Breaking down the components for MCKS (somewhat crudely I'll admit):
35% of MCKS portfolio is logistics - let's say its comparable to Segro, which traded at ~1.15x NAV (pre-recent sell-off)
65% of MCKS portfolio = secondary/flex office portfolio, let's assume that gets 0.8x
I doubt MCKS logistics assets would be valued at higher mulitple than Segro, so I think the above is fair/generous to MCKS assets.
Weighted average multiple (35% x 1.15 + 65% x 0.8x) = ~0.9x blended multple.
Would HBRN warrant a 0.8x multiple similar to the implied/theoretical multiple ascribed to MCKS' office portfolio above? Given HBRN's superior asset quality, prime profile etc I would argue yes.
Obviously MCKS is not a direct comp to HBRN, but the data point and valuation here is relevant, and I think indicates MCKS deal suggests HBRN is valued well below its private market value.
Thanks Conor. 0.9x NAV paid for MCKS cannot be directly compared to HBNR as their logistics portfolio was probably valued above NAV
Thanks Joel.
Breaking down the components for MCKS (somewhat crudely I'll admit):
35% of MCKS portfolio is logistics - let's say its comparable to Segro, which traded at ~1.15x NAV (pre-recent sell-off)
65% of MCKS portfolio = secondary/flex office portfolio, let's assume that gets 0.8x
I doubt MCKS logistics assets would be valued at higher mulitple than Segro, so I think the above is fair/generous to MCKS assets.
Weighted average multiple (35% x 1.15 + 65% x 0.8x) = ~0.9x blended multple.
Would HBRN warrant a 0.8x multiple similar to the implied/theoretical multiple ascribed to MCKS' office portfolio above? Given HBRN's superior asset quality, prime profile etc I would argue yes.
Obviously MCKS is not a direct comp to HBRN, but the data point and valuation here is relevant, and I think indicates MCKS deal suggests HBRN is valued well below its private market value.
Much appreciated as usual. Thanks, Conor!