IBJNews

REITs tumble most since 2011 on concern of rising rates

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares in U.S. real estate investment trusts fell the most in 19 months Wednesday as the Federal Reserve said it could scale back bond purchases this year, fueling concern that rising interest rates will increase acquisition and refinancing costs.

The Bloomberg REIT Index declined 3 percent, the most since November 2011. The gauge has lost 12 percent from an almost six- year high on May 21 amid speculation the Fed would reduce bond purchases, which have kept borrowing costs near record lows.

Shares in Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group Inc., the largest U.S. REIT, dropped 2.9 percent, or $4.78, to $162.52. Indianapolis-based Duke Realty Corp. shares fell 3.5 percent, to $15.54, and shares in locally-based Kite Realty Group dropped 2.7 percent, to $5.86.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said Wednesday that policy makers may end the purchases in mid-2014 if the economy continues to improve, sending the yield on 10-year Treasury notes to a 15- month high. REITs are dependent on the capital markets to finance acquisitions and development because they can’t keep large amounts of cash on hand. They also are required to pay out most of their taxable earnings to shareholders, making them comparable to a bond investment.

“The cost of capital, both debt and equity, is really important,” Jim Sullivan, a managing director at Green Street Advisors Inc., a Newport Beach, Calif.-based research company focused on REITs, said. “That’s a strong headwind for any industry that’s capital intensive, including commercial real estate.”

Select Income REIT, a Newton, Mass.-based owner of single-tenant properties, fell the most Wednesday of the 129 members in the REIT index, losing 4.8 percent, to $28.47.

The Bloomberg Healthcare REIT Index fell 4 percent Wednesday and has lost 18 percent from its May 21 high. The Bloomberg Single-Tenant REIT Index is down 17 percent from its recent peak, the second-worst performance among industry groups.

Single-tenant landlords, which own buildings rented to companies such as fast-food chains or pharmacies, typically have tenants with long leases. That gives the properties “bond- like” qualities that makes them less attractive to investors when rates rise, said Ryan Severino, senior economist at Reis Inc., a real estate data company in New York.

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.

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. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT