While most REITs seem able to maintain general debt covenants with their bankers with safe gearing levels of under 45% (vs. the regulatory 60% limit) and interest cover exceeding 3x, short-term refinancing looks daunting for a number of them. From the refinancing deals announced over October-November, we conclude that REITs with strong sponsors, particularly government-linked sponsors, low leverage and quality portfolios are more likely to secure bank loans, which are the preferred refinancing option.
While some sceptical investors felt that there was more room for rents and occupancy to fall, most agreed that REITs have been oversold and even if yields deteriorate moderately from here, the REITs remain highly attractive.
Top Pick -- CCT
Will it get cheaper? Most clients agreed that at 0.2x P/BV, falling rents and occupancy levels have been priced in and yields of 18% certainly look attractive. We contend that CCT’s low average rent base (under $8psf/month), long leases, rental caps for some of its leases, rental support from CapitaLand for One George Street and a master lease structure with the hotel operator RC Hotels within Raffles City would provide buffers despite falling office spot rents and occupancy levels. Investors’ apprehensions about a falling topline were somewhat assuaged.
However, refinancing issues remain the main worry and three possibilities were discussed:
(1) Bank loans secured but at a high cost. Refinancing via bank loans is the most preferred solution for CCT at this point. On 28 Nov, Reuters reported that CCT verbally mandated four banks (Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, DBS Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and UO to handle a S$580m 3-year bullet refinancing deal, which is equivalent to its short-term debt coming due in Mar 09. Interest cost, which was reported at 250bp above LIBOR, is in line with the 3-year cost of debt in Singapore (we earlier estimated at 200-300bp above SIBOR or SOR). However some investors are concerned that the indicative rate is significantly higher than CCT’s portfolio property yield, which is below 4%. Even though the cost of debt has yet to be finalised, we have assumed a cost of debt of 5% for CCT in 2009. Most investors conceded that an increase in cost of debt would still be preferable to a dilutive rights issue. We are of the view that banks remain willing to extend credit to CCT, given its quality portfolio and strong sponsor CapitaLand. A direct bank loan remains the most possible and positive outcome for CCT.
(2) Bank loans not secured; rights issue forced. More sceptical clients were worried that CCT may resort to a rights issue if bank loans cannot be secured, causing dilution for existing unitholders. Additionally, if take-up is poor, sponsor CapitaLand could end up absorbing the bulk of the issue, resulting in a highly illiquid REIT. This would be negative for both CCT and the REIT sector. We are of the view that this option would be given low priority, and that bank financing would eventually be made available to CCT. Before deciding on a rights issue, a loan from the parent might be an alternative, and would be received more positively than rights.
(3) Convertible bonds redeemed at put date. Short-term financing woes aside, Singapore-based investors were particularly concerned that CCT’s S$370m convertible bond due to mature in 2013 would be redeemed earlier at its put date in May 2011. This would cause a spike in CCT’s debt profile in 2011 and increase its allin cost of debt.
No comments:
Post a Comment