💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 6131.gmi captured on 2021-12-03 at 14:04:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2023-01-29)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Safe as office blocks - British property funds suspend redemptions

The first concrete signs of post-Brexit financial stress

Jul 6th 2016

THE first concrete signs of post-Brexit financial stress in Britain emerged

this week. The asset-management arm of Standard Life, an insurer, suspended

redemptions from its 2.9 billion ($3.8 billion) British property fund. It was

followed by a flurry of rivals: Aviva, Canada Life, Columbia Threadneedle,

Henderson and M&G.

The decisions highlighted the mismatch between the open-ended nature of such

funds allowing retail investors to buy and sell on a daily basis and the

illiquid assets they hold: office blocks and shopping centres. But the

announcements also reflected the shock to the property market caused by the

Brexit vote. London has attracted lots of businesses both because of its

perceived openness and because it provides an English-speaking base for doing

business in the EU; the vote has caused a reassessment of its attaractiveness

as a corporate home.

According to the Financial Times, German and Spanish buyers pulled out of

650m-worth of property deals in the week after the referendum. Russell Chaplin

of Aberdeen, another asset manager, says many deals had a Brexit clause

allowing purchasers to walk away if Britain voted to leave. This has happened

to Aberdeen s property fund in two cases: one buyer abandoned a purchase

altogether while another asked for a discount, which has not been accepted.

Mutual property funds tend to have monthly valuations (conducted by outsiders)

to determine the fair value of their assets. Given the uncertainties after

the referendum vote, valuers thought it prudent to apply a discount and

fund-management groups took their advice. Henderson reduced its fair-value

estimate by 4%, M&G by 4.5%, and both Aberdeen and Standard Life Investments by

5%.

The funds keep some liquid assets on hand in order to meet the kind of

redemptions they face in normal circumstances; as of May 31st, Standard Life

had 13% of its assets in this form. Some of these liquid assets will be stakes

in big property companies like British Land and Land Securities, so the big

falls in their share prices (see chart) may in part be a contagion effect from

funds meeting redemption requests.

There may be other knock-on effects. In a report on financial stability

published on July 5th, the Bank of England worried that forced sales of assets

by property funds may exacerbate the market s weakness; it has eased capital

requirements for banks to encourage lending.

Problems have been growing for a while. The Bank said that foreign capital

inflows into British property fell by almost 50% in the first quarter, perhaps

as investors waited for the Brexit vote to be resolved. The purchasing managers

index for the construction industry fell in June to its lowest level since

2009.

Mike Prew of Jefferies, an investment bank, has been predicting a

commercial-property downturn since last year. Two areas stand out. Central

London has been on a building spree, with 26m square feet of offices currently

being added (or refurbished) in a market with around 200m square feet of space.

Mr Prew thinks 100,000 jobs in London are at risk of moving to the EU enough to

free up 10m square feet. Office rents could fall by as much as 18% in central

London, he warns.

The second problem area is retail premises, to which the Standard Life fund was

heavily exposed (its five biggest tenants were all retailers). High-street

shops have been squeezed by the rise of the internet; BHS, a department-store

chain, recently went under. If the economy does slow in the wake of the

referendum, retailers troubles will intensify.

Comparisons with the financial crisis of 2007-08 are inevitable; that too saw

property-fund suspensions in its early stages. But they should not be overdone.

For a start, open-ended property funds do not borrow and own only around 5% of

British commercial property. Few investors are likely to have devoted a large

part of their savings to this asset; they will have known that they might lose

money. The systemic risk is limited.

Furthermore, with interest rates near zero and ten-year bond yields below 1%,

property funds still offer a decent income; even in London, prime rental yields

are 4-4.5%. Vacancy rates in central London are below the historic average,

according to Jones Lang LaSalle, an estate agent. A big sell-off would surely

attract some bargain-hunters.

Still, fund suspensions are not a good sign. At the very least, they should

make regulators question whether open-ended funds are suitable for property

investing. There is nothing liquid about bricks.