adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Real eState

Proposed climate rule signals new era for real estate – McKinsey

Published

 on


On March 21, 2022, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a rule to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosure for investors.
1




1.


“SEC proposes rules to enhance and standardize climate-related disclosures for investors,” US Securities and Exchange Commission,
March 21, 2022.






If carried through as written, the rule would require public issuers to disclose material climate risks, greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, and, as applicable, emissions reduction targets and transition plans.

Sidebar

300x250x1

The proposed SEC rule would affect the real-estate world in two key ways. First, it would apply directly to publicly traded real-estate companies and real-estate investment trusts that are registered with the SEC.
2




2.


Patrick J. Kiger, “What SEC’s proposed climate disclosure rule could mean for real estate companies,” Urban Land, April 15, 2022.






Second, it would indirectly apply to the vast majority of large real-estate owners. A significant number of corporate tenants, real-estate lenders, and real-estate investors are public entities that would be covered by the SEC rule, and therefore would have to make disclosures about their real-estate holdings. Given that real estate accounts for a significant component of scopes 1 and 2 GHG emissions
3




3.


2019 Global status report for buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emissions, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector, Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2019.






for players in most industries, meeting the SEC’s reporting requirements is impossible without understanding the emissions that come from real-estate footprints. If enacted, the SEC’s rule would mean both public and private real-estate companies must provide this insight to their tenants, investors, lenders, and other stakeholders.

While the rule may be challenged, the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on the real-estate industry. Over the past several years, some real-estate players have developed a growing awareness of the need to incorporate both climate-related risks and emissions into their valuation, decision making, operations, reporting, and pricing.
4




4.


Jameelah D. Robinson, “Real estate investors want to know what cities are doing about climate risks,” Bloomberg, November 3, 2020.






Others have moved more slowly. The proposed rule introduces the idea that climate disclosures are fundamental to running any real-estate business.

Real-estate firms will likely soon be receiving calls from their tenants and investors looking for emissions figures, risk disclosures, and emission-reductions plans. Tenants and investors may be concerned with meeting the requirements of the proposed SEC rule or doing the same for other regulations that could emerge. They will likely want to work with companies that can provide reporting of current emissions and risks, ongoing assessments as the climate changes, and options for reducing emissions.

For publicly held tenants and investors, the requirement to disclose real estate climate risks and emissions provides another reason to reduce emissions and help their stakeholders and customers do so. A benefit may be that those who do it well and early have a competitive edge.

For the real-estate industry, the lingering question around climate change has always been, what will be the catalyst for decisive, collective action? The SEC’s proposed rule provides an answer: the time to act is now.

Real-estate companies have an opportunity to respond to the SEC’s proposal preemptively

Publicly traded companies in all sectors are preparing for the potential implications of the SEC’s proposed disclosure rule (exhibit). Real-estate companies would be wise to prepare for the climate-risk questions tenants, investors, lenders, and other stakeholders will have. They can use these insights to revalue and reassess their real-estate portfolios, and ultimately differentiate themselves in the marketplace by offering the most comprehensive and effective emissions reduction solutions.

The SEC’s climate-related disclosure rule would require companies to disclose material climate risks, including emissions data and transition plans.

We strive to provide individuals with disabilities equal access to our website. If you would like information about this content we will be happy to work with you. Please email us at: McKinsey_Website_Accessibility@mckinsey.com

Tenants will soon be calling

Tenants that lease commercial real estate for business unrelated to real estate may be contemplating for the first time that the physical spaces they occupy contribute to emissions and expose them to climate risks. They will need answers from their real-estate partners.

The most straightforward questions will involve emissions, including the following:

  • What are my emissions today?
  • How can I reduce those emissions? Can I do so in my current buildings?
  • What will these reductions cost? What value could they create?
  • As the climate or regulation changes, or as operations change, will our real-estate partner be able to provide updated emissions readings?

More complex questions will emerge from disclosure requirements regarding materiality impacts and specific risks to organizations’ physical footprints, including the following:

  • Which offices are at risk and to what extent?
  • Which manufacturing facilities, distribution centers, data centers, or hospitals will be affected by climate risks?
  • How will the above risks affect operational continuity?
  • How probable are these impacts, and how severe?

Answering these questions requires understanding the details of the physical hazards in a specific location and the extent to which these hazards could affect the operation of a building (such as if a flood could disable the building’s mechanical systems or whether those systems are located on the roof).

Investors will have a new set of needs as the ‘Great Repricing’ accelerates

Real-estate investors may be familiar with green building concepts but should get used to the idea that their entire portfolios will likely need to be reexamined through a climate lens.

We have argued in prior work on climate risk and the opportunity for real estate that emissions and climate impacts will soon be significant drivers of the value and performance of real-estate assets. These impacts can manifest in both positive and negative ways for the value of a given real-estate asset.

On the positive side, real estate can help companies meet their emissions reduction targets and tenants will likely make greater investment in climate-ready real-estate assets because of the long-term savings that stem from mitigating climate and regulatory risk. Insurance costs, utility costs, and other costs (such as for repairs and maintenance) could decrease in such buildings due to better physical resilience. In turn, the value of these assets could be higher because of more attractive income and operating-cost profiles. As a corollary to these direct impacts on property net operating income (NOI), as investors look to decarbonize and reduce the climate risks in their portfolios, the attractiveness of assets will vary based on their emissions and risks, and capitalization rates will reflect this.

Conversely, buildings at risk from growing physical hazards or with higher emissions profiles will decrease in value over time, as industry players comprehend, account for, and report on climate-related risks. Insurance costs, utility costs, and other operating costs may be higher in these properties.

Until now, the impact of climate on the performance and valuation of real-estate assets has been felt primarily by select pockets of the most obviously exposed real-estate. However, as thousands of companies begin to comprehend the emissions and risks that emanate from their real-estate choices, this information will become clearer and more widely distributed.

It is easy to imagine this awareness creating tenant demand for lower-emissions building performance from their landlords and for lower-risk locations or buildings. As tenants migrate, it follows that lenders and investors would do the same. The result is a phenomenon we call the “Great Repricing,” a re-sorting of value in which some assets would be devalued, some would be stranded, and some would become more attractive. Still others could be significantly refurbished and repositioned in light of these changes.

We believe growing climate awareness that ultimately results in the Great Repricing will happen whether the SEC’s proposed rule becomes reality sooner, later, or not at all. However, by focusing the attention of all public companies on the climate risks and emissions profiles in their real-estate footprints, we think that the proposal will accelerate the process.

Real-estate players with climate intelligence and capabilities will stand out

As the Great Repricing unfolds, opportunities will arise for real-estate players that understand how climate factors affect their portfolios and asset values and can respond in ways valued by tenants, lenders, and investors.

Climate responsiveness will become a new basis for differentiation across the value chain. Companies that create reporting systems to support tenants, lenders, and investors in meeting their disclosure requirements will be more attractive as partners and landlords. Landlords that help occupiers lower emissions through refurbishment, lower-carbon building systems, and ancillary ways such as solar-energy generation or electric-vehicle charging may gain a competitive edge by offering these value-add services. Individual buildings that are lower carbon and lower risk will be highly differentiated, as will be markets that pose lower risks.

Real-estate players that build climate intelligence and capabilities can separate themselves from the pack. While the race had already begun for some, the SEC has now fired the starting gun for the whole industry.

What can real-estate companies do today?

There are multiple reasons the real-estate industry must make changes to combat climate change and prepare for its effects. First, real-estate assets are vulnerable to long-term climate risk that can be very expensive. Second, real-estate companies have their own commitments to reduce emissions—in some cases in response to demand from investors—and comply with existing regulations. The SEC’s proposal can be viewed as a third reason and an accelerant to the above imperatives.

Given the shifts on the real-estate horizon, real estate players should consider several actions:

  • Create an emissions reduction and reporting engine

    Real-estate companies can effectively understand their baseline emissions, find ways to cost-effectively reduce those emissions, and report on those reductions. This is a good time to take stock of organizational capacity, expertise, and data needs around emissions.

    Companies should determine what people, capabilities, tools, and processes they need to understand each property’s emissions. They should determine which insights are required to find the most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, and what execution capability is required to deliver reductions.

  • Set up an organization and operating model to address emissions

    It will be important to set up a coordinated governance structure across property operations, asset management, risk, finance, and other functions to ensure this engine is effective.

    Reducing emissions and addressing material impacts will likely require different forms of engagement with a broader set of stakeholders than many real-estate firms are used to. It may also be important to have a single leader responsible for pulling together these threads throughout the business. This leader can develop coalitions that push to reduce emissions in areas not in the landlord’s direct control. Partnering with utilities can help in electrification and efficiency efforts; working with banks can unlock lower-cost financing for energy-efficiency retrofits; and working with local municipalities could create development allowances that enable a lower-emissions building or improve the availability of public transport.

  • Build a solid view of material climate impacts

    Now is the time to develop a clear understanding of the impact of climate on the performance and value of assets. It is important to forecast the impact of changing physical risks such as fires, floods, storms, and heat on the fundamental economics of assets. Equally crucial is an understanding of what a decarbonizing economy means for a company’s markets, tenants, asset NOI, and capitalization rates. To make the most of insights into material impacts, knowledge must not remain isolated within the risk function but rather become a capability that cuts across the organization.

  • Translate capabilities into value

    Turning climate-impact insights and emissions reduction into value requires active engagement by real-estate players. For example, if a real-estate company makes changes to a building that lowers energy use—thereby lowering associated emissions—it should also develop a novel leasing structure that acknowledges the building’s lower utility costs and “green premium” (the benefit the tenant will derive from occupying such a building). Other innovative approaches could also be pursued, such as financially partnering with tenants, lenders, or equipment providers to conduct retrofits. Changes to assets that create climate resilience can result in an edge not just with tenants but also in capital allocation, investment decisions, and asset management. Many larger players should consider developing an advanced analytics capability to ensure that climate insights effectively inform decisions across the business.

Now is the time to develop a clear understanding of the impacts of climate on the performance and value of assets.


Real estate plays a critical role in ensuring the decarbonization and resilience of our economies and communities. While many of the shifts described in this article are already under way, the SEC announcement will likely accelerate them and create both urgency and opportunity for leading real-estate players to respond.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Real eState

Former HGTV star slapped with $10 million fine and jail time for real estate fraud – Fortune

Published

 on


Back when mortgage rates and home prices were more reasonable and manageable, homeowners invested in fixer-upper properties and made them their own. Now these types of projects aren’t as popular. But in the early-to-mid-2010s, HGTV shows including Fixer Upper, Love It or List It, and Flip It to Win It were all the rage as viewers binge-watched dilapidated homes transform into dream properties.

But as it turns out, one former HGTV star’s house-flipping show was masking major real estate fraud. On Tuesday, Charles “Todd” Hill, was sentenced to four years in jail and ordered to pay back nearly $10 million to his victims following his conviction. Los Gatos, Calif.–based Hill, 58, was the star of HGTV show Flip It to Win It, which aired in 2013 and featured Hill and his team purchasing dilapidated homes and fixing them up. Hill then sold them for a profit.

“Some see the huge amount of money in Silicon Valley real estate as a business opportunity,” Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen said in a statement. “Others, unfortunately, see it as a criminal opportunity—and we will hold those people strictly accountable.”

300x250x1

What did Hill do?

According to the indictment shared with Fortune, the accusations against Hill happened between 2012 and 2014, around the time his show (which lasted just one season) began. The indictment shows 10 counts of grand theft of personal property exceeding $950,000; three counts of embezzlement; and one count of diversion of construction funds. Hill could not be reached by Fortune to comment on the indictment, conviction, or sentencing.

Hill was convicted last year of the multiple fraud schemes, including scams that happened before his show aired. This included a Ponzi scheme with evidence showing that Hill had spent laundered money on a rented apartment in San Francisco, hotels, vacations, and luxury cars, according to a press release from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office. HGTV did not respond to requests for comment from Fortune ahead of publication.

“To hide the theft, he created false balance sheets and got loans using fraudulent information,” according to the district attorney’s office. In another case, Hill diverted construction money for personal use. But one of the strangest accounts came from an investor who had poured $250,000 into a property he wanted Hill to remodel. 

Instead, during a tour of the home, the investor “found it to be a burnt-down shell with no work done on it.”

After the district attorney’s investigation, Hill was indicted in November 2019 and in September 2023 admitted his guilt and was convicted by plea of grand theft against all of his victims. He’ll have to pay restitution of more than $9.4 million and serve 10 years on probation.

Victims who spoke at Tuesday’s hearing said they’re still reeling from the financial and professional damages from the fraud, according to the district attorney’s office.

Subscribe to the CFO Daily newsletter to keep up with the trends, issues, and executives shaping corporate finance. Sign up for free.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Real eState

Botched home sale costs Winnipeg man his right to sell real estate in Manitoba – CBC.ca

Published

 on


A Winnipeg man’s registration as a real estate salesman has been cancelled after a family vacated their home on a tight deadline for a sale that never went through, then changed brokerages and, months later, got $60,000 less for their house than what they expected when they moved out.

A Manitoba Securities Commission panel found Reginald Wayne Kehler engaged in professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming a registrant when he signed a document on behalf of sellers without their knowledge, reduced the listing price of a home without their approval, and didn’t tell them for nearly a month that a potential buyer hadn’t paid a promised $100,000 deposit.

The sellers, identified as D.R. and P.R. in the panel decision released Wednesday, were awarded $10,394 from the real estate reimbursement fund. Kehler was ordered to pay $12,075 to cover costs of the investigation and hearing.

300x250x1

The sellers were a military family who had to move in 2020 after the husband was posted to Ottawa.

They chose Kehler as their listing agent, because he had helped them find the home when they moved to Winnipeg in 2018, and they had a good relationship with him, the panel’s decision says.

They  listed their house in May and on June 15, 2020, accepted an offer of $570,000 with possession on July 15. A deposit of $100,000 was to be paid within 72 hours of acceptance of the offer.

Kehler was the salesperson for both the buyer and the sellers — but the sellers say he never told them that.

A form that indicated the sellers knew he was also representing the buyer, dated June 15, 2020, was filed.

While it appeared to be signed with the sellers’ names, they said they didn’t see it until March 2021. One of the two wasn’t even in Winnipeg on June 15.

“Kehler, in his interview with commission staff, acknowledges that the sellers never signed this document — we note that the purported signatures on the form look nothing like the actual signatures of the sellers on other documents,” the decision says.

Kehler told commission staff he’d been authorized to sign on the sellers’ behalf, which they denied. The panel found them more believable.

Once the deal was made, the sellers, believing they had just a month before the buyer would take possession of their home, quickly packed up and prepared to move with their two young children.

Buyer never made deposit

Meanwhile, the buyer hadn’t made the $100,000 deposit before the deadline — but Kehler didn’t tell the sellers.

Kehler told commission staff that was because he thought the deposit was still coming, and he didn’t want to cause more stress for the sellers.

On July 10, just five days before the buyer was to take possession and the day before the family was leaving Winnipeg, the sellers spoke to Kehler — but he still didn’t tell them the deposit hadn’t been paid.

Kehler “said everything was fine,” according to the decision.

It wasn’t until the evening of July 13, when the family arrived in Toronto on their way to Ottawa and just 36 hours before the scheduled closing, that Kehler told them he’d never received the deposit.

Eventually, they received $4,000 of the deposit, but the sale of the house never closed. The sellers scrambled to extend the insurance on their old home and make sure they continued to pay the utility bills, the decision says.

Home relisted

Kehler then recommended they relist the home, and it went back on the market at $574,900.

On Aug. 10, 2020, Kehler recommended the price be reduced to $569,900. Instead, the seller said he should reduce the price to $567,900.

But when the seller looked at the online listing on Aug. 22, it was listed at $564,900.

The sellers also asked Kehler about maintaining the property, since they were no longer in Winnipeg. He agreed he would, but friends ended up going and mowing the lawn, the decision says.

The sellers asked Kehler and his brokerage about what could be done to “make things right,” the decision says, but they never received any responses.

On Sept. 5, they hired a new brokerage to sell the home. Under the new real estate salesman, they accepted an offer on Dec. 13, and closed the deal Jan. 2, 2021, receiving $507,500 for the home.

Kehler’s actions were “contrary to the best interests of the public” and undermined “public confidence in the real estate industry,” the decision says.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Real eState

Dr. Phil left speechless after real estate agent claims that squatting is justified by colonization – New York Post

Published

 on


Dr. Phil spoke with property owners about how squatters are using legal loopholes to occupy properties, but one real estate agent argued it can be justified because of a history of “colonization.”

Wednesday’s episode of “Dr. Phil Primetime” featured one guest named Kristine, a real estate agent who “doesn’t think adverse possession is immoral,” but believes that “people with no housing dying from the elements is immoral.” According to the Legal Information Institute, adverse possession is where a “person in possession of land owned by someone else may acquire valid title to it, so long as certain requirements are met, and the adverse possessor is in possession for a sufficient period of time.” The requirements and period of time vary by state and city.

In her introduction on the show, Kristine argued that there are “multi-million dollar projects, and they’re just abandoned.” She added that she believes the land of those abandoned projects can be reclaimed.

300x250x1

She also noted she is working with a client who is “trying to occupy a property” that’s around 300 or 500 acres.

“It’s something that’s so large that you wouldn’t even notice what 2 acres is compared to how many acres are on there,” she said. “Adverse possession is a law that’s left over from both Spanish and English colonization, it is how they took the land from the native people, and it’s a process we can use to take that land back.”


Dr. Phil
Dr. Phil’s guest explained that adverse possession is a law that’s left over from colonization. Youtube/Merit Street Media

“You said that if I’ve got 100 acres or 1,000 acres and somebody goes and gets in a corner of it and adversely possesses 5 acres of it, I’m not gonna miss it, I’ve got 1,000 acres anyway?” Dr. Phil asked Kristine.

“Well, yeah,” she responded. “Can you tell me, if you’re looking at 1,000 acres, could you tell me what 5 acres was?”

Dr. Phil’s jaw dropped, and he said, “Hell yes.”


Real estate agent Kristine
The real estate agent asked Dr. Phil he could pick 5 acres out of 1000. Youtube/Merit Street Media

A landlord named Tony argued with Kristine about how she believes the manner in which people inherit property should be taken into account when it comes to adverse possession.

“We’re not in 1776, we’re in 2024,” Tony said, sparking a wave of applause from the audience.

“Do you think that a corporation that makes over a billion dollars a year is injured by someone taking 5 acres of land?,” Kristine argued.

Another guest quickly interjected with “somebody is.”

Another guest named Patti confronted Kristine by arguing she does not use her car 24-hours-a-day.

“Playing out your scenario, then theoretically anyone on the street should be able to boost your car and drive it, because that car is just sitting around unused,” Patti said, sparking applause from the audience.

“I don’t have a billion-dollar net worth,” Kristine argued, which made Barry ask if having a billion dollars is where Kristine draws the line.

Dr. Phil concluded the episode by commending Kristine for her willingness to defend her beliefs, but said he “100%” disagreed with her.

“It is a lawful thing to do if you do it in the right way, I 100% disagree with your philosophy, but your facts are correct,” he said. “She’s not suggesting people go squat in someone’s home when they go on vacation, she’s talking about something completely different, at another level, and if you’re not a billionaire, she isn’t targeting you.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending