“The current Corona development and the associated lockdowns were a real blessing for industrial real estate in 2020”, writes Peter Salostowitz, Managing Director of Industrialport GmbH & Co. KG and lecturer for PropTech and Entrepreneurship at the Fresenius University, the test winner “Private Business Universities “.
“Hardly a week went by in 2020,” says Peter Salostowitz, “without a new large investor, developer or portfolio that has been sold. An end to this development is not yet in sight, as the financial resources from the other usage classes are now largely flowing in industrial properties.”
The decline of the previous supply structure in retail will require new supply channels, predict the experts from Idstein: “Whether these will compensate for the already experienced decline in demand on the part of the key industry in the future and whether the population’s increased financial fear will be an incentive to buy on the Internet is an exciting question.”
Regardless of these future questions, Industrialport emphasizes: “In any case, in the year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the market for industrial real estate has shown itself to be significantly more resilient than other asset markets.” This is shown by the current report “Market in Minutes” industrial real estate market in Germany from Savills and IndustrialPort.
The IndustrialBundle market report from Industrialport is getting a big brother – the IndustrialKIT: “This modular market report enables you to evaluate our IWIP index data set on a daily basis. The evaluation can be created in different designs and in DE / EN. The previous IndustrialBundle elements can be combined with the new evaluation options. Of course, rental developments at the location can also be displayed. For a better classification, we also provide you with the value-driving parameters of the comparison cases that were included in the rent calculation.”
Moody’s analysts have revised their environmental classification to reflect evolving environmental, social and governance standards, disclosure frameworks and market conventions among issuers and investors.
Environmental risks can arise from regulatory and policy issues, hazards or a combination of both. The five environmental categories Moody’s considers most material to credit are
physical climate risks,
waste and pollution and
Moody’s identified these categories, which apply to both public and privatesector issuers, based on their alignment with evolving market standards and conventions.
These changes represent a reclassification and/or renaming of Moody’s previous environmental categories. The previous environmental categories were featured in an earlier, 2018 environmental heat map report. The analysts underline that it is not a change in the specific environmental issues being considered. It is important to understand that rating changes can result from changed criteria, models and weightings as well as from changed framework conditions and new data from the organizations to be assessed.
Each of the five categories has been cited as a material consideration in their rating actions. Environmental considerations are becoming more relevant to the credit quality of Moody’s rated issuers. Moody’s points out that environmental credit risk will continue to grow.
In their “sector in-depth” report “Heat map: Sectors with $3.4 trillion in debt face heightened environmental credit risk” Moody’s identifies sixteen sectors with $4.5 trillion in rated debt having very high or high inherent exposure to carbon transition risk. Eighteen sectors with $7.2 trillion of debt have high inherent exposure to physical climate risks and again eighteen sectors with $5.2 trillion in rated debt have very high or high inherent exposure to waste and pollution risk.
Eight sectors with $747 billion in debt face heightened inherent exposure to natural capital risk. Six sectors with $925 billion in debt have very high or high inherent exposure to water management risk, according to Moody’s.