adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Investment

Icon: From Physicist To Impact Officer At A $44 Billion Investment Firm – Forbes

Published

 on


Patents, fusion chambers, particle detectors, and now – alternative real assets. Hailing from the analytical world of physics and engineering, Jill Brosig launched the ESG program at Harrison Street with a fresh perspective focused on measurement and accountability. With $44 billion in assets at stake, Brendan Doherty sits down with Jill to explore the unexpected intersections within ESG and key lessons when launching a new ESG group inside a company.

Brendan Doherty: Welcome, Jill, to Icons of Impact. Let’s jump right in. I understand that you custom created, and are the first person to hold, this Chief Impact Officer role at Harrison Street. Tell me about how that came to be?

Jill Brosig: I’m not a traditional real estate person, I’m a physicist by trade. And I have to commend Harrison Street for seeking the diversity of thought when bringing in someone with that background, not only to this role, but into the company. I’m a master black belt with Six Sigma, and bring processes expertise from my time at Motorola too. Harrison Street grew from 5 people when the firm launched in 2005 to well over 200 today. The ESG piece also started growing so we launched a formal program in 2013. At that time, there were no clearly defined ESG metrics or policies for the sectors in which we focus, so we created them. And about four years ago, I really felt we could do even more on our ESG. We thought since our 15 year anniversary was in 2020, we could reflect on the impact we’ve created and center this role around that – the number of jobs created, the number of students we’ve housed, the number of seniors we’ve cared for.

300x250x1

Doherty: What asset classes are you focusing on?

Brosig: At Harrison Street, we focus exclusively on alternative real assets. So what we invest in is not your traditional office spaces or apartments – instead it’s senior living communities, student housing, medical offices, data centers, life sciences, self storage – investments that are driven by demographics, not GDP or job growth, so typically more recession-resistant In good times or bad, kids are still going to go to school, people are still going to age, people are still going to have too much stuff to store. A few years ago, we also started pursuing a social infrastructure strategy to invest in hydro, wind, and solar. Today, we have over $44 billion in assets under management. For us, the concept of an impact officer just made sense as our next step in our ESG journey.

Doherty: Tell me about your early career, what sets you apart from a typical ESG officer?

Brosig: One of my early jobs was in Ann Arbor, Michigan at KMS (Kip (Keeve) Milton Siegel) Fusion Inc. working on fusion as a source of alternative energy. Fusion is how the sun makes energy. We were thinking really big – how can we really think differently about how we make energy? What are we thinking about in terms of carbon capture technologies? I was not coming from a traditional real estate focused mindset. I came into a room and basically asked, “Well, why are we doing that?”

Doherty: Can you give me a real estate example of what you just described – on taking a more creative look at a real estate asset?

Brosig: I mentioned before that we invest in senior living and that we invest in student housing. Seniors and students are two of the most vulnerable populations that suffer from loneliness. We had never really seen any type of cross pollination between the two by any group before. So, we looked at the map to see where we have student properties that are in close proximity to our senior communities. We found that in Austin, Texas, we had a couple of senior communities and we had about three student properties that were within less than two miles of each other. We started a program called Student Care where the students would volunteer, or they’d sign up to work at the local senior community. This has been a highly successful program that has provided a new way to create connections within the community. From the senior community perspective, from the operators’ perspective, they’re like, “Oh, this is great, I don’t have to pay overtime, I don’t have to hire more people, I can depend on the students coming in.” And from the students’ perspective, it gave them a different opportunity and perspective than just working at Starbucks.

Doherty: I love when large real estate assets can also transform lives on a purely individual level.

Brosig: Exactly! We had one student come through the program who was specializing in hospitality. To be able to work with the dining staff gave him some additional experience. We had another woman who was studying to be a doctor, and she wasn’t sure if she wanted to go the pediatric or geriatric route. StudentCare gave her an opportunity to explore those pathways. In fact, my understanding is that research has shown that seniors and students are the two groups of people that are the most lonely, which has immense adverse effects. So when you create these intergenerational relationships it’s really powerful. And that’s a different thing to measure. Sure, we could say we’ve had students work X number of hours, and I can certainly say it saves so much money. But, I think it’s more about how many touch points and how many relationships were created. That’s really powerful for both the student and the senior. That’s an example of thinking completely different, from a “social” perspective in ESG.

Doherty: That’s great. It’s about looking across your portfolio and finding creative ways to align separate assets. What has been one of the biggest challenges of building this practice? I know there’s often challenges integrating impact into more traditional sectors. How did you adapt?

Brosig: I would say probably the first level of challenge had to do with education. Some people, who maybe aren’t as close to it, think that it’s a trade off. If you’re doing something in the ESG world then it’s going to take away from the financial returns. There’s this perspective that it’s a feel good thing, that it really isn’t going to drive much of an impact. What we’ve actually seen is if you’re able to make a building more efficient, your utilities bill expenses are going down. That’s on the “E” or environmental side of ESG. I think the “S”, the social, is more difficult for people to wrap their heads around. It can seem more qualitative. Coming from a background that’s very analytical – being an engineer, a physicist – I really feel like you can measure anything. We’ve really been talking about how you measure the social piece. How do you measure that what you’ve done has truly made a difference? We have quite a few things that are in the works to really be able to identify and answer the “how do you measure?” question.

Doherty: Why is it a priority for Harrison Street to pursue these healthy building certifications across the portfolio?

Brosig: We’re doing that for three reasons. First, we want to differentiate everything in our oversight, to say they have this stamp. The one that we have chosen to start with is a certification called Fitwel. It was designed by the CDC. When we get a stamp from the CDC that says this is a healthy building, that’s powerful to attract residents, tenants, and staff. So, I want to do that for market differentiation. I also want to be able to say that everything within the Harrison Street portfolio meets a certain standard for health and wellness. The third reason is that I want to be able to demonstrate what these certified buildings do for the value of a property.

Doherty: I understand that MIT has run studies on these healthy building certifications. Can you tell me more about that and how much of an impact it can have?

Brosig: MIT has been able to determine that if you have a healthy building certification you can charge 4% to 7% more in rent per square foot – you get more when it comes time to sell. We’re engaged with working with MIT on doing these types of studies for our own asset classes, and to really be able to prove it out. For me, the challenge is making sure people understand that there is a value-add to this. What we’re hearing from potential buyers of our properties in Europe is that if you don’t have an ESG story in the next three years we’re not interested. For me, it’s getting the whole story out, educating people, getting people excited about it – a lot of what we do is influence management.

Doherty: Are you finding particular asks from your investors or have they expressed how they want to see impact coming in the space? I’m always trying to gauge investor sentiments – I’m curious if you’ve seen that evolve, for instance, in the past two years?

Brosig: We do a materiality survey every three years to gauge what our investors think. And in addition to that, we started an ESG investor council with investors that have expressed the most interest and passion in ESG and who are really at the forefront of ESG investing within their organizations. It includes both European investors and US based investors. In our most recent survey, the conversations that are really important are risk and resiliency. When they’re seeing the wildfires in Australia, or the flooding in Germany, or the deep freeze in Texas last February – it certainly is something that’s top of mind. Following that, health and wellness is up there. Not even so much the investors, it might be their constituents who are now asking and saying “we want to make sure that our money is going to a company that is thinking about ESG.”

Doherty: It’s certainly top of mind for a lot of us. Tell me about the Climate Action Plan you all developed in response.

Brosig: In this space, you’ve probably seen a lot of people coming out and saying, “We’re going to be net zero by 2050.” But, I could tell you anything by 2050, so we came up with this Climate Action Plan with three pillars, not just a benign goal. We feel this addresses a lot of the rampant greenwashing. The first part of this plan talks about what we are doing within our power to ensure that our assets are not contributing to climate change, the carbon emission space. Our goal, between now and 2025, is to reduce our carbon emissions by 70% across the whole portfolio. The second part is, which also addresses one of the investors main concerns, is around climate risk and resiliency. We know that things are changing in the environment, and we want to measure how we are ensuring that our assets are indeed resistant to climate change. We make sure we do a very thorough analysis. And then the third piece is on health and wellness. I talked about getting the Fitwel certification. We’ve also partnered with the Well Living Lab, doing field studies with them to see how the indoor environment impacts senior health, and eventually even the overall aging process. We know that most people spend about 90% of their time indoors. So we want to look at how we are ensuring that the environment is healthy for them.

Doherty: Switching gears, I understand that you hold several patents. Which one are you most proud of? How would you describe your approach to entrepreneurship and creativity?

Brosig: To get a patent means that you’ve come up with a unique idea; to have something patented means nobody else has framed it in the way that you have. The first patent I got was relatively early in my career. I think that was what helped seal the foundation for me of being innovative and thinking differently. I think, by sheer nature, I’m more drawn to think differently. I actually do have an entrepreneurship degree from Kellogg. I just love to look at problems in a different way. I probably reached my peak when I was about three and a half years old, because I was doing 150 piece puzzles at that time. It’s been all downhill since I was three and a half, ha! I’m definitely more of the mindset that life is long, as opposed to life is short. I think there’s just so many wonderful opportunities for us and I really have that kind of mindset.

Brendan: Life is long, I love that. Thank you, Jill, for your time today!

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Want $1 Million in Retirement? Invest $15000 in These 3 Stocks

Published

 on

Compound interest is a thing of magic. It’s also one of your best bets if you’re looking to retire rich.

It might take time and patience but there’s not a whole lot of heavy lifting when it comes to a buy-and-hold investment strategy. What matters most is having decades of time in front of you, which will allow you to maximize the benefits of compounded returns. And, of course, choosing the right investments is equally important.

The magic of compound interest

With a decent return, building a million-dollar portfolio might not be as hard as you think. An initial investment of $15,000, returning 15% annually, would be worth just shy of $1 million in 30 years.

First off, 30 years is a long time, which means you’ll need to be planning your retirement far in advance. However, all it takes is one initial investment of $15,000 and the right stocks to build a $1 million portfolio.

300x250x1

Additionally, it’s important to remain realistic and acknowledge that a stock returning 15% annually is not exactly common. That being said, the TSX certainly has its share of dependable companies with track records of returning far more than just 15% per year.

I’ve put together a list of three Canadian stocks that are perfect for hands-off investors who are looking to retire rich.

Constellation Software

It will require a steep initial investment, but Constellation Software (TSX:CSU) is well worth its nearly $4,000-a-share price tag. When it comes to market-crushing returns, the tech stock has been in a league of its own over the past two decades.

Even as the company is now valued at a massive market cap of close to $80 billion, the impressive returns have continued. Shares are up more than 200% over the past five years. That’s good enough for a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 25%.

At a 25% annual return, a $15,000 investment would be worth a whopping $12 million in 30 years.

Descartes Systems

Descartes Systems (TSX:DSG) is another tech stock that’s no stranger to delivering market-beating returns. The company is also only valued at a market cap of $10 billion, leaving plenty of room for growth in the coming decades.

There’s a reason why Descartes Systems is one of the few tech stocks trading near all-time highs today. This stock is a proven winner, with lots of growth left in the tank.

Over the past five years, the stock has had a CAGR just shy of 20%.

goeasy

The last pick on my list is a beaten-down growth stock that’s trading at a serious discount.

The consumer-facing financial services provider has been hit by short-term headwinds from sky-high interest rates. With potential rate cuts around the corner though, now could be an excellent time to be loading up on goeasy (TSX:GSY).

Even with shares down 25% from all-time highs, the stock is still nearing a return of 300% over the past five years.

goeasy was crushing the market’s returns before the recent spike in interest rates, and there’s no reason to believe why the company won’t continue to do so for years to come.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

FLAGSHIP COMMUNITIES REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST ANNOUNCES CLOSING OF APPROXIMATELY US

Published

 on

TORONTO, April 24, 2024 /CNW/ – Flagship Communities Real Estate Investment Trust (the “REIT” or “Flagship“) (TSX: MHC.U) (TSX: MHC.UN) announced today that it has completed its previously announced public offering (the “Offering“) of 3,910,000 trust units (the “Units“) on a bought deal basis at a price of US$15.35 per Unit for total gross proceeds to the REIT of approximately US$60 million.

The Offering was completed through a syndicate of underwriters co-led by BMO Capital Markets and Canaccord Genuity Corp.

ADVERTISEMENT

The REIT intends to use the net proceeds from the Offering to fund a portion of the approximately US$93 million aggregate purchase price for the REIT’s previously announced acquisition of seven manufactured housing communities comprising 1,253 lots (the “Acquisitions“) and for general business purposes. In the event the REIT is unable to consummate one or both of the Acquisitions, the REIT intends to use the net proceeds of the Offering to fund future acquisitions and for general business purposes.

300x250x1

The REIT has also granted the underwriters an over-allotment option to purchase up to an additional 586,500 Units on the same terms and conditions, exercisable at any time, in whole or in part, up to 30 days after the date hereof.

About Flagship Communities Real Estate Investment Trust

Flagship Communities Real Estate Investment Trust is a leading operator of affordable residential Manufactured Housing Communities primarily serving working families seeking affordable home ownership. The REIT owns and operates exceptional residential living experiences and investment opportunities in family-oriented communities in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Illinois. To learn more about Flagship, visit www.flagshipcommunities.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains statements that include forward-looking information (within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws). Forward-looking statements are identified by words such as “believe”, “anticipate”, “project”, “expect”, “intend”, “plan”, “will”, “may”, “can”, “could”, “would”, “must”, “estimate”, “target”, “objective”, and other similar expressions, or negative versions thereof, and include statements herein concerning the use of the net proceeds of the Offering.

These forward-looking statements are based on the REIT’s expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections, as well as assumptions that are inherently subject to significant business, economic and competitive uncertainties and contingencies that could cause actual results to differ materially from those that are disclosed in such forward-looking statements. While considered reasonable by management of the REIT as at the date of this news release, any of these expectations, estimates, forecasts, projections, or assumptions could prove to be inaccurate, and as a result, the forward-looking statements based on those expectations, estimates, forecasts, projections, or assumptions could be incorrect. Material factors and assumptions used by management of the REIT to develop the forward-looking information in this news release include, but are not limited to, that the conditions to closing of the Acquisitions will be met or waived in a timely manner and that both of the Acquisitions will be completed on the current agreed upon terms.

When relying on forward-looking statements to make decisions, the REIT cautions readers not to place undue reliance on these statements, as they are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that are difficult to control or predict. A number of factors, many of which are beyond the REIT’s control, could cause actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements, such as the risks identified in the REIT’s management’s discussion and analysis for the year ended December 31, 2023 available on the REIT’s profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.com, including, but not limited to, the factors discussed under the heading “Risks and Uncertainties” therein and the risk of the REIT’s plans with respect to debt bridge financing for the Acquisitions not being achieved as anticipated. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate as actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Readers, therefore, should not place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this press release and, except as expressly required by applicable Canadian securities laws, the REIT assumes no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

 

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Investment

Taxes should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that’s what Trudeau wants

Published

 on

Kim Moody: Ottawa is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan

The Canadian federal budget has been out for a week, which is plenty of time to absorb just how terrible it is.

300x250x1

The problems start with weak fiscal policy, excessive spending and growing public-debt charges estimated to be $54.1 billion for the upcoming year. That is more than $1 billion per week that Canadians are paying for things that have no societal benefit.

Next, the budget clearly illustrates this government’s continued weak taxation policies, two of which it apparently believes  are good for entrepreneurs. But the proposed $2-million Canadian Entrepreneurs Incentive (CEI) and $10-million capital gains exemption for transfers to an employee ownership trust (EOT) are both laughable.

Why? Well, for the CEI, virtually every entrepreneurial industry (except technology) is not eligible. If you happen to be in an industry that qualifies, the $2-million exemption comes with a long, stringent list of criteria (which will be very difficult for most entrepreneurs to qualify for) and it is phased in over a 10-year period of $200,000 per year.

For transfers to EOTs, an entrepreneur must give up complete legal and factual control to be eligible for the $10-million exemption, even though the EOT will likely pay the entrepreneur out of future profits. The commercial risk associated with such a transfer is likely too great for most entrepreneurs to accept.

Capital gains tax hike

But the budget’s highlight proposal was the capital gains inclusion rate increase to 66.7 per cent from 50 per cent for dispositions effective after June 24, 2024. The proposal includes a 50 per cent inclusion rate on the first $250,000 of annual capital gains for individuals, but not for corporations and trusts. Oh, those evil corporations and trusts.

There is a lot wrong with this proposed policy. The first is that by not putting individuals, corporations and trusts on the same taxation footing for capital gains taxation, the foundational principle of integration (the idea that the corporate and individual tax systems should be indifferent to whether an investment is held in a corporation or directly by the taxpayer) is completely thrown out the window. This is wrong.

Some economists have come out in strong favour of the proposal, mainly because of equity arguments (a buck is a buck), but such arguments ignore the real world of investing where investors look at overall risk, liquidity and the time value of money.

If capital gains are taxed at a rate approaching wage taxation rates, why would entrepreneurs and investors want to risk their capital when such investments might be illiquid for a long period of time and be highly risky?

They will seek greener pastures for their investment dollars and they already are. I’ve been fielding a tremendous number of questions from investors over the past week and I’d invite those academics and economists who support the increased inclusion rate to come live in my shoes for a day to see how the theoretical world of equity and behaviour collide. It’s not good and it certainly does nothing to help Canada’s obvious productivity challenges.

Of course, there has been the usual chatter encouraging such people to leave (“don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” some say) from those who don’t understand basic economics and taxation policy, but these cheerleaders should be careful what they wish for. The loss of successful Canadians and their investment dollars affects all of us in a very negative way.

The government messaging around this tax proposal has many people upset, including me. Specifically, it is the following paragraph in the budget documents that many supporters are parroting that is upsetting:

“Next year, 28.5 million Canadians are not expected to have any capital gains income, and 3 million are expected to earn capital gains below the $250,000 annual threshold. Only 0.13 per cent of Canadians with an average income of $1.4 million are expected to pay more personal income tax on their capital gains in any given year. As a result of this, for 99.87 per cent of Canadians, personal income taxes on capital gains will not increase.” (This is supposedly about 40,000 taxpayers.)

Bluntly, this is garbage. It outright ignores several facts.

For one thing, there are hundreds of thousands of private corporations owned and controlled by Canadian resident individuals. Those corporations will be subject to the increased capital gains inclusion rate with no $250,000 annual phase-in. Because of the way passive income is taxed in these Canadian-controlled private corporations, the increased tax load on realized capital gains will be felt by individual shareholders on the dividend distribution required to recover certain refundable corporate taxes.

Furthermore, public corporations that have capital gains will pay tax at a higher inclusion rate and this results in higher corporate tax, which means decreased amounts are available to be paid out as dividends to individual shareholders (including those held by individuals’ pensions).

The budget documents simply measured the number of corporations that reported capital gains in recent years and said it is 12.6 per cent of all corporations. That measurement is shallow and not the whole story, as described above.

Tax hit for cottages

There are also millions of Canadians who hold a second real estate property, either a cottage-type and/or rental property. Those properties will eventually be sold, with the probability that the gain will exceed the $250,000 threshold.

Upon death, an individual will often have their largest capital gains realized as a result of deemed dispositions that occur immediately prior to death. This will have the distinct possibility of capital gains that exceed $250,000.

And people who become non-residents of Canada — and that is increasing rapidly — have deemed dispositions of their assets (with some exceptions). They will face the distinct possibility that such gains will be more than $250,000.

The politics around the capital gains inclusion rate increase are pretty obvious. The government is planning for Canadian taxpayers to crystallize their inherent gains prior to the implementation date, especially corporations that will not have a $250,000 annual lower inclusion rate. For the current year, the government is projecting a $4.9-billion tax take. But next year, it dramatically drops to an estimated $1.3 billion.

This is a ridiculous way to shield the government’s tremendous spending and try to make them look like they are holding the line on their out-of-control deficits. The government is encouraging people to crystallize their gains and pay tax. That’s a hell of a fiscal plan.

There’s an old saying that tax should not wag the tail of the investment dog, but that is exactly what the government is encouraging Canadians to do in the name of raising short-term taxation revenues. It is simply wrong.

I hope the government has some second sober thoughts about the capital gains proposal, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending