If I look at the annual report from the fund, it seems that dividend is paid out after deduction of the TER%
My German skills are limited but that’s what I think is mentioned on pg20
But in any case the dividend yield listed should be after TER is taken into account, right?
Yes. That’s what I think.
In fact I think dividends for any ETF are after paying out TER%.
Of course if dividend > TER
FYI the CS and UBS real estate funds are going to merge next year.
2025: Fusion des quatre fonds immobiliers suisses résidentiels négociés en bourse avec propriété foncière directe (CS REF LivingPlus, UBS Direct Residential, Residentia et CS REF Hospitality);
2025/26: Fusion des deux fonds immobiliers suisses mixtes négociés en bourse avec propriété foncière directe (CS REF Green Property et UBS Direct Urban);
1 Like
Interesting
This would make UBS the largest direct residential real estate fund in Switzerland
I wonder how the mergers affect the existing shareholders. Everyone just receive new units of new entity based on number of shares held of old entities?
I assume so, wonder what this means if the premium/discount are different between the funds.
The merger between Procimmo 1 and Procimmo 2 was made at an exchange rate corresponding to the NAV exclusively.
I haven’t look at the details recently, but I think Residentia and Hospitality are basically garbage
1 Like
if they trade at a discount, might make sense to buy 
I think by now everything would be priced in
Yeah, but not yet, this was announced today.
Interesting
So even though these funds trade at premium, the shares of merged fund would be allocated based on NAV?
This would significantly favour the lower quality funds and would be negative for higher quality funds. This is exactly opposite of what investors of higher quality funds would expect
To me it doesn’t really sound logical that the actual market value of the units have no relevance in the merger conditions .
Shouldn’t they look at closing price of 7 NOV as reference to allocate shares ?
1 Like
Let’s see
Couldn’t find the conditions yet.
It will probably take quite a bit more time before they start publishing details, curious how things get arbitraged tomorrow tho.
Wouldn’t anything that’s not NAV based be weird? It’s a closed end funds, that’s the kind of risk investors take.
Edit: For instance when they raise capital, the price is simply set to the NAV, it sounds similar.
Hm…
Currently invested in the ubs direct residential.
Not sure i want to hold that other crap in the PF.
I think whenever there is merger or acquisition, the terms can be defined by the company
Agio as we know is not just the market premium to NAV. It also includes capital gains that accrue over the years.
While raising capital to buy new properties , the valuation of new properties was done and then UBS could decide how many shares they wanted to create. They chose to issue new shares at NAV because most likely they expected that they were fairly valued at that price
Now we are talking about merging of funds. The new terms need to be decided. A fund which has a low agio also have a different mix of properties within it. Now the new terms should be decided based on what’s the fair value of these new properties. Fair value is not always NAV. If thats the case then current investors of CSLP & DRPF would not be compensated properly.
I would be curious to see what are the terms. Because I am not sure how this really works. I would be very surprised if deal will be structured in a way that existing shareholders of CSLP & DRPF are losers .
Does anyone have a source on the news?
Is this already confirmed?
I would argue a lot of investors wont be happy with such a major shift in strategy
I liked that DRPF & CSLP was majorly residential
I don’t quite understand why they are merging mix use funds ( hospitality & Residential) with residential
1 Like
And here’s the (probably equivalent) German language version
2 Likes