|date 19-06-2013 market failure market failure in the amsterdam office investment market henk j....
TRANSCRIPT
1|Date 19-06-2013
Market failure
Market failure in the Amsterdam office investment market
Henk J. Brouwer
|Date 19-06-2013 2
The problem (1)› Market failure is a situation when free markets
fail to allocate scarce resources efficiently› This is the case in the Amsterdam office
market: › High long-term office vacancy rates› In many suburban areas 25% or even more› Construction of new offices continues
|Date 19-06-2013 3
The problem (2) › Money is invested in new offices, while existing
offices do not yield expected returns› Clearly waste of capital › Hypothesis: market failure related to lack of
efficiency in the office investment market› We will try to substantiate this hypothesis
|Date 19-06-2013 4
The problem (3)› KPMG (47,000 m2)
|Date 19-06-2013 5
Efficiency (1)› Market failure is a fact, inefficient investment
market most probable explanation› Efficiency of markets refers to how rapidly
information is reflected in prices› Real estate is a long-term investment, so
analysis of the future is important
|Date 19-06-2013 6
Efficiency (2)› Rational investors will use their knowledge of
the property market, the wider economy and the best available theories of how the two function and interrelate (Ball et al, 1998)
› Actual market situation should result in adjustment of common expectations
› This is not readily visible in investment market› So, investment market is not fully efficient
|Date 19-06-2013 7
Recent history (1)› Strong employment growth in Amsterdam
region in 1995-2009› During ‘Golden Years’ (1996-2001) more new
employment was created than in the preceding twenty years
|Date 19-06-2013 8
Recent history (2)› Office construction boom from 1998-2002› In 1999/2000 construction of more than 1m m2
of new offices started › Overall, in five years (1998-2002) a third added
to the office stock
|Date 19-06-2013 9
Recent history (3)› In 1999, actual availability of office space close
to zero › In 2001, it was believed that high demand for
offices was structural› Risk of insufficient capacity for office
construction› Rezoning from mixed use to office park› Planning studies for underused land announced
|Date 19-06-2013 10
Recent history (4)› Today, overall vacancy 20%› In many suburban areas over 25%› Structural vacancy is persistent, in spite of
removals and transformation› However, vacancy concentrated in older offices
(i.e. offices that have been used before)
|Date 19-06-2013 11
Vacancy 1999-2013
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
NewOld
|Date 19-06-2013 12
Vacancy (2)› Following the end of the ‘Golden Years’ and
completion of offices started in 1999/2000, vacancy soared
› In 2004-2006 complete divergence of markets of newly built and older offices
|Date 19-06-2013 13
Vacancy (3)› Supply of new offices triggered demand› Net take-up much lower than gross demand:
from 2000 to 2010, net take-up of offices was only 15% of gross demand
› Demand for new offices results in vacancy of older properties
|Date 19-06-2013 14
The consequences (1)› Partition of the market into primary and
secondary segments› Primary market fully marketable› Secondary market often difficult to let on
conventional terms› Offices can move to secondary segment after
only five to ten years
|Date 19-06-2013 15
The consequences (2)› Major adjustment of reasonable expectations
necessary› In 1999/2000/2001: strong demand for offices,
low vacancy rate, shortages more probable than oversupply
› Recently: many offices will be in primary market for 5-10 years and then move to secondary market with lower rents and higher vacancy rates
|Date 19-06-2013 16
The consequences (3)
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0102030405060708090
Rent difference
Rent difference
|Date 19-06-2013 17
The consequences (4)› The space market is efficient, as the market
segmentation is being reflected in rents› Pronounced adjustment in rental difference
between new and older offices from 2004 to 2008
› Difference not yet sufficient to create equivalence
|Date 19-06-2013 18
Expectations› Trends, as analysed before, can continue:
strong preferences for new buildings, high supply elasticity
› Are reasonable expectations, based on current trends, included in investment yields?
› Difficult to know exactly› We have no more than a summary of the trends
on the investment market (figures from JLL)
|Date 19-06-2013 19
Office yields 1998-2012
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
AmsterdamMunichStockholm
|Date 19-06-2013 20
Analysis of yields (1)› When should adjustment of expectations have
taken place?› It is more than simple information› Understanding of market processes necessary› Market participants have to appreciate
underlying process, resulting in market segmentation
|Date 19-06-2013 21
Analysis of yields (2)› Split of market as shown by diverging vacancy
rates and prices takes place between 2004 and 2008
› Yields record low in 2006 and 2007 in line with comparable cities
› Yields in Amsterdam start to remain higher as from 2008
|Date 19-06-2013 22
Analysis of yields (3)› Yield difference with Munich and Stockholm
lowest in 2006/2007: 45 bps› Rising to 75 bps in 2010 and even 115 bps in
2012› Tentative conclusion: investment markets
adjust to changed conditions, but with several years delay
|Date 19-06-2013 23
Explanation (1)› German investors major buyers on Dutch office
market› They were the first to spot opportunities in
Amsterdam after 1994 › Since 1995, they account for 35% of office
investments in The Netherlands› Estimated market share in Amsterdam area
50%
|Date 19-06-2013 24
Explanation (2)› German funds invest on behalf of multitude of
small private investors› Ultimate investor lacks insight in markets› Funds feel pressure to invest› Geltner, Miller et al (2007): duress can result in
market inefficiency
|Date 19-06-2013 25
Explanation (3)› Alternative analysis in recent report by CBRE:
high vacancy rates in peripheral submarkets are common in other cities as well
› However, this argument fails to consider that in Amsterdam peripheral areas with high supply elasticity account for 75% of the market
|Date 19-06-2013 26
Explanation (4)› Vacancy rates
Region CBD Highest submarket
Munich 2.1% 16%
Stockholm 4.6% 12.8%
Brussels 6.9% 28.6%
Amsterdam 7.2% 28.6%
Hamburg 8.1% 16.4%
Frankfurt 11.9% 35.8%
|Date 19-06-2013 27
Conclusion › Market failure is a fact: waste of capital in office
market› Lack of efficiency in office investment market is
plausible› More research into market processes is
important› Other points of interest: location patterns and
supply elasticity