Module 5 · REIT Valuation · Worked on Alstria Office (AOX)

The balance sheet says €1.49bn.
Your job is to disagree with it.

European REITs report property at “fair value.” But appraisals lag the market 6–12 months and management clings to stale marks. This module shows you how a real analyst builds an independent NAV — and reconciles it to what the company reports.

Appraiser says
€14.81
NAV/share at a 5.0% yield
Your analysis says
€10.09
NAV/share at a defensible 5.9%
The market says
€8.20
Share price ≈ 6.4% implied cap
Begin
The premise

“Fair value” is the most dangerous number in the statements.

Under IFRS (IAS 40), a European REIT carries its buildings at a valuer’s fair value, remeasured through the P&L — no depreciation. It looks authoritative. It usually isn’t: transaction evidence takes 6–12 months to filter into published appraisals, valuers anchor to prior marks, and CEOs resist write-downs to protect covenants and the equity story.

US-GAAP is, ironically, more honest — it reports cost and makes no claim to fair value, so US analysts never stopped building their own NAV. The method below is the same for both worlds. The only difference: in Europe you also get to bridge your number back to the reported one — and call out the gap.

What both US & EU analysts do

Re-value the things accounting can’t capture

Take cash, receivables and payables at face — but scrutinise every note (a deferred-tax liability that will never be paid isn’t a liability). Then independently value anything that drifts: investment property, developments, JVs, debt, minorities.

The one European difference

You have a reported number to attack

The US analyst presents a standalone NAV. The European analyst presents the same NAV — and a reconciliation: here’s my cap rate vs the appraiser’s, here’s my stabilised NOI vs theirs, here’s why the book is €X too high.

Lesson 1 · The reversion engine

Stabilised NOI is not “next year’s NOI.”

You don’t capitalise a transitional number. You capitalise where the asset settles once vacant space is leased and below-market rents roll up to market. Alstria’s passing rent (€9.9/m²) sits ~20% below market rent, with a ~9.9-year lease term. As leases expire and re-let, NOI grows from €89m toward €110m — a quarter of the value is embedded and invisible in a single forecast year.

Passing rent reverting to market — and the NOI it unlocks

Alstria portfolio, €/m²/month (lines, left) and stabilised NOI €m (bars, right). Source: SSNOI tab.
Market rent Passing (in-place) rent Stabilised NOI (€m)
The judgement: the gap between the teal and gold lines is contractual upside the appraiser may or may not have fully priced. Quantifying it — occupancy ramp, expiry roll-over, indexation, normalised margin — is the analyst’s first edge.
Lesson 2 · Choosing the cap rate

Build the rate from first principles — then check the appraiser.

A cap rate isn’t a guess; it’s a required return minus growth. Start from the risk-free swap, add the risk premium a buyer demands, and you get the unlevered return. Subtract stabilised NOI growth and you have the rate at which the market would actually transact.

From risk-free rate to implied cap rate

Bridge, %. The appraiser’s 5.0% sits 90bps below where the build lands.
The reconciliation: your defensible cap rate is 5.9%; Alstria’s appraisers used 5.0%. That 90bps isn’t academic — capitalising the same NOI at 5.0% rather than 5.9% inflates the property value by roughly 18%. That is the overstatement hiding inside “fair value.”
Lesson 3 · The build · interactive

Drag the cap rate. Watch the company re-value in real time.

This is the live NAV bridge from Alstria’s model. Capitalise the stabilised NOI into a property GAV, add developments and other assets, strip out debt and liabilities, divide by shares. The slider is the single most powerful assumption in the whole analysis — move it and see how fast “fair value” melts.

Property GAV
€1.49bn
capitalised stabilised NOI
NAV / share
€10.09
equity value €565m
Share price vs NAV
−18.7%
market €8.20
Capitalisation rate5.90%
5.0%Appraiser
5.9%Your view
6.4%Market-implied
7.0%Downturn

NAV bridge — €m

In-place property GAV → +developments → −costs → +other assets → −debt → −liabilities = NAV. Source: NAV tab.
Try this: drag to the appraiser’s 5.0% — NAV jumps to €14.81 and the market sits at a 45% discount (nobody believes the book). Drag toward 6.4% and your NAV converges on the share price. The market isn’t mispricing Alstria; it’s pricing a cap rate ~140bps above the appraiser’s.
Lesson 4 · Developments & JVs

Value what doesn’t exist yet — then discount it back.

A building under construction has no stabilised income today. You value it on its completed stabilised NOI at an exit cap rate, deduct the cost left to spend, discount for time and risk, and take only your share of any joint venture.

Development NAV walk (€m)Ohnsorg TheaterAlte Post (JV)
Stabilised NOI on completion5.582.05
Gross asset value @ exit yield102.837.8
Less: cost outstanding−20.0−10.0
Discount for time & risk (8%)−17.1−4.0
Ownership share100%50%
Contribution to NAV62.22.6
Why it matters: developments are pure judgement — exit cap rate, lease-up risk, cost overrun. Take a valuer’s single number at face value and you inherit their optimism. The model discounts the identified pipeline down to a €21.7m net contribution that flows straight into the bridge above.
The verdict

Three numbers. The market sided with the analyst.

Same company, same NOI, three cap rates. The appraiser’s mark implies a value the market discounts by nearly half. Your independent NAV lands within touching distance of where the shares actually trade — because the market, like you, refuses to take “fair value” at face value.

Reported / appraiser
€14.81
5.0% yield · the book
Your independent NAV
€10.09
5.9% yield · defensible
Market price
€8.20
~6.4% implied · the tape
The skill you just watched: not building a model — forming a defensible view and proving the reported number wrong. It’s identical for a US REIT (you’d just present the NAV standalone, with no appraisal to reconcile against). That is what separates an analyst from someone who copies the annual report.