Green Lanterns

IPD has started an interesting new index in the French market, called the IPD Green Real estate index. It basically analyses the performance of Green buildings and compares it with both recent non-green buildings as well as with the general IPD index (http://aox.ag/KdpWzJ)  

As far as I know, this is the first time such an indicator is put together. This is more than welcome initiative as it might once and for all stop the rhetorical debate about whether or not Green adds value to the asset.

On the face of it, it looks as if it does add value. Total return last year for the green building stood at 7,4%. That is 1,1% higher than equivalent non green building which showed a total return of 6,3%. However devil is in the details.

Here is how this performance is broken up:

The green building performance is solely driven by a (theoretical?) capital value improvement. It relative performance is very poor in turns of Income Returns with assets yielding around 2% less than the rest of the market.  More interestingly the IPD data reveal that there is no rent difference between Green and non-green buildings (average ERV is at 356 EUR/sqm/year for non-green vs 361 EUR/sqm/year for green building).

These data allow for an interesting (theoretical) analysis about the benefit of investing in the green building.   Let’s assume a green office building which is worth 100. According to IPD data, this asset will generate around 4,2 of rent. Let’s now assume a non-green building asset generating the same rent. According to IPD this asset is yield 6,3% ie. is worth 66,7. From there you can derive the actual value as described in the following table.

As a result of the IPD data, you can determine in a few minutes that the market offers a 71% premium for the value of a “Green” construction over a non-green construction.  At this stage it become clear what you want to build if you are a developper. The only economical explanation for such a premium would be that a green building will depreciate much slower than a non-green building. It would therefore deserve a premium as it would deliver returns on a longuer period of time.  

The table below, summarizes the number of years needed to collect enough rent in order to pay for the construction cost at a given unlevered expected return (the NPV of the cash flow is equal to zero).

What the previous table show is that If you expect a 5% return from a non green building, assumes no terminal value, no rental growth, no capex... you need to collect the rent for 16 full years. For a green building for which a 71% premium was paid, you need to collect rent for 54 years. Another way to say this is that the premium reflect the belief that the green building life will be 3,3 times longuer than the non green building.   

So now, here is the question: Which assets do you think is going to generate the most sustainable returns over time? I am not going to take position. However I have lost faith long ago in Hal Jordan and the believe that “Green is the color of will”

Point of view

Following the publication of our latest annual reports we had a number of discussions with some analysts and investors (as we did last year for that matter) with respect to the write-off in value that we have published on our short leased assets.

We usually argue that from our perspective we would offer a lower price for a vacant building than we would for the same asset with a one year lease, which in turn should be cheaper than the same building with a two years lease … We always felt it makes a lot of sense to reflect this into our valuation process, and thus devalue every year the short dated assets to reflect the shorter lease term.

A recent article published by property magazine international (http://aox.ag/Ii71mp) is bringing a new perspective to the subject, based on a recent IPD analysis (this is the IPD Press release http://aox.ag/HVdOBX).  

According to IPD (as quoted by the article), UK landlords who give tenants five years leases immediately wipe out almost 2% of the value of their building.

Quote: “IPD lease length analysis shows that signing a new five year lease leads to a fall in value of around -1.8%, despite the property being let.”

Let’s all take a deep breath and step back for a minute to look closer to what IPS is suggesting here? If I read this correctly, the valuation of building which have signed a new five year lease (so which obviously were vacant or closed to be vacant) have LOST value because of the new lease. In other word, if investors would have paid 100 for a vacant building, they would only pay 98 for the same building with a five year lease. In essence, you would be better off keeping the asset vacant, rather than signing a short term lease. I don’t know about you, but this does not pass my smell test.

I might have a very twisted mind, but I would like to suggest another explanation for the whole story. What if the initial valuation of the building was wrong? What if the asset was never worth 100 in the first place? What if the new lease has shown beyond dispute that the assumption to get to the 100 value cannot be hold on to? Can it be that if the building was initially worth only 90 or 95, then the 5 year lease did increase the value to 98?   

From where I stand, in 99% of the cases, a cash flow producing asset is going to be worth more than the same asset vacant. Regardless of the length of the cash-flow. As such, we do devalue our assets when they are close of becoming vacant and we do show an increase in value when leases are renewed.

Where do you stand?