Fish and bear's paws, you have to have both.
This is perhaps the most embarrassing situation faced by industrial park REITs now.
Last week, I just wrote an article about the continuous decline in the occupancy rate of commercial office buildings, and I really want to put a link so that everyone can have a basic understanding of this topic (and then give me a reading volume), but it was deleted, so you can only make up for it by yourself.
In fact, this has also directly affected the REITs products of the industrial park, although from the recently disclosed operation data of the underlying assets of several industrial parks, the rental rate of Bosera Shekou Industrial Park REIT has rebounded, and the funds have rebounded slightly. The REIT occupancy rate of Huaxia Hefei High-tech Industrial Park is higher than **, coming to 9084%。The occupancy rates of the first phase of the Pharmaceutical Valley R&D office and supporting commercial, supporting apartments and incubators of Huaxia and Dagaoke REIT have reached respectively. 77% and 8156. The average rent at the end of the fourth quarter has increased compared with the first three quarters.
However, if you can't stand the market, you will feel that the commercial carrier in your park will be affected, and the future prospects are not good, so you will throw it away. I really want to argue for the park, but I have to admit that the vacancy rate of commercial carriers will still exist in the future, and the occupancy rate of the park will indeed be greatly affected.
And then recently I also saw the online finance-related self-** account or the ** manager made a judgment on this,"The main reason for the decline in performance is the impact of the decline in occupancy rate, which is affected by the level of operation and management of asset managers."
In the view of financial institutions, the reason for the REITs in the park has been found, which can neither guarantee the full lease nor steadily increase the rent every year, and the operation and management of asset managers will inevitably have problems and the level is worrying.
So the question is, logically speaking, most of the park products that can be publicly offered REITs now belong to the core areas of the national industry, and they are all "good projects" in the hands of local top state-owned enterprises, why not now?
First of all, there must be a surplus of commercial carriers at present, from the national level to suspend the new construction of infrastructure in 12 provinces and cities, including industrial parks, and then to the Internet Shanghai is also suspending the construction of relevant industrial parks, accelerating the solution to the problem of vacancy rate of more than 40% in many areas, which can already explain the problem.
The vacancy rate remains high, is it all a problem of operation and management level?
The problem of the vacancy rate of commercial carriers is clearly revealed, and the local government is also accelerating the promotion of the park management to solve this problem as soon as possible.
How to fix it? Although it may cure the symptoms but not the root cause, it can at least attract some enterprises to settle in through low-cost carriers in the short term, alleviate the vacancy rate problem, and then slowly achieve the effect of "curing the root cause" through industrial operation.
Once the price is reduced, for the public REITs products in the industrial park, it is not equivalent to directly slapping some people in the face, and the "story" of the annual increase in rent ** cannot be continued. It will even affect the valuation system of public REITs products in industrial parks, why do you have to reduce the price of high-speed infrastructure and sewage treatment, but your park will reduce the price?
The industrial park itself has industrial attributes, and the purpose is also to promote the industrial development of the regional infrastructure, which naturally has the mission and responsibility of industrial development. Blindly raising rents will compress the living space of industrial enterprises and is not conducive to the development of regional industries, which is contrary to the mission of industrial parks.
Industrial parks for insiders, financial products for outsiders.
But obviously, for the first managers, they just see it as a financial product, and reducing the rent will affect the size of their "plate", and they must be tough on the park managers to maintain the occupancy rate while ensuring stable rent growth.
Can't do it? That's a matter of your operational management level.
But think about it carefully, most of these listed park products also belong to a small part of the buildings in these large parks, if, I mean, if, several buildings in the park REITs products are not reduced in price, in order to solve the problem of vacancy rate, the park manager is bound to need to "reduce the price" for the rental of other buildings in the park, so you are the same operator, in the same park, can the buildings that have issued public REITs resist the outflow of enterprises? After all, if the surrounding area is reduced, if you don't reduce the price, the operator is still the same, why should the company stay in this building?
From the perspective of ** managers, their demands are correct, but in terms of the current actual situation, these requirements are a bit unrealistic.
In the final analysis, the essence of industrial parks must be to promote industrial development rather than become a simple financial product.