with commercial leases where the base lease looked clear until you started reading the amendments, and that is where an important term had changed. From the legal side, I never like looking at one lease document by itself if I know there have been amendments. The base lease may tell you what the deal started as, but the amendments tell you what the parties are actually working with now. Whether it is CAM, rent, renewal terms, or who is responsible for a certain expense, one changed section can affect the whole picture.

    1Reply
    • Nikita Loika
      OP
      Minsk, Belarus · Member since 2026 · 16 posts · 1 vote
      1w

      Curious how you handle this on the legal side — do you always pull the full recorded history before opining on a term, or is it more that clients just hand you "the lease" and you have to ask if there's more? That gap between "the lease" and "the actual current terms" is basically the whole product I'm building.

      0Reply
  • Bill B.
    Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 10k+ votes
    1w

    Are you only looking at leases of properties for fun or are you just looking around for fun?

    If you are only looking at leases of properties for sale. I’m more than 99% sure the seller would display those cams being paid at the higher rate in their performas. They would do this as it would raise their asking price for 10-20x that number, depending on their cap rate.

    Even if you were only looking at leases of properties for sale where the addendum hadn’t kicked in yet (1% of leases?) I’m still sure the broker and the seller would be emphasizing them. You’re not uncovering a seller’s flaw or weakness. You’re just finding info the seller will be bragging about in the listing right?

    0Reply
    • Nikita Loika
      OP
      Minsk, Belarus · Member since 2026 · 16 posts · 1 vote
      1w

      Fair logic if this were a sale, but it isn't — nobody's buying the building, it's just an ongoing lease getting reconciled every year. The number doesn't go stale because of some transaction, it goes stale because whoever's doing the math each year works off whatever's in the file, and amendments don't always make it into the file people actually get handed.

      0Reply
    • Bill B.
      Investor · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2013 · 8k+ posts · 10k+ votes
      1w

      So you’re saying you found an addendum on someone else’s property lease that isn’t for sale, and you don’t plan to make an offer on, and want us to be excited about it?

      I know now that you’ve clarified that it’s not for sale. And I’m sure the owner and his accountant know about it. So who else wants to know about it? Maybe it’s a way for someone to try to steal them as a tenant?

      Is that the TLDR version?

      0Reply
    • Nikita Loika
      OP
      Minsk, Belarus · Member since 2026 · 16 posts · 1 vote
      1w

      Not trying to get anyone excited, and not trying to poach a tenant. The point's boring: whoever runs next year's recon works off whatever's sitting in the file, amendment or not. That's it. That's the whole finding.

      0Reply
  • Ronald RohdePro Member
    Attorney · Dallas, TX · Member since 2016 · 5k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    1w

    I don't see whats the big deal? If I was under contract on this building, I would 100% know this tenant had the new, much larger sq ft. I would not be relying on some lease tool

    0Reply
    • Nikita Loika
      OP
      Minsk, Belarus · Member since 2026 · 16 posts · 1 vote
      1w

      Right, and that's exactly it — under contract counsel's combing every amendment. the other 9 years nobody's looking, recon just runs off whatever's sitting in the file.

      0Reply
  • G. Brian DavisPro Member
    Investor · Hatboro, PA · Member since 2016 · 2k+ posts · 850 votes
    6d
    0Reply
  • Ashish AcharyaBusiness Member
    CPA, CFP®, PFS · FL · Member since 2017 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
    6d

    Nikita, this is exactly why I’m hesitant to trust a CAM calculation unless someone has reviewed the full lease history, not just the original lease.

    A base lease can be perfectly accurate on day one and completely wrong later if an amendment changes the premises, proportionate share, base year, expense caps, exclusions, or reimbursement mechanics. The danger is that the wrong percentage can keep rolling forward year after year because everyone assumes the original abstract is still current.

    The example you found is a good one. Going from roughly 15% to nearly 59% is not a rounding issue. On a meaningful expense pool, that can materially change what the tenant owes and what the landlord expects to recover.

    For me, the practical lesson is that lease abstraction should really be amendment-aware. I'd want every CAM/NNN reconciliation tied back to the current controlling language and effective date, especially if additional space was added later.

    From the accounting side, this matters too because the receivable can look “correct” in the books while still being contractually wrong if the underlying lease percentage was never updated. That creates messy true-ups, disputes, and potentially years of incorrect billing.

    This is also why I like keeping a property-level lease summary that includes the current pro-rata share, base year, caps, major exclusions, and amendment dates so the accounting team is not working from memory.

    Feel free to DM me, I'd be happy to send over a few resources that might help with CAM/NNN tracking, lease-driven bookkeeping, and property-level reconciliation.

    [email protected]941-914-7779
    INVESTOR FRIENDLY CPA®5241 Reviews
    WebsiteView Page
    TaxMD™ | AI-Powered Tax Planning
    WebsiteView Page
    0Reply
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.
Log InJoin for Free