IBJNews

  • Home

Analyst predicts modest year for REIT returns

Associated Press
January 12, 2011
Keywords
Commercial Real Estate, Duke Realty Corp., Real Estate & Retail, Real Estate Investment Trust, Simon Property Group
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

An analyst delivered his outlook for real estate investment trusts Wednesday, saying investors can expect modest returns from REIT stocks this year.

Indianapolis is home to two of the nation's biggest REITs: Simon Property Group and Duke Realty Corp.

Goldman Sachs & Co. analyst Jonathan Habermann expects a return of 5 percent to 10 percent this year after last year's 29-percent total return for REIT stocks.

"At the same time, given the improving growth outlook for the U.S. economy combined with still low interest rates, we simply do not see significant downside for the shares," he wrote.

Habermann maintained a "Neutral" view on the REIT industry. He said Goldman's equity analysts expect the Standard & Poor's 500 index to rise to 1500, a 21-percent increase, by the end of 2011. REITs however, may grow more modestly, by as much as 10 percent. His top buy recommendations include Digital Realty Trust Inc.

Habermann also upgraded AvalonBay Communities Inc. to "Buy" from "Neutral" and raised the price target to $121 per share from $98.

Also upgraded to "Buy" from "Neutral" was Vornado Realty Trust. The price target was boosted to $92 from $89.

Duke Realty was upgraded to "Neutral" from "Sell" on an improved balance sheet and portfolio. A price target of $12 was retained.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ

  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT