MAS gives Reits a New Year gift

Refinancing of maturing debt facilitated; clarity on leverage ratios

Reit managers here have been given more breathing space on borrowing limits by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), which has clarified how downward revaluations of properties should be treated.

Basically, MAS has said that Reits need not worry if their leverage has increased because properties have been revalued and are now worth less.

Under MAS’s Property Fund Guidelines, an S-Reit’s total borrowings and deferred payments (the ‘aggregate leverage’) should not exceed 35 per cent of its deposited property. This maximum limit is set at a higher 60 per cent if the Reit obtains a credit rating and publicises it.

In a circular to Reit managers and trustees earlier this month, MAS confirmed that if the aggregate leverage has gone up because of a decline in property values, it will not amount to a breach of leverage limits. MAS also made the important point that refinancing of existing debt by a Reit is not to be construed as incurring additional borrowings.

‘So if at the point of refinancing, a Reit has to revalue its assets (which lenders will require), and so long as the refinancing is of existing debt, MAS will not consider this as additional borrowing and hence the Reit will not be in breach of the statutory leverage limit,’ says Giam Lay Hoon, group general counsel of Oxley Capital Group, which owns a stake in the manager of Cambridge Industrial Trust.

MAS also said that it will permit Reits to raise debt for refinancing purposes earlier than the actual maturity of the debt to be refinanced, without having to include such funds raised in the aggregate leverage limit. However, this is ‘provided that the funds are set aside solely for the purpose of repaying the maturing debt’.

‘The trustee must place these funds in a separate trust account which shall be drawn on only to repay the maturing debt,’ MAS said in its circular.

Oxley Capital’s Ms Giam welcomed MAS’s responsiveness to tight credit market conditions. The CFO of a Reit manager told BT that the MAS clarifications would ‘give some breathing space for some Reit managers with high gearing and with properties in danger of being substantially depreciated’.

This, he said, would ease the pressure on these Reits to recapitalise through raising fresh equity and reduce pressure on the unit price of these Reits.

‘However, ratings agencies will continue to be nervous about property depreciation as that may reflect sliding rents and occupancies and a rise in tenant-default rates,’ he added.

Stan Ho, Fitch Ratings’ senior director and head of Non-Japan Asia structured finance, stressed that ‘any downward revaluation of the underlying property would raise the loan-to-valuation ratios as far as banks lending to Reits are concerned, and this would need to be considered in our ratings for Singapore Reits’.

Kathleen Lee, vice-president and senior analyst at Moody’s Singapore, also pointed out that while a downward revaluation may not breach MAS’s statutory aggregate leverage limit for S-Reits, ‘lenders to Reits can set their own covenants and a downward revaluation could trigger a breach of some of these covenants and that could also lead to a re-rating of the Reit’.

In a separate development, MAS is understood to have sought feedback recently on whether the current minimum distribution payout ratio for S-Reits should be lowered, from 90 per cent of distributable income currently to, say, 75-80 per cent. Some Reit managers are lobbying for the cut. ‘Cash is a premium today and Reits may want to conserve their cash for a host of reasons, including servicing loans, reducing debt or just as general ammunition,’ an industry player said.

However, a rival disagreed, arguing ‘this would go against the fundamentals of why the S-Reit market was created’.

Reits have a high degree of transparency and investors have a high level of certainty of distributions from Reits. ‘So when you give more flexibility to the Reit manager in terms of how much of distributable income it has to pay to unit holders, it creates more uncertainty for the investor. Investors like clarity,’ he added.