I certainly get (and share) your Agio-agitation
Just today I finally sold my DRPF (Agio 67%).
Where/how would you buy (for example) the Immofonds Suburban?
It is unlisted and a “Anlagefonds schweizerischen Rechts der Art «Immobilienfonds» für qualifizierte Anleger”.
Re qualified investors, AFAIU you’d have to go the way of proving to Immofonds that you’re a HNW individual (>2M CHF). Is this the way that you’d go?
Genuinely asking, because I’m also interested in some low(er) Agio Immofonds, and unlisted may have the advantages you mention.
PS there are still some listed Direct RE funds with <30% Agio, have you considered or maybe you own SFPF SF Sustainable Property Fund or SRES Sustainable RE Switzerland?
The plan is to email them, ask if you can join the capital raise. I already talked briefly to one of the funds. They said minimum entry ticket is 200k CHF, I have a follow up call scheduled.
For the qualified investor part, yes. But not sure how I will have to prove this. It seems that you can also have 500k in assets and some “investment experience“. Whatever that means.
Sure, but buying an actual rental unit yourself directly is also illiquid.
Not sure if we can compare buying rental unit to buying units of fund. But sure if your ticket sizes are high then maybe a different approach work for you
I just checked these. It seems that SRES is a fund of funds thus indirect ownership and not tax advantaged. I guess that’s why their is Agio is near 0% ?
SFPF still has a 23% agio. It indeed seem to be the lowest Agio residential RE fund. Maybe this can be explained by an above average ESG focus ? Also, they seems to have a NAV per share that when down for the period 22-24.
Thanks for your checking.
So, we’re speaking about SRES, Sustainable Real Estate Investments SICAV - Sustainable Real Estate Switzerland, (H) (Anlagefonds) CH0267501291
I’m not sure about the fund of funds bit, I didn’t get that impression but I will look into that.
But I do own it, and in my Tax Declaration 2025 the system calculated the following:
the Steuerwert is Fr 2.96 per share (shares on 31.12 at 104, so only 3% value is taxed).
the dividend = Ex: 24.10.2025 Dat: 28.10.2025 Stb.CHF: 0.00000 (H) so tax-free.
Of course I also ask myself why is this at such a low Agio… currently even a Disagio of -5%… unique on the market = what’s the catch? Or is it “only” because it’s new (2021 I believe), or because poor properties, poor management… etc.? But I didn’t find anything negative about it, actually. Relatively good geographic spread, 83% living. The properties in my vicinity that I know, are OK looking and location.
SFPF - SF Sustainable Property Fund - Swiss Finance & Property Group
I calculate an Agio of 18%, but that’s same ballpark of course.
NAV (~120) indeed is still now about 5% less than highs in 2022 (~125).
Number of shares have increased by 15% since then, maybe a Kapitalerhöhung which waters down the NAV? Sorry, “trying” to find reasons, not much of a property-person… in it for some diversification and dividend/earnings stability.
This is the most reliable source to data on Swiss Real Estate Funds that I know. It is there for 10+ years already and I nearly never found any issue there: immolisten.pdf
Based on this one, the Agio of the fund is pretty much Zero. When I have a look at the annual reports, I see that the fund is in a selloff trend. Every 6 months, they sell another building. This not because they think that valuations were too high - but simply to keep their dept ratio in check. In my view, there seems to be some hidden cash-flow problem here… I just can’t pingpoint it as the financials as such don’t look too bad. I think they currently invest too much into renovating their building / increasing their energy efficiency…
I’d be quite interested to figure out why. But yeah, It could well be an ESG drag. If 1 CHF of energy renovation investment adds < 1 CHF of NAV, it mechanically lower the Agio.
On a different topic: I wonder if this upcoming update of the Lex Koller could affect agios. It will prevent non-resident to buy real-estate funds which was an obvious loop hole in the LFAIE/Lex Koller.
I wonder if there’s data somewhere about who owns how much (and through which setup, e.g. there are funds of funds like the UBS one, I wonder if those would stay as a loophole).
There’s potential for a decent value loss (I’m thinking about fully divesting, esp. given it’s a sector with not so much arbitrage, so you can probably be ahead of the news).
edit: reading the accompanying report, and it’s funny the external advice they got had exactly the same thoughts I had, it doesn’t make any sense to restrict foreign investors (it doesn’t improve the swiss real estate market, if anything it’s going to screw up the current swiss investors, and would have less capital available to build more housing).
my guess/hope is that this part of the law will be killed, it looks like there’s also huge impact on market participants to enforce it (I don’t think any other tradable funds have such restrictions).
edit2: the report estimates foreign ownership at 10% or above (I assume it might depend heavily between funds)
(But anyway, it’s pretty clearly a political statement for the upcoming referendum, most likely at least the fund part will be killed as it doesn’t make sense economically and adds a lot of extra regulation for brokers etc)
I just realised when they say foreigners , they mean foreign nationals including Swiss residents.
This looks like a weird proposal. If someone lives in CH , doesn’t have Swiss passport , but have C permit, why would they not be allowed to buy RE without authorisation. It’s not like everyone who lives in CH comes from EU
I think securitisation of housing is underway and leaving such a big loop-hole in the Lex Koller defeats its intended purpose. Swiss RE is a safe haven asset for foreigners. Similar to Swiss debt, they will buy it for lower and lower returns. But unlike debt, housing is an essential good that everyone need and pushing the prices up has consequences.
But I agree it will not do much to solve the housing crisis, this is more a problem of permitting, NIMBYs and scarcity of constructible land.
It’s covered in the external opinion provided in the report. I don’t think foreign capital removes housing stock (if anything it should encourage building/providing more, those are apartments for rent).
Mit dem Lesen und der Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du die Forum-Richtlinien gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist sowie den Haftungsausschluss auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ akzeptierst.
