Archive for April 2018
Commercial Real Estate — Prices vs Values
Anyone involved in real estate knows that commercial prices and values have been on a constant uptick since the trough following the recession. The very length and breadth of the recovery has caused nervousness among investors, appraisers, and lenders. Today, I’m looking at two somewhat disparate views on the subject.
First, Calvin Schnure, writing for NAREIT, looks at four measures of valuation:
- Cap rates and cap rate spreads to Treasury yields
- Price gains, either from increasing NOI or decreasing cap rates
- Economic fundamentals, such as occupancy and demand growth
- Leverage and debt growth
At present, none of these is giving off warning signals, according to Schnure. Cap rates continue to be low compared to other cycles, but so are yields across the board. There continues to be room for cap rate compression, in Schnure’s assessment. As for price changes, every sector is showing growing or at least stable NOI, with the proportion of price changes coming from NOI now equal or exceeding price increases coming from cap rate declines. Across the board, REIT occupancy rates are high and on the rise, with industrial and (surprisingly) retail at or near 95%. All equity REITs are in the low 90% range, compared to the high 80’s at the trough of the recession. Finally, debt levels are rising, but at a lower rate than valuations. Ergo, this is not, in his opinion, a debt-fueled cycle. Right now, debt/book ratios are significantly lower than in the previous FOMC tightening cycle (2004-2006). For a full copy of Schnure’s article, click here.
Second, I was at the American Real Estate Society’s annual meeting in Ft. Myers, FL, last week, and had the great pleasure to sit in on a presentation by my good friend Dr. Glenn Mueller of Denver University, the author of the widely acclaimed Market Cycle Monitor. He tracks property types and geographic markets by occupancy, absorption, and new supply statistics, and for years has proffered a very accurate measure of commercial real estate, both nationally and locally, across four potential phases:
- Recovery (rising, although unprofitable rents and occupancy)
- Expansion (rising and profitable rents and occupancy, stimulating new construction)
- Hypersupply (oversupply of new construction and declining rents and occupancy)
- Recession (unprofitable and declining rents and occupancy)
Most markets cycle through these phases in a fairly predictable fashion. Right now, most markets (property types and geography markets) appear to be in the expansion mode, with some (notably, apartments) potentially crossing the line into hypersupply.
In short, commercial real estate markets look healthy, absent the sort of exogenous shocks that sent us into the most recent recession. That said, many of those same metrics read positive prior to the mortgage market melt-down. Of course, commercial real estate actually faired pretty well during the recession, compared to many other asset classes, supporting the notion that in times of economic trouble, real estate equities can be great storers of value.
Share this:
An important story on trade
Alexis Crow, who leads the geopolitical investing practice at Price Waterhouse Coopers, has a stunningly important article on trade in today’s Washington Post. I recommend you read it here. In short, Trump’s trade war misses a very important point — the U.S. economy has matured from manufactured goods to services, and actually runs a net surplus of such services to the rest of the world.
As she notes, “Providing services is the heartbeat of America’s new economic growth, including IT and communications services, logistics, warehousing, leisure, hospitality, health care, business and legal services.“. She goes on to note that wealth created by America’s trading partners — China, Japan, etc. — translates into purchase of American services, including travel, media, IT, logistics, and entertainment. By 2026, fully 81% of American jobs will be in such service areas, and our trade surplus in these areas is already nearly $300 Billion per year.
Share this:
Damage to Reputation/Brand
In my last post, I commented about AON’s Global Risk Management Survey. I want to continue on that theme today, and continue to compliment the great folks at AON for a super job.
Number one on their list was Damage to Reputation / Brand. The open the chapter on that with a wonderful story, which I will briefly retell here (with full attribution). A worker in China purchased an electronic device and while charging it, the device caught fire. He videotaped the incident and uploaded it to the internet. The clip was soon viewed millions of times around the world. Other customers reported similar defects. Even though less than 0.1% of the devices sold were defected, widespread panic followed. the company was forced to issue a world-wide global recall costing an estimated $5 Billion. Ironically, this tech company became a victim of the tech revolution.
AON notes that widespread fake news, the lack of fact checkers on social media, and the political cross-fire following the US 2016 elections all have risk for brand damage. AON estimates that there is an 80% chance a company could lose at least 20% of its equity value in a month over a 5 year period doe to a reputation crisis.
Eight years earlier (2009), Damage to Brand / Reputation was ranked number 6 among risks by respondents. Today it is number one. Reputation / Brand events often arrive with little or no warning, to cite the survey, and organizations are forced to respond quickiily. As such, it is critical that companies have comprehensive reputation risk control strategies in place. Such strategies include meticulous preparation and executive training, to help maximize the probability of recovery.
Thanks again to the good folks at AON for providing this information.
Share this:
AON’s Global Risk Management Survey
The good folks at AON just shared with me their very detailed Global Risk Management survey for year-end 2017. It’s a terrific document, very thoroughly researched, and I commend them for the effort they put into this. (Full disclosure – neither I nor Greenfield, nor any of its affiliates, have any interest in AON.). This is the sort of study that should be on the desk of every CEO who has globally-affected interests, and certainly real estate and private equity fall into that category.
The document is chock-full of good stuff, and I’ll revisit this in future posts. Two interesting comments, however, hit me right up front. First, and I’ll simply quote from the survey, “…developed nations, which were traditionally associated with political stability, are becoming new sources of volatility and uncertainty that worry businesses…”. Of course, they’re taking about the U.S. and its misguided trade war, BREXIT, the elections in Northern Europe, and the impeachment of the South Korean president.
Second, what are the top concerns for global businesses and wealthy families? The list may come as a surprise to those who don’t follow these important sectors, but these certainly make sense in today’s climate:
- Damage to reputation/brand
- Economic slowdown / slow recovery
- Increasing competition
- Regulatory / legislative changes
- Cyber crime / hacking / viruses / malicious codes
- Failure to innovate / meet customer needs
- Failure to attract or retain top talent
- Business interruption
- Political risk / uncertainties
- Third party liability
I can tell you Greenfield is deadly serious about these issues. You should be, too.
From a small northwestern observatory... 