THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
A report compiled from research carried out
by the School of Real Estate and Planning,
Henley Business School and CORE Consult
into surplus property leases.
The report is
supported by Legacy Portfolio and Surplus
Property Solutions. July 2013
In association with
In association with
1
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
CONTENTS
Key findings
Introduction
The Companies Surveyed
Figure 1: FTSE 350 Turnover by Sector (£billions)
Figure 2: FTSE 350 Sector Profit Before Interest & Tax (£billions)
Surplus Leasehold Property
Figure 3: Surplus Property Provision per Sector (£millions)
Figure 4: Surplus Property as a percentage of Profit Before Interest & Tax (PBIT)
Figure 5: Surplus Liability Provision as a percentage of Lease Commitment & Sector PBIT as
percentage of Turnover
Figure 6: Drivers for dealing with Surplus Property
Figure 7: Satisfaction with Current Management of Surplus Property Portfolio
Operational Lease Commitments
Figure 8: Average Company Lease Commitments Per Sector
Figure 9: Lease Length Profile Per Sector – Average Expiry Period of Leases Over 5 Years
Figure 10: Time Profile of Commitments of Sectors to Operating Leases
Figure 11: Intentions for change to Revenue, Headcount & UK Property
Methodology & Notes
Appendix – The Team
In association with
In association with
2
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
KEY FINDINGS
•
The total surplus property provision for the FTSE 350 is £4.2bn.
•
This suggests a gross liability for the FTSE350 of £25.7bn and a liability for UK business of
£74bn.
•
The largest absolute liabilities are in TMT, Banking & Finance and Retailing, whereas
Health, Utilities, Consumer Goods and Banking & Finance sectors have the lowest
provisions for surplus property liabilities against PBIT.
•
The key drivers for the removal of surplus lease liabilities are to: improve operational
efficiency; improve cashflow; remove the liability from the balance sheet; and manage
risk.
•
Of the finance directors interviewed by HBS with onerous leasehold property 29.1% had
made no provision.
•
The total operational lease rent commitment for UK business is £382bn. If rates are
included this number exceeds £534bn. Rent commitment accounts for 79% of annual
PBIT.
•
The retail sector’s commitments to leases are equivalent to nearly 6 years’ profit before
interest and tax.
•
The time profile of lease expiries shows a skew to leases beyond 5 years.
•
Business is intending to expand their revenue in the next few years but only a small
increase in the property portfolio is anticipated.
In association with
In association with
3
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
INTRODUCTION
This study of the lease liabilities of the FTSE 350 companies is a collaboration of the UK’s leading
specialists in advising companies on how to resolve surplus property issues, Surplus Property
Solutions Limited and Legacy Portfolio Limited, in association with the School of Real Estate &
Planning, Henley Business School (“Henley”) and Corporate Occupier Real Estate Consulting
Limited (“CORE Consult”).
The research is in two parts: an examination of the published accounts of the companies by
CORE Consult and a survey by Henley of the finance director’s perceptions of and attitudes
towards their companies’ leasehold obligations. Both research segments excluded property
companies, investment vehicles and natural resource companies, all of which have ‘nonstandard’ approaches to property. This left a total of 233 companies.
Surplus leasehold property liabilities are classed as “onerous contracts” under IAS37 Provisions,
Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets. They not only constitute an obvious cost in terms
of absorbing liquidity and management time, but are also a hidden millstone around the neck
of business, which can heavily distort corporate decision-making.
This research had three main objectives - to examine the scale of, establish current issues with,
and identify trends relating to the surplus leasehold property liabilities held by the top 350 listed
companies in the UK’s FTSE index.
The timing of this report coincides with the latest joint release of the International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB) and US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) of their Exposure
Draft on Leases. Further information can be found at: www.ifrs.org.
It also coincides with a period of considerable activity around the disposal of surplus property
portfolios by occupiers, to remove the issue in one transaction; some £500 million of liabilities
have been removed in six transactions in the last few years.
In association with
In association with
4
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
THE COMPANIES SURVEYED
The aggregate group of companies surveyed has a total turnover of £1,160bn and a Profit
Before Interest and Tax (PBIT) of £168bn, employing 6.37m people.
FIGURE 1: FTSE 350 TURNOVER BY SECTOR
(£BILLIONS)
116.8
34.4
Banking &
Finance
Banking &
Finance
Construction
Construction
Consumer Goods
Consumer
Goods
Engineering
77.6
Engineering
270
Health
302.4
Industrials
163.7
122.7
76.3
53.5 24.6 67.8
FIGURE 2: FTSE 350 SECTOR PROFIT BEFORE
INTEREST & TAX (PBIT) (£BILLIONS)
62.4
58.2
Leisure
Prof & Support
Services
640
577
462
290
102
547
447
94
Industrials
50
2,519
211
Health
Leisure
Prof & Support
Services
Retailing
Retailing
TMT
TMT
Transport
Transport
Utilities
Utilities
SURPLUS LEASEHOLD PROPERTY
There is currently no statutory obligation to report onerous leases separately from other liabilities.
Of the 233 companies analysed in this research, 126 did so, and reported a total of £4.16 billion
for their surplus property liability provision. This is 12.5% of the total provision made for all liabilities
across the entire group of companies. From an assessment of surplus leasehold liability portfolios
in this research, the ratio of the stated net liability to the gross liability is generally in the order of
30%.
This would suggest that the surplus property gross liability of the FTSE 350 is in the region of
£13.9bn. As the FTSE 350 represents 34.7% of UK business that would suggest a gross liability for
UK Business for surplus leasehold property of £40bn. However, that is likely to be an under
estimate because of the lack of separate identification of provision categories. If the
assumption of an average of £33m is applied to each of the 233 companies, the FTSE 350
property provision is £7.7bn. This grosses to £25.7bn and hence UK business has a liability of
£74bn.
In association with
In association with
5
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
The largest absolute surplus property provisions by sector are TMT, Banking & Finance and
Retailing, with the smallest provision in the Health, Utilities and Industrial sectors. This is
demonstrated in Figure 3 below.
FIGURE 3: SURPLUS PROPERTY PROVISION PER SECTOR (£MILLIONS)
96 56
883
1,155
235
687
146
300
357
172
67
9
Banking & Finance
Construction
Consumer Goods
Engineering
Health
Industrials
Leisure
Prof & Support Services
Retailing
TMT
Transport
Utilities
By assessing property provisions as a percentage of PBIT instead of in absolute terms (Figure 4), it
is possible to begin to understand how different sectors approach balance sheet provisioning.
The leisure and construction sectors have higher relative provisions, followed by retailing and
professional & support services. In contrast, the level of provision for surplus property is very low
for health, utilities, consumer goods and banking & finance. For health and utilities, this reflects a
very low absolute provision, whereas for consumer goods and banking & finance, in particular,
it is a small sum relative to the sector’s PBIT.
FIGURE 4: SURPLUS PROPERTY PROVISIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT BEFORE INTEREST & TAX
12%
10%
9%
10%
8%
6%
6%
4%
2%
1%
5%
5%
3%
2%
1%
7%
1%
0%
0%
Figure 5 (below) shows the profitability of a sector relative to turnover, plotted against its
property provision as a percentage of its overall lease commitment.
In association with
In association with
6
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
Sectors on the vertical scale below the ‘Average’ measure have a low provision relative to the
scale of their operating lease commitments. Those to the left of the ‘Average’ have low
profitability. Therefore, those in the bottom left quadrant, namely utilities, transport and
retailing, have both low provision and low profitability.
FIGURE 5: SURPLUS LIABILITY PROVISION AS A PERCENTAGE OF LEASE COMMITMENT & SECTOR
PBIT AS PERCENTAGE OF TURNOVER
Property Provision as % of Total Operating
Lease Commitment
12%
Industrials
10%
8%
Engineering
Prof & Support Services
6%
Construction
Leisure
4%
TMT
Banking & Finance
Average
Utilities
Transport
Retailing
2%
Consumer Goods
Health
0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
PBIT as Percentage of Turnover (Profitability)
Figure 6 illustrates the business drivers for dealing with surplus properties. The leading
motivations are operational efficiency and improved cash flow, followed by removal of the
liability from the balance sheet and mitigation of the risk of increased provisions.
FIGURE 6: DRIVERS FOR DEALING WITH SURPLUS PROPERTY
100%
80%
77%
73%
64%
59%
60%
45%
40%
20%
14% 14%
14% 14%
18%
14%
23%
14%
9%
5%
9%
0%
5%
0%
More Important
In association with
Important
Less Important
In association with
7
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
Specifying operational efficiency as a driver suggests that finance directors are mindful of how
the property team spends its time. Without the millstone of a surplus property portfolio, the
property team can focus effectively on the operational portfolio.
The desire for improved cash flow is important because, if the business has fully provided for the
surplus property portfolio, there will be little impact on cash flow. However, if the provision is not
adequate, there will be a continual drain on cash flow in order to deal with surplus property
issues.
Removing leasehold liabilities from the balance sheet improves the overall position of the
company and is often cited as a reason for companies looking to undertake a surplus
leasehold property transfer. In particular, it reduces the overall liability for the company and
improves financial ratios and mitigates risk - once the surplus portfolio is resolved, the risk of
having to make further provisions, e.g. for tenant default or dilapidations claims, is removed.
A very high 29.1% of those companies surveyed that indicated that they had surplus leasehold
property also stated that they had no provision whatsoever for their surplus property portfolio.
FIGURE 7: SATISFACTION WITH CURRENT MANAGEMENT OF SURPLUS PROPERTY PORTFOLIO
60%
40%
40%
25%
50%
43%
25%
20%
4%
48% 50%
4%
10%
0%
In house generally
In house - dedicated surplus property team
External consultancy
Finally, Figure 7
demonstrates
companies’ satisfaction
levels for the current
management method
of their surplus portfolios.
Satisfaction levels are
high for all three
approaches, in
particular for those
utilising the in-house
team.
Utilising an in house team and outsourcing specific elements to an external consultancy is the
traditional approach in dealing with surplus properties. It is surprising given the high level of
surplus property that our data analysis uncovers, that such a high percentage of companies
are satisfied with this traditional approach. Of the responses to the questionnaire 61% were
from finance directors; the balance were completed by property directors.
In association with
In association with
8
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
OPERATIONAL LEASE COMMITMENTS
FIGURE 8: AVERAGE COMPANY LEASE COMMITMENT PER SECTOR (£MILLIONS)
Banking & Finance
Construction
34.4
Consumer Goods
77.6
116.8
Engineering
302.4
Health
163.7
Industrials
122.7
76.3
67.8
58.2
62.4
Leisure
Prof & Support Services
Retailing
53.5
TMT
24.6
Transport
Utilities
The
total
commitment
to
operational
property
leases,
specific
to
the
companies
examined in this research, is
£132.5bn,
an
average
commitment per company of
£569m.
Overall, this represents
11% of total annual turnover and
79% of the total annual PBIT. The
total
operational
lease
rent
commitment for UK businesses is
£382bn; if rates are included, this
figure exceeds £534bn.
Importantly, these figures only represent rent - no other costs are included. For the UK
particularly, this is important because of the high cost of rates, insurance and service charges.
Rates alone will add c.40% to the above costs, bringing the total commitment to £185.5bn for
the FTSE 350 companies examined.
An alternative approach is to look at it in terms of commitment of PBIT; for the retail sector the
commitment is equivalent to nearly 6 years’ profit.
FIGURE 9: LEASE LENGTH PROFILE BY SECTOR – AVERAGE EXPIRY PERIOD FOR LEASES OVER 5
YEARS
8.00
5.94
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.34
2.60
2.14
1.76
0.32
0.40
1.04
0.05
0.26
0.90
0.27
0.79
0.00
In association with
In association with
9
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
Flexibility is determined by the profile of the length of lease commitments. The profile is
characterised by the proportion of the portfolio that can be removed in the short term through
lease expiries and breaks, versus that which cannot be removed at all. Figure 10 shows the
time profile per sector. The greater the proportion of green, the longer the property tail, and
the less flexible that sector is in reacting to negative changes in their market place. Those at
greatest risk are retailing, leisure, utilities and TMT.
% of Total Lease Commitment
FIGURE 10: TIME PROFILE OF COMMITMENT OF SECTORS TO OPERATING LEASES
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Less than 1 Year
2 to 5 Years
Over 5 Years
Property remains one of the most inflexible aspects of a business’ cost base. Other principle
costs such as HR and IT can be reduced more quickly and for a known ‘cost’. Property in the
UK, however, does not have that flexibility unless a company has included regular break
clauses in all its leases. This lack of flexibility clearly limits a business’ ability to adapt to change.
FIGURE 11: INTENTIONS FOR CHANGE TO REVENUE, HEADCOUNT & UK PROPERTY
75%
80%
59%
60%
37%
40%
20%
37%
13%
11%
0%
63%
4%
0%
Contraction
Total Revenue Growth
In association with
Remain the Same
Headcount
Expansion
UK Property Portfolio
What are the intentions of
UK business in terms of their
expected revenue, number
of staff and property
requirements? Figure 11
clearly shows that two thirds
of businesses expect
revenue expansion, but this
only translates into a third
of them looking to increase
head count and only 13%
increasing their UK property
portfolio
In association with
10
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
Whilst revenue is looking to expand 59% are going to keep headcount the same; 75% will keep
their UK property portfolio unchanged. This would suggest that there is capacity within
corporate occupiers’ property portfolios to accommodate business expansion and head
count increases. As a result, demand for new space may continue to be limited.
METHODOLOGY & NOTES
CORE Consult analysed the accounts of each of the FTSE 350 companies and used the data
from 233, excluding those in property, natural resources and pure investment companies.
In conjunction with Henley, a questionnaire was developed and sent to finance directors of the
‘qualifying companies’ in Spring 2013, and the returned data was input into Henley’s analysis
programme. There were 28 responses, of which 17 were from finance directors, and the
balance from property directors. All individual responses are confidential to the university
research team.
The accounts used for this report were those published in the 12 months to 31 December 2012.
The data excluded those companies that are in the natural resources, investment or property
sectors of the FTSE, as these companies’ property requirements and holdings are ‘unusual’. For
natural resources and property, there is a very heavy bias towards freehold ownership, whilst
investment companies often have no operational property, as they form part of a larger
organisation, such as an investment bank.
In association with
In association with
11
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
PROVISIONING OF LEASEHOLD LIABILITIES BY FTSE 350 COMPANIES 2013
APPENDIX - THE TEAM
HENLEY BUSINESS SCHOOL:
Henley is a world-renowned international business school based within The University of
Reading in the UK. It operates in 17 countries and is ranked among the top schools in Europe.
It is one of only 57 business schools in the world to hold triple-accredited status (AMBA. EQUIS,
AACSB)
Contact Neil Crosby:
T: 0118 378 8177 | E: [email protected] | W: www.henley.ac.uk
CORE CONSULT:
CORE Consult was established in 2006 to provide occupiers with holistic solutions to their
commercial property needs, in particular those needs arising from surplus leasehold property
portfolios.
Contact Howard Cooke:
T: 07768 996705 | E: [email protected] | W: www.core-consult.co.uk
LEGACY PORTFOLIO:
Legacy Portfolio specialises in helping businesses to limit the financial and operational risks of
surplus leasehold properties that no longer meet their changing needs. Recent UK clients have
included Wolseley UK, Virgin Media, Emap, and The Co-operative. Legacy operates in both the
UK and USA.
Contact Helen Casey:
T 0207 440 7404 | E: [email protected] | W: www.legacyportfolio.co.uk
SURPLUS PROPERTY SOLUTIONS
Founded in 2005, Surplus Property Solutions (“SPS”) is a leader in acquiring troublesome leasehold
liability portfolios. With offices in London and Glasgow, SPS has worked out portfolios for Rentokil
Initial, Carillion, Wm Morrison Supermarkets and RBS Equity Finance.
Contact Adam Foster:
T: 0203 322 8898 | E: [email protected]
W: www.surpluspropertysolutions.com
In association with
In association with
12