The China Investor Volume 1, Issue 2 | Page 32

于, 在中国, 政府是唯一的土地所有者, 其控制是无所 不在的, 包括设定开发商可以出售其产品的最低和 / 或 最高定价等条款 。 例子不胜枚举 。
虽然美国和中国开发商都会花时间与当地官员打交道, 建立牢固的工作关系, 美国开发商最终拥有土地, 并根 据几十年的先例对其利用土地的方式享有合法权利 。 在中国, 更为常见的情况是, 当地政府对土地开发相关 问题具有单边控制权, 这通常是开发交易能否成功的 唯一最重要的因素 。
在美国, 当选官员的职责范围更加有限, 其工作是强制 执行现有法律, 无论是否有其他影响 。 向政府官员献殷 勤不是获得优质交易的常用方法, 且政府批准也不会 保证投资一定会成功 。 对于中国投资者来说, 好消息是 美国房地产是外国投资者可以进入的最开放 、 流动性 最高的市场之一, 且监管门槛较低 。 当然, 美国房地产 市场中的外国投资仍然应计征 FIRPTA 税, 但是此项税 款也可以通过适当的税务规划减轻 。
风险和收益状况
两个市场中房地产风险和收益的评估方式存在很大的 差异 。 通过综合考虑当前现金流和长期增值, 能够满足 或超过大部分机构投资者设定的收益率目标 。 在目前 的投资环境中, 核心房地产投资应该产生的总收益率 在 6.5 ~ 8.5 % 之间, 核心策略应产生的收益率在 8.5 ~ 11 % 之间, 增值策略应该产生中低双位数收益率, 投机性策 略应该产生高双位数收益率, 按扣除费用前的毛收益 计算的总收益率在 20 % 以上 。
这些是较小的范围, 该结果是基于流动性大 、 透明化 的市场所得 。 根据投资所在城市的不同, 上述每个范围 都会变化 。 门户城市, 如纽约 、 旧金山 、 洛杉矶和华盛 顿哥伦比亚特区, 将会产生靠近每个区间范围的低区 间 收 益 率, 二 线 城 市, 如 达 拉 斯 、 西 雅 图 和 丹 佛, 可 能 会在中区间, 三线城市可能会在上述区间范围的上区 间 。
简而言之, 预期的准确结果取决于市场条件 。 在中国的 高增长市场中, 个人愿意接受较低的本期现金收益, 以 换取更高的增长收益和投资配置后更大的总收益 。 在 美国更加成熟的市场中, 只有开发项目投资中才有更大 的增值机会, 在开发项目投资中, 价值是通过开发过程 创造的 。 更典型的是, 美国投资者依赖较高的本期收 益率和较低的增值, 获得更加稳健的总收益率, 但风险 也低得多 。
中国投资者通常更加关注绝对收益率, 但忽视与某一 特定投资策略相关的风险 。 取得良好的风险调整收益 率应该是目标, 但是中国投资者通常会将其宏观市场 认知观点带到美国, 关注总收益率, 而不充分了解美国 市场中的风险 。 中国市场中的美国投资者亦然 。
RISK AND RETURN PROFILES
Real estate risk and returns are evaluated quite differently within the two markets. The combination of current cash flow and long-term appreciation is capable of meeting or surpassing most institutional investor’ s targeted return goals. In the current investment environment, core real estate investments should yield a total return between 6.5 to 8.5 percent, core plus strategies should yield between 8.5 to 11 percent, value add strategies should generate low to mid-teens returns, and opportunistic strategies should generate high teens to over 20 percent total returns, on a gross basis before fees. These are narrow ranges; the result of a liquid, transparent marketplace. Each of these ranges will shift depending on the city in which an investment is located. Gateway cities, like New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington, D. C., will produce yields closer to the lower end of each of the ranges, second tier cities, like Dallas, Seattle and Denver, will likely fall mid-range, and tertiary cities would likely fall near the top of the ranges provided.
In short, market conditions are creating the exact outcomes that should be expected. In China’ s high growth market, individuals are willing to accept a lower current cash return in exchange for a higher appreciation return, and greater total return upon disposition of the investment. In the U. S.’ more mature market, the opportunity for greater appreciation can only be found in development investments, in which value is created through the development process. More typically, U. S. investors rely on higher current yields and lower appreciation that delivers a more modest total return, but at a far lower risk.
Often, Chinese investors pay more attention to the absolute return, but fail to recognize the risks associated with a particular investment strategy. Achieving a good risk-adjusted return should be the goal, but often Chinese investors bring their macro-market perceptions with them to the U. S. and focus on the total return without fully understanding the risks in the U. S. market. The same can be said for U. S. investors in China.
DEVELOPMENT MODEL
In addition to the macro-market differences described above, there are general similarities and specific differences in the development process that also impact the respective markets. Generally, value creation in real estate development between the U. S. and China proceeds through the same process. While the list of important decisions that must be made is long, the major drivers to a successful development require similar steps in each market. An investor must identify a good location for the chosen product type, secure governmental approvals, negotiate a fair investment structure with a qualified developer, and develop a market acceptable product of high quality. But while these steps seem similar on the surface, a closer look reveals substantial differences.
In China, buying land is typically the largest cost in the total budget. In some cities such as Beijing and Shanghai land costs can represent 70 to 75 percent of the total
31 THE CHINA INVESTOR