Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1892-02-06

ID u
also fact that another gentleman of eaua
ability and character testified before tht
supreme court of the state of New York that
in his Judgment the property at the present
time is worth three million dolldrs'' From
our point OF view, then, is it not fair to con
clude that the alleged loss after all is only ;
! matter of opinion2 But the case win beal
one more comment This property is a.
| finely located as any on Manhattan ISLAND
for hotel purposes, and perhaps as finely a:
any hotel property in the United States II
is in the line OF increasing values, and il
my Judgment will ultimately yield the com
pany large return on the original invest
ment
HOME OFFICE BUILDING.
! The report alleges q loss on this property
Of 1864, 295. It's book value is Si.914. 295.
and it enters the superintendent's report as
81, $50, 600. To illustrate again how opin-
ions vary as to the value of real estate let
US make a parallel between this and prop
erty OF q similar character in New York
and draw a conclusion. Take the value
placed on our home Office building for the
purpose of taxation and place it beside the
same valuation of the Equitable life assur-
ance society's home Office building, the Of
fetal valuation for purposes of taxation of
our home Office building is 81, 0j0, 600 of the
Equitable home Office building, So SOC, 900.
A statement of the figures at which each
property was entered in the assets of its
respective company December 81, 1890. is
rs follows: The home Office building of the
New York life, 81, 1900; home Office of the
Equitable, SIS, 10000. The departments
estimate of the value of or property is APP
proXlmated so per cent while the assessors
figures for the purposes of taxation are
little more than so per cent of its book
value. As gentleman who appraised our
home Office building has never made an ap-
T1Toicnl ns tho E'Orifahln hrrTnn OF
ing we can hardly draw conclusion from
that basis, but figuring from the
value placed upon it by the assessors
its total value would be approximately
S7,600,000, if the book value of
our home Office were accepted at par I
cite these figures as strongly bringing out
the truth of my suggestion concerning opin-
ions as to real estate value. Everyone is
familiar with the eminent success of the
Equitable life assurance society, and no
one would be so absurdly unjust rs to al
lege loss on this one parcel of real estate
of 81, SOC, 600, or. indeed, any loss at all.
From the policy-holder's view, therefore,
it is not worthy of your consideration that
in this case, as in the matter of the Plaza
hotel, the loss alleged is after all, perhaps,
a matter of opinion. In fact, 1 could cite
you good authority on real estate values in
New York who will place on our home Of
fee building to-day Il valuation in excess of
its cost, There are many reasons why this
estimate would be conservative. In the
first place the real estate was purchased in
1869, and is exceptionally well located. Any
one who knows anything about the history
of real estate values in New York for
twenty years will agree that there has been
during this time 4 heavy advance in prop
erty similarly situated. The building has
not been allowed to deteriorate in any par
ticular, and it would seem that our state
ment Of actual cost, 81, $4,000, was very
conservative figure.
HoLBRooK HALL, NOW CALLED THE YOSEMITE.
On this item q loss has been made.
Briefly, the facts are these: In 1882 we
made loan on the property when in due
course cf construction, and after the man to
whom the loan had been made spent not
only his own means "a considerable SUM,
but the money loaned him as well, he failed,
and we were obliged to foreclose. The cost
of the property to US after foreclosing was
very little more than the amount of the
loan. The work of completing the struct-
ure was then placed in the hands of an emil
uent constructing engineer. He supple
mented his own knowledge by employing
an architect and the building was finished.
1t was filled with desirable class of tenants
and would have paid a fair return on its
cost but for two errors which could not
have been foreseen, and which do not justly
subject the finance committee to the charge
of making bad investment of money. In
carrying out theory of fire-proof construc-
ton the architect made the same error pre-
ciSely that the architect of Vice-President
MortOn's hotel, the ''Shoreham'' of Wash
ington, made, and both buildings had to
be reconstructed for substantially the same
reason. The mistake of the architect in each
case was in creating such condition, that
dry rot speedily destroyed the timberS and
the building had to be vacated at once. 1t was
then discovered that in addition the
foundations of Holbrook Hall, put in by the
man who first obtained the loan, were nse-
cure. and ds a final result the whole struct-
ure had to come down. It was then rebuilt
under the supervision Of AIcKiin, Mead &
White on the most approved lines and there
is not finer structure of its kind in the
country to-day. The absolute loss to US,
therefore, was approximately the cost OF
the first building. This we charged OF and
entered the property in our annual state
ment at the cost of the present building
and grounds.
The figures S729, O66 the appraiser of the
insurance department refused to accept,
and $3.50, 600 was named instead and entered
in the insurance departments findings. 1t
is proper to add that on our present basis
of rental this property will yield, when
fully rented, net income of g. per cent
on the value placed upon it by the Insurance
department. and would yield a little more
than 4 per cent in our valuation, ST29 066.
I do not desire to evade full responsibility
for myself and the finance committe in this
matter. The claim of infallibility in the
investment and reinvestment of hundreds
of millions of dollars is one 1 have never
set up.
THE PARIS PROPERTY.
The property was purchased some years
ago under the supervision of the chairman
Of our finance committee. who was on the
ground at the time. His Investigations as
to the value of the property was most
and the purchase was made with
all due care. That the rental value of the
property has since deprecated is true, and
that there is an apparent loss is true, but if
the superintendent had not only secured an
of the value of the property
as it now stands, but had also investigated
the value of the property when it was
purchased, he could have fully satisfied his
duty as an examiner, and at the same time
could have given you satisfactory reason |
for the original price paid, but no such
investigation was made, and as his findings
seem to do US injustice, not only as above |
cited, but also in the value placed upon the |
property now, the matter will bear 4 word !
more in explanation. 1t was brought to my |
notice during the superintendent investi- |
CATION that the figures supplied by the de- |
partment of taxation of the French govern |
ment on his request represented values |
fixed solely for his particular purpose. Our |
manager at Paris, with 4 great deal /
Of difficulty succeeded in getting /
the Credit Foncier, the largest insti- |
tuition of its kind in France and q society. |