Direct and Indirect Investment for International Diversification Matthew Ryall Zurich - 24 th March 2006
Agenda The need for cross border diversification The diversification challenge How to diversify direct / indirect
Traditional Institutional Property Investment Home region/country Offices Act as a portfolio diversifier for International equities/bonds Cross border investment has traditionally been a mistake
Why cross border? Higher returns Diversification Safe haven Lack of domestic opportunity Matching liabilities Environmental / Altitude
IPD Returns UK Portugal Spain France Ireland IPD Europe Norway Netherland Denmark Finland Switzerland Sweden Germany Source: IPD Europe 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Total Return pa (% ) Local currency UK Portugal Spain France I l d
Greater Choice : Major European Cities by GVA Rotterdam Edinburgh Birmingham London Leeds Manchester Zurich Geneva Stockholm Lisbon Warsaw Oslo Utrecht Glasgow Brussels Frankfurt Stuttgart Munich Berlin Hamburg Düsseldorf Copenhagen Madrid Amsterdam Barcelona Rome Bologna Valencia Seville Helsinki Milan Turin Dublin Budapest Paris Lyon Marseille Bordeaux Lille
Property Investment : Increasingly Cross Border $bn 600 500 400 300 200 North America Europe North America Domestic 100 0 2003 2004 2005 Source: Jones Lang LaSalle
Challenges Finding trustworthy local partners/operators Currency and political risk Tax drag (in some markets) Many countries have lower transparency Lack of global benchmarks (except securities) Communicating across time zones and cultures Volatility of returns Cross-border real estate can compensate investors for these costs and risks
How to invest globally for diversification Take a step-by-step approach to international: 1. Tax 2. Fund of Funds / International global real estate securities 3. Add private, indirect funds 4. Add JVs and partnerships in transparent markets 5. The ultimate goal is NOT a direct cross-border portfolio of buildings 6. Put real estate into a currency overlay program
Global framework: style criteria for selecting markets International Objective Target Return Fundamentals Relative Importance Capital Market Gap Transparency Diversification Costs (Tax, currency & legal) Core 6% - 9% Value Added 10% - 15% Opportunistic 15%+ Source: LaSalle Investment Management
Direct vs. Indirect
The UK Property Market Universe Listed AIM Pooled Property Funds Listed Offshore Direct Private Funds Derivatives Source: LaSalle Investment Management
Property Risk/Return profile Volatility of returns over benchmark Direct Asset REITs Specialist Funds Balanced Funds Property Derivatives Potential return over the benchmark Source: LaSalle Investment Management
Past Performance Alternative forms of Real Estate 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% -20.00% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-40.00% Balanced Funds Index FTSE Real Estate Index Direct Property IPD
Option 1: Direct property ownership Products Domestic Collection of national portfolios Regional portfolios Global portfolio Positives Maximum diversification benefits Maximise control National benchmarks Negatives Scale, specific risk / portfolio size No global or regional benchmarks Low liquidity Management Administration Tax and legal
Option 2: Unlisted/private indirect property funds Global funds Investment banks Opportunistic Highly leveraged No control over regional weights Targeted funds Specialist managers/ Investment banks Open or closed end Sector/country/regions Varying risk profiles Availability? JVs/ Clubs Specialist managers Usually closed end Varying risk profiles Positives Negatives Diversification retained Utilise expert management Private equity model Low liquidity and control Lack of benchmarks Global funds rarely balanced by region Fund of funds or individual investments
Option 3: Listed/public property company securities REITs Conventional listed corporations Real Estate Investment Trusts Property owning vehicle Lower dividend yield Distributes 80% - 100% of taxable income High dividend yield Limited ability to generate reserves for investment Country opportunities North America US and Canada Europe Belgium, Netherlands, France, shortly UK and Germany? Australasia Australia, Singapore, Japan, Hong Kong Higher correlation with general equities Positives Established benchmarks Liquidity Transparency Investment period: immediate Negatives Influence of general equity markets Relatively immature market in some countries
Benchmark Weightings 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% US Canada Mexico Brazil Germany France Italy Spain Netherlands Sweden UK Switzerland Japan China Australia GDP Listed Real Estate
Correlation of Global Asset Class Returns Correlation of Total Returns (1986-2004), US Dollar Global Stocks Global Bonds Global Indirect Real Estate Global Direct Real Estate Global Stocks 1.00 Global Bonds 0.19 1.00 Global Indirect Real Estate 0.47 0.30 1.00 Global Direct Real Estate 0.10-0.35 0.15 1.00 Sources: GPR Index, UBS Global Property Investors Index; MSCI Global Equity, JP Morgan Global Bond Index, LaSalle Investment Management
Switching Model Indirect or Direct 4.0 3.0 IPD EY less 5-year Swap Rate (%) 2.0 1.0 0.0-1.0-2.0-3.0-4.0-5.0 Direct market to outperform over following 12 months Indirect market to outperform over following 12 months Point of indifference Oct-03 to Sept-04 Oct-02 to Sept-03 Oct-01 to Sept-02-6.0-6.5-5.5-4.5-3.5-2.5-1.5 FTSE Real Estate DY less IPD EY (%) Sources: Datastream, IPD
Option 4: Derivatives Available today Direct Property UK and US only Property equities- ETF s on EPRA/NAREIT Positives Quick/easy/cheap to trade Instantaneous exposure Price transparency Strategic or tactical use Negatives Currently small size/ limited supply Very limited coverage of property markets No guarantee of roll-over Negative performance relative to market after costs
Cost of Currency: Swiss Example Investors gain/loss of investing abroad (capital only) per annum Country of Investment / Number of Years 1 3 5 10 15 Euroland 0.2% -0.4% 0.8% 0.4% 1.0% USA -11.3% -9.3% -3.6% -0.2% -1.9% UK -2.9% 1.6% 1.3% -1.4% 1.0% Source: LaSalle Investment Management; DataStream. As at 25th August 2004.
Conclusion: Direct and Indirect SIZE OF FUND Derivatives Balanced Funds REITs / Fund of Funds Domestic Portfolio - Direct Direct Assets Specialist Funds CROSS BORDER PROPORTION
Cross-border investing the Swiss perspective Switzerland has an important real estate market but returns have been low Investors can enhance returns as well as enjoy diversification benefits by going cross-border Real estate securities are a low risk option for diversified global exposure Consider: Opportunistic Asia Value-add Canada, US, France Core global securities, UK, Germany, Netherlands and Sweden