MichaelDes
Registered User
- Messages
- 431
The above company are offering an open investment opportunity which has the ability to be en-cashed after 12 months or can be kept for an indefinite period of time. The fund (like many others within its private syndicate schemes) intends to invest in commercial German real estate with yields of 7% plus. The primary function of the investment is to provide annual income of 5% of the initial investment, (although not guaranteed) with capital growth a secondary consideration.
However, all leases in Germany are inflation based and this usually positively affects its on-going property value. So if a building costs €1million with €75,000 rent charge per anum (7.5% yield) and the next year inflation tops 3%, then the value of the building, without any catastrophic issues, should be worth €1.030million and the rent at €77,250 to reflect the same yield.
The company have stressed to me the importance of each asset being able to wash its face, so all being well with the gearing at 65% LTV, then a 3% uplift in inflation property values should reflect in reality with gearing a 8.57% uplift on the initial investment.
For simple 101
€100k invested - 65%LTV borrow €185.714k = €285,714 pot
285,714 X 1.03 = €294,285.42
Property increased by €8,571.42
or 8.57142% on original investment.
Also there was the following investment comment concerning Augusta in a previous thread closed some 5 years ago, but to my mind the mathematics although correct has missed one or two issues.
Here's the thread
In my opinion the OP although possibly no longer active on AAM may not be able to respond, but IMO two very important issues are missing (hence the reason for dredging up the thread to see if my assertions are correct by comparison).
It's right to assume the investment of €250k would be worth €238,829 after all costs under the posters economic parameters - BUT.
The Mortgage over 5 years would have drawn down from €200,000 to €168,950.98 and the capital value of the building would have increased 2.5% each year over 5 years therefore the correct assertion should have been as follows.
Edit fix - calculations fixed
€200,000.00
€168,950.98-
€31,049.02
€38,829.00+ (Profit from initial €50k as mentioned above by quoted illustration)
€69,878.02
Lets say the building bought with accquistion costs of 8% and the intial property value of €230,000 never moved a dime. Then the fund would have returned €49,878.02 or a loss of €122 before other realisable costs from the firm of which there will be quite a few.
If the building increased in value in line with rental increases of 2.5% growth p.a. then it would be worth €230k x (2.5^5)
€260,223.88
€250,000.00-
€10,223.88
Total
€10,223.88
€69,878.02+
€80,101.19
€80,101.19
€50,000.00- (original investment)
€30,101.19
A 60.20% return (9.65% compounded p.a.) on investment before other realisable costs from the firm (Augusta) of which there will be quite a few.
Am I missing something or would this be correct? Also please note the company intend to use some of the assets coming from the closed syndicates that are maturing so there would be no acquisition costs really.
Please note that I have nothing to do with this company but am only looking at the pro and cons of investing circa €100k pension monies (with 25 years to retirement) and want to get a bang for the buck so to speak.
Here's the website for the company - http://www.augusta.ie/invest
Many thanks - and sorry for such a long winded post.
.
However, all leases in Germany are inflation based and this usually positively affects its on-going property value. So if a building costs €1million with €75,000 rent charge per anum (7.5% yield) and the next year inflation tops 3%, then the value of the building, without any catastrophic issues, should be worth €1.030million and the rent at €77,250 to reflect the same yield.
The company have stressed to me the importance of each asset being able to wash its face, so all being well with the gearing at 65% LTV, then a 3% uplift in inflation property values should reflect in reality with gearing a 8.57% uplift on the initial investment.
For simple 101
€100k invested - 65%LTV borrow €185.714k = €285,714 pot
285,714 X 1.03 = €294,285.42
Property increased by €8,571.42
or 8.57142% on original investment.
Also there was the following investment comment concerning Augusta in a previous thread closed some 5 years ago, but to my mind the mathematics although correct has missed one or two issues.
Here's the thread
Right, here are the calculations as promised. Please feel free to point out any mistakes as I am fairly inexperienced at all this craic.
Inital cost of aquiring propertys = 8.65% of cost of buildings.
Inital 3% commison charge on 50K investment.
Inital investment from me = 50,000
Gearing of 80/20 from bank=200,000
Total investment(my share) = 250,000
Lets say cost of Building(my share) = 230,000
8.65% cost of aquisition = 20,000
------
Total cost of aquiring building=250,000
Annual 0.75% managment fee(0.75% of 250,000) = 1875 x 5 = 9375
Annual 0.3% owners maintenance charge = 750 x 5 = 3750
Total costs = 20,000 + 9375 + 3750 = 33125.
1st years rental income = 7.5% of value of property, Rental income increases 2.5% peranum there after.
7.5% of 230,000 = 17250
Minus 2% charge = 345
------
16905
Interest repayment on loan = 5.7% of 230,000 = 11400
This interest is subtracted from rental income
16905 - 11400 = 5505. This rental income is then taxed @ 26.375%
26.375% of 5505 = 1452. Therefore total net rental for year 1 is 5505-1452 = 4053.
I have calculated net rental yields from years 2,3,4&5 the exact same way except I have factored in the assumed 2.5% increase in the inital rental income figure per anum.
My figures work out as follows,
Year 1 = 4053
Year 2 = 4364
Year 3 = 4683
Year 4 = 5010
Year 5 = 5344
-----
TOTAL = 23454
So now,
Total investment(bank + my own) = 250,000
Minus costs(inital + per anum) = -33,125
-------
216,875
Minus inital 3% on my 50K = -1,500
--------
215,375
Add net rental income = +23,454
---------
238,829
Minus principle of 200K loan = -200,000
---------
38,829
So after all costs and interest repayments have been deducted and net rental yields added in I am left with 38,829 of my inital 50,000 investment.
They have stated that it is reasonable to expect a return of 97,983 (before CGT is applied) on an inital investment of 50,000.
So I am short 59,154 (38,829 + 59154 = 97,983). To make up this shortfall It would require the final value of my share of the property to be to be 309,154. This value of 309,154 minus the inital value of 230,000 makes up the 59,154 shortfall.
So in summary the for my share of the property to reach this value, the property would need to see 6.1% appreciation compounded per anum to realise a final value of 309,154. I really don't know if this is feasabile!!
In my opinion the OP although possibly no longer active on AAM may not be able to respond, but IMO two very important issues are missing (hence the reason for dredging up the thread to see if my assertions are correct by comparison).
It's right to assume the investment of €250k would be worth €238,829 after all costs under the posters economic parameters - BUT.
The Mortgage over 5 years would have drawn down from €200,000 to €168,950.98 and the capital value of the building would have increased 2.5% each year over 5 years therefore the correct assertion should have been as follows.
Edit fix - calculations fixed
€200,000.00
€168,950.98-
€31,049.02
€38,829.00+ (Profit from initial €50k as mentioned above by quoted illustration)
€69,878.02
Lets say the building bought with accquistion costs of 8% and the intial property value of €230,000 never moved a dime. Then the fund would have returned €49,878.02 or a loss of €122 before other realisable costs from the firm of which there will be quite a few.
If the building increased in value in line with rental increases of 2.5% growth p.a. then it would be worth €230k x (2.5^5)
€260,223.88
€250,000.00-
€10,223.88
Total
€10,223.88
€69,878.02+
€80,101.19
€80,101.19
€50,000.00- (original investment)
€30,101.19
A 60.20% return (9.65% compounded p.a.) on investment before other realisable costs from the firm (Augusta) of which there will be quite a few.
Am I missing something or would this be correct? Also please note the company intend to use some of the assets coming from the closed syndicates that are maturing so there would be no acquisition costs really.
Please note that I have nothing to do with this company but am only looking at the pro and cons of investing circa €100k pension monies (with 25 years to retirement) and want to get a bang for the buck so to speak.
Here's the website for the company - http://www.augusta.ie/invest
Many thanks - and sorry for such a long winded post.
.