Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 580

This property valuation metric needs a rethink

Capitalisation rates, commonly known as ‘cap rates’, are a fundamental metric in Australian property investing. When a commercial property is sold, two pieces of information will be widely reported. Firstly, the amount the property sold for and secondly, the cap rate. Often properties will be compared by their respective cap rates. Reports will often comment on the ‘implied cap rates’ of different property securities. However, this seemingly simple and ubiquitous measure can be far more complex to use when comparing different types of properties.

What is and isn’t in a cap rate

Whilst different market participants may mean different things when referring to a cap rate, the Property Council of Australia (PCA) defines a cap rate as a property’s net operating income (NOI) divided by its property value estimate. For example, if a property generates an annual NOI of $500,000 and is valued at $10 million, the cap rate would be 5%. A purchaser might assume that they would receive a cash flow yield of 5% plus any rental growth that may occur. This isn’t necessarily the case and ignores key considerations.

Capital Expenditure (Capex):

Commonly, properties require meaningful ongoing investment, which isn’t reflected in the NOI used to calculate cap rates. This investment is known as capex and comes in many different forms. It may be maintenance capex, which refers to significant replacements or additions to maintain the standard of an existing building. For office properties, this may include replacing lifts or air conditioning units, each of which may need a full replacement as often as every 15 years. For shopping centre properties, capex may include items such as escalators or shared facilities such as bathrooms. Maintenance capex is not directly reflected in increased rent and is commonly used to ‘maintain’ the relevance of an existing building. This amount is often referred to as a percentage of a building’s value. For example, if a building worth $100 million requires maintenance capex of $500,000 per year, it is common to say it requires 0.5% (or 50 basis points) of maintenance capex.

Leasing Incentives:

To attract and retain tenants, commercial property owners often provide ‘incentives’ to prospective and renewing tenants. These incentives can take many forms, but are commonly provided as rent-free periods, or contributions to a tenant’s fit-out. The size and form of incentives varies greatly between different property types. Incentives are commonly quoted as a percentage of the total rent to be paid over the tenant’s lease period. For example, if a tenant agrees to a 10-year lease for $100,000 per year, a 20% incentive would mean that $200,000 of benefits are provided to the tenant. Rent, less any incentives, is called ‘effective rent’ and in the above example effective rent would be $80,000 per year. Rent excluding incentives is called ‘face rent’. It is typically face rent that is used to calculate the NOI used in a cap rate.

Whilst not the subject of this article, it is worth noting that lease structures including term and rent reviews, as well as tenant quality are not considered in a cap rate. Buildings with longer leases, higher fixed rent increases and better tenant quality tend to attract lower cap rates than the alternative.

Now and then

In a past generation, institutional grade commercial property primarily consisted of office, retail and industrial property. Approximate leasing incentive and maintenance capex amounts across these subsectors 15 years ago can be seen in the table below:

Whilst there are some differences between the amount of cash flow leakage, the difference between property types is not enormous. Whilst industrial properties faced limited cash flow leakages, market rental growth had been extremely low for a long period. It may not have been perfect but comparing cap rates across these property types 15 years ago was not a terrible way to assess relative value.

Beyond any changes to leasing incentives and maintenance capex requirements, today’s listed property sector is much broader than it used to be. Alternative property types such as healthcare, social infrastructure, petrol stations and long WALE sale-and-leaseback properties are all part of the institutional investment landscape. Many of these property types are commonly leased in an owner favourable “triple-net” manner. A triple-net lease means a tenant is responsible for property taxes, building insurance and maintenance capital expenditure across the life of the lease.

A revised table approximating today’s leasing incentives and maintenance capex, including triple-net properties, can be seen below:

Mind the gap

It is clear when comparing the above tables, that the dispersion in incentives and capex has widened materially. In the case of an A grade office building, the gap between the building’s cap rate and its true cash flow yield is vast. The chart below demonstrates this visually for an office building with a 6% cap rate:

As can be seen, the cap rate in no way resembles the true cash flow of owning an office building, with more than half of the NOI received (used in calculating the cap rate) lost to capex and incentives.

Consider the four assets in the above table. In this example, each has a cap rate of 6%. The chart below shows the cash flow yield of each:

What to do?

Phoenix actively considers the factors affecting cash flows (among others) and explicitly forecasts longer term capex and incentives that property owners will be required to pay. It is these cashflows that determine value, not next year’s dividend or simply observing a cap rate.

A comparison of Dexus (DXS) and Charter Hall Social Infrastructure REIT (CQE) shows the importance of looking beyond headline cap rates and how this affects how Phoenix manages the portfolio.

DXS is predominantly an owner of high quality office properties across Australia. CQE is predominantly an owner of smaller properties leased to childcare providers on triple-net leases. CQE’s cash flow is boosted by a lack of incentives and capex. Childcare property rent is also an income stream heavily supported by the government, with support for funding of the sector a politically bipartisan issue. As at period end, DXS’ office cap rate implied by its share price was greater than 8.3%. CQE’s implied cap rate was more than 6.8%. If one were to merely compare cap rates, DXS would be the more attractive investment opportunity. It, however, faces significant cash outflows (in the form of capex and incentives) beyond what is measured in a cap rate. As such, Phoenix has held no position in DXS for some time and holds an overweight position in CQE.

The detail is important

Cap rates have the benefit of being simple. In the past they were also a reasonable way to compare property.

As incentives and capex levels have diverged between different properties, merely looking at cap rates has become a less appropriate way to consider the relative attractiveness of different properties.

By developing a more nuanced understanding of what's truly "in a cap rate", investors can make more informed decisions. Remember, the devil is always in the details, and in real estate investing, those details often lie beyond the simple cap rate calculation.

 

Stuart Cartledge is Managing Director of Phoenix Portfolios, a boutique investment manager partly owned by staff and partly owned by ASX-listed Cromwell Property Group. Cromwell Funds Management is a sponsor of Firstlinks. This article is not intended to provide investment or financial advice or to act as any sort of offer or disclosure document. It has been prepared without taking into account any investor’s objectives, financial situation or needs. Any potential investor should make their own independent enquiries, and talk to their professional advisers, before making investment decisions.

For more articles and papers from Cromwell, please click here.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Markets are about to get a whole lot harder

Investing in car spaces? Park that idea

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.