Shoppers Prefer Staying Outdoors. That’s More Trouble for Malls.

National chains are accelerating their exit from malls for other types of retail locations, signalling more trouble for malls as consumers show a growing preference for shorter, more convenient shopping experiences.

Jewellers, shoe stores and other specialty retailers are among the operators making the shift, indicating they will continue opening at outdoor, non-mall locations such as grocery-anchored shopping centres and strip malls after finding that they perform better and typically save on costs.

“These retailers are going to grow more confident that they’re barking up the right tree as they continue to see quarter after quarter after quarter of outperformance in their off-mall locations,” said Brandon Svec, national director of U.S. retail analytics for data firm CoStar Group.

Bath & Body Works, which for years sold scented soaps and body creams to mall goers, is on track to open about 95 new locations for the fiscal year ending in February, while closing about 50, primarily in struggling malls. More than half of its 1,840 stores in the U.S. and Canada are now located outside of enclosed shopping centres.

Foot Locker said it is aiming to operate half of its North American square footage outside enclosed shopping centres by 2026, up from 36% in the third quarter.

Signet Jewelers, which owns brands such as Kay Jewelers, Zales and Jared, is closing up to 150 locations in the U.S. and U.K. by mid-2024, nearly all in traditional malls. Company executives told investors last year that off-mall locations had stronger sales margins, and about 60% of its total square footage is now outside malls.

Not all retailers are exiting from malls. Publicly traded mall owners Simon Property Group and Macerich, which primarily own higher-end centres, have reported record-high leasing volume over the past year as retailers such as Hermès, Warby Parker and Alo Yoga have taken space.

But foot traffic to U.S. malls was down 4% on average in 2023 from the prior year, and about 12% lower than 2019 levels, according to real-estate data firm Green Street.

Low-end malls have seen the biggest drops in customer visits, partially because department stores have closed in higher numbers at these properties since 2017.

Online-sales data have also helped retailers pinpoint locations for successful stores with better accuracy than in the past.

“You know where your customer is buying and where they live,” said Scott Lipesky, chief financial and operating officer for Abercrombie & Fitch. “We’re looking at this digital shipping data, and we just plop a store down in the middle of it.”

Recently, Abercrombie & Fitch has been opening in city shopping districts in an effort to get closer to younger millennials and recent college graduates.

Visits to outdoor shopping centres have increased since the pandemic as the rise in remote work has given people the time and flexibility to run errands more frequently and closer to home.

Outdoor shopping and strip centres also appeal to retailers who are increasingly allowing customers to pick up or return items bought online, CoStar’s Svec said. These shoppers want to get in and out of stores quickly, and not spend time navigating large parking garages or walking across the mall.

Increasing demand for open-air space has driven up shopping-centre rents to nearly $24 a square foot, the highest level since real-estate firm Cushman & Wakefield began tracking the metric in 2007.

But moving out of malls can still help retailers cut costs, particularly the common-area and maintenance charges that landlords pass on to tenants to help pay for the property’s upkeep.

Owners of enclosed malls are saddled with a host of additional expenses compared with open-air shopping centres, such as keeping the indoor walkways clean, repairing the heating and ventilation systems and maintaining the restrooms.

“It’s a lot more than blowing leaves out of a parking lot,” said Jim Taylor, chief executive of Brixmor Property Group, a real-estate investment trust that owns about 365 shopping centres across the U.S.

Taylor said he started to notice traditional-mall tenants moving into Brixmor centres several years ago. More recently, he has seen an increase in the types of retailers making the move, including those in the beauty, footwear, jewellery and housewares business.

“We’re seeing them come into the open-air centres because of the proximity and convenience to the customer,” he said.

For months, I have been one of the few commentators openly stating what the data was already showing: property prices had begun to fall.

The latest figures confirm it. Cotality’s June 1 Home Value Index showed Sydney values down 0.9 per cent in May and Melbourne down 0.8 per cent. ANZ has cut its national capital city forecast to 2.8 per cent growth this year, down from 4.8 per cent in April. CBA has also downgraded its outlook.

So the Federal Budget arrived at the worst possible time, with the wrong prescription, to treat a problem it fundamentally misunderstands.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has suggested that making it easier for first-home buyers to get a fair crack at auctions is a good thing. The reality is more complicated.

Driving property prices down does not simply hand a discount to first-home buyers. It affects the 1.4 million Australians employed by the property sector, the 67 per cent of household wealth tied to housing, and the state government revenues that fund schools, hospitals and roads.

The government had a choice: tackle supply constraints, link migration growth to housing completions and reduce spending, or increase taxes on property investors. It chose the latter.

Property is an economic pillar

Property is not simply another investment class. It contributes about 10.6 per cent of GDP directly, up to 15 per cent when flow-on effects are included, and employs more than 1.4 million Australians. It also generates more tax revenue than mining and underpins consumer confidence through the wealth effect.

Against that backdrop, the Budget removed negative gearing from established residential properties purchased after Budget night and replaced the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with cost-base indexation and a 30 per cent minimum tax from July 1, 2027.

The government calls this fairness. I call it a misdiagnosis.

The grandfathering trap

The policy is also internally contradictory.

Properties purchased before Budget night are grandfathered, allowing existing investors to retain full negative gearing and capital gains tax benefits until they sell. The logical response is simple: hold.

That means fewer properties coming onto the market, fewer rental listings and reduced transaction volumes.

The result is likely to be higher rents, reduced stamp duty revenue and further inflationary pressure at a time when the Reserve Bank remains focused on bringing inflation under control.

The government is attempting to fight inflation with one hand while fuelling it with the other.

Who really owns investment properties?

What is often lost in this debate is who Australia’s property investors actually are.

According to ATO data, 71 per cent of investors own just one investment property. They are not wealthy property moguls.

They are teachers, nurses, police officers and small business owners who have purchased an investment property as part of their retirement strategy.

For many Australians, property remains the most tangible and trusted pathway to building long-term wealth.

Removing the incentives that supported that investment does not hurt a billionaire developer. It hurts ordinary Australians trying to secure their financial future.

Investors aren’t the affordability problem

It is true that housing affordability has deteriorated significantly over the past two decades. However, negative gearing is not the primary cause.

Research by economists Ross Kendall and Peter Tulip found planning and zoning restrictions significantly increase housing costs.

Their work showed zoning lifted detached house prices well above marginal construction costs in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

Low interest rates, strong population growth, chronic under-supply and restricted access to development-ready land have all played a much larger role in pushing prices higher.

Punishing private investors does nothing to address these structural issues.

The Build-to-Rent advantage

At the same time the government is reducing incentives for Australian investors, it has created a more attractive tax environment for foreign institutional capital through Build-to-Rent projects.

Under current arrangements, foreign institutional investors can access a 15 per cent withholding tax rate through Managed Investment Trusts, accelerated depreciation benefits and exemptions from the new negative gearing restrictions.

State governments have added further concessions, including land tax reductions and exemptions from foreign investor surcharges.

Australian mum-and-dad investors receive none of these advantages.

The cumulative effect is striking. Foreign institutions can access a range of tax benefits unavailable to Australian private investors, while local investors lose concessions they have relied upon for decades.

This is not solving the housing crisis. It risks transferring ownership of Australia’s rental housing stock from local investors to offshore institutions.

Why state governments should worry

There are already signs these changes are affecting the credit cycle.

Major banks are removing negative gearing benefits from serviceability calculations for investment loans.

As market conditions soften, lenders become more cautious and investors find it harder to secure finance.

That matters because property transactions are a major source of state government revenue.

In NSW alone, transfer duty generates more than $12 billion annually. If transaction volumes fall significantly, the impact on state budgets will be substantial.

The consequences extend beyond stamp duty to GST collections, payroll tax receipts and land tax revenue.

The 95 per cent loan trap

There is another aspect of the Budget that concerns me.

The government has expanded first-home buyer deposit guarantee schemes, allowing eligible purchasers to buy with a five per cent deposit backed by the Commonwealth.

The intention is admirable. The timing may not be.

If prices in Sydney and Melbourne fall further, buyers entering the market with 95 per cent loan-to-value mortgages could quickly find themselves in negative equity.

They become trapped. They cannot sell without crystallising a loss, while the taxpayer guarantees the loan and the bank remains protected.

That is not wealth creation. It is a debt obligation.

After three decades working with debt and investment, I would never encourage my own children to borrow at a 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio.

A policy built on politics

The government had an opportunity to address the housing crisis by encouraging supply, reforming planning systems and reducing development costs.

Instead, it chose Robin Hood politics.

The optics may be appealing, but the economics are not.

Australians may ultimately pay the price through higher rents, weaker investment and a future in which an increasing share of the nation’s housing stock is owned by offshore institutions rather than local investors.

Paul Miron is the Co-Founder & Fund Manager of Msquared Capital.