Accelerated Transformation

7/28/2019 Accelerated Transformation

1/20

2008

Accelerated Transformation-

Investments in Indian Real Estate

INTRODUCTION

Buy land, they are not making it anymore.

Mark Twain

This quote from the American humorist could well

suggest the emerging strategic blueprint for private

equity investors taking exposure in the Indian real

estate sector and indeed in other such emerging

economies. This report is a follow-up study on the

trends and growth of investments in Indias real

estate sector, subsequent to the first such study,Accelerating Transformation, which was first

released in 2Q07.

The intent and objectives of this report are very

much along the lines of the f irst report, with the

main focus on revisiting the fund view of the real

estate market after the initial study. Much like the

first one, the aim of this paper is to understand

the nuances and impact of the ebb and tide of new

investment flows into the real estate sector that

have been noticed in the last one year.

While the first part of this paper reviews the

changing trends in real estate investment and

conjoint changes that were noticed in the regulatory

framework for the same, the latter par t of this

report is anticipative of the sentiments of real

estate funds, both global and domestic, which have

flowed in post Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

liberalisation and continue to consistently come in.

The latter aspect has been captured by way of

a structured primary survey of such funds that

are already active in Indian property markets.

The collated data from these surveys have been

presented in order to provide an indicative

perspective of the fund view with respect to


2/20

Accelerated Transformation Investments in Indian Real Estate

anticipated paths, patterns and prospects of the Indian

real estate markets.

The paper is in no way all-comprehensive nor

encompassing of the various issues related to the

changing trends of investment into Indian real estate and

the impact thereof, but is an attempt to try and highlight

pertinent themes and issues that would be important

determinants of the trajectory that Indian real estate

markets follow in the future.

ChaNgINg TReNDs IN INbOUND RealesTaTe INvesTmeNTs

Global Real Estate Capital, a definitive report released

in March 2008 by Jones Lang LaSalle, depicts the

tremendous increase in global cross-border flows in

real estate markets worldwide. According to the report,

global direct commercial real estate investment totalled

a record USD 759 billion in 2007, a 8% rise on volumes

in the same period last year. For the full year 2006, this

figure was USD 699 billion. In terms of recipients of

this f low, the report states that the Americas, Europe

and Asia Pacific once again achieved record investment

volumes with Asia Pacific real estate markets in

particular witnessing a signif icant increase in cross-border interest. India has not been an exception to this

trend, especially since early 2005, when FDI policy for

the real estate sector was eased fur ther.

Since our first report Accelerating Transformation

released around a year ago, quite a few significant trends

have emerged, both in terms of the scale and volume of

funds that have f lowed into Indian real estate through

various routes, including private equity, public capital

raising and debt financing, as well as in the approach

of global and Indian funds towards Indian real estate

markets. This section is an attempt to compile thesechanging trends that have occurred in the interim time

and the impact of such changes on the future funding

and investment scenarios in Indian real estate.

Since our first report, an overriding theme that is

noticeable is that investors, whether global or Indian,

private or institutional, have seriously gone down to

the brass tacks of exploring and implementing the

investment process. While a year ago, many of the

first-time investors may have just started the process of

exploration of investing in Indian real estate. Now, quitea few of them have already invested and are steadily

discovering the grass-root realities of operating in India.

Prit equit Intnt Trnd

To put in context the changes that have taken place in

the private equity space, it is interesting to compare and

contrast the headline figures regarding private equity

investments in Indian real estate.

In our first report, we had estimated that there seem

to be anywhere between 100120 India-specific realestate funds (global and domestic) that are in various

stages of operation, ranging from planning, sett ing

up or investment mode, around 5060% of which are

considered to be active. As of Q1FY08, the estimated

total number of private equity funds that are operational

in India could be as many as 150, with around two-thirds

of them in the active category. It is important to state

here that the active category of funds can generally


3/20


be defined as those that have operations on ground in

the country and are actively sourcing and completing

investment transactions.

The other main indicator of activity levels for such real

estate funds is the broad figure of investment that is in

the pipeline from these funds. As in the previous report,

this compiling is an uphill task as there are various

estimates that keep getting reported in the media from

time to time regarding the total FDI in the pipeline for

Indian real estate. These estimates range from anywhere

between USD 15 billion and USD 20 billion to be

deployed over the next three years. Given the number of

funds that are operational and others that are planning

to enter the country, it is quite possible that the totalinvestment pipeline can eventually be higher than the

estimates published.

Finally, the source of capital for these real estate funds,

both old and new, pretty much remain the same as what

we had stated in the f irst report and include Indian and

global institutional funds (which now include global

pension funds and endowment funds), proprietary funds,

private equity, high-net-worth individuals and other

third-party funds. However, there has been a perceptible

trend of global direct real estate investors investingthrough India-specific real estate funds rather than

taking direct exposure in deals.

This growing interest in Indian real estate is attributed to

the change in perception of the Indian real estate sector

from quicksand to emerging sector based on the

following leading parameters:

Signicant performance of listed real estate stocks and

real estate companies IPOs especially in the year 2007.

Increased foreign institutional investors (FII) exposurein listed real estate stocks over the years.

Allowing FDI in real estate, and with the entry of

multinational developers like IJM, Ascendas, Hines,

CapitaLand and Keppel Land to name a few, awareness

of the sector amongst the investor community has risen

Improved prospects for the real estate sector on the

back of the IT/ITES boom, overall economic growth,

growing local industries and the resulting impact on

residential and retail-asset categories

Progressive state governments that are giving special

emphasis to infrastructure and development, creating

opportunities for existing and emerging urban centres.

It is important to take cognisance of two sets of data

regarding foreign fund inflows by government nodal

bodies, which detail an indication of a quantum of FDIinflows coming into the country.

The first data set is from the Department of Industrial

Policy and Promotion (DIPP), which discloses FDI

inflows in the country detailing funding initially

committed by foreign investors since 2005 after FDI was

allowed in Indian real estate.

Foreign Direct Investments in Indian Housing & Real Estate

YearAmount inINR billion

Amount inUSD billion

Share in TotalFDI Flowing intoIndia (%)

2005-2006 (April-March) 1.7 0.043 0.7

2006-2007 (April-March) 21.2 0. 53 3.0

20072008 (AprilNovember 2007)

51.6 1.29 11.4

Total 74.5 1.86

Source: www.dipp.nic.in/fdi_statistics/india_fdi_Nov2007.pdf

Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP)Exchange rate assumed USD 1 = INR 40

It is interesting to note that the FDI inf lows data in

the real estate sector that was released by the DIPP

has risen by 2,918% from FY20052006 to touch USD

1290 million in 20072008 (April-November 2007). As

impressive as the growth may be in percentage terms,

it is notable that the total FDI inflows as defined by

the DIPP is still less than USD 2 billion. Moreover, it

is important to note that FDI inflows into real estate,

as part of the total FDI flows into the country, rose

from 0.7% in 20052006 to 11.4% in 20072008 (April-

November), which is quite significant.

The second set of data is released by the Securities and

Exchanges Board of India (SEBI), which is the nodal

capital markets regulator in the country. Table in the

following page details the private equity investments

into Indian real estate from domestic and offshore

private equity venture capital investors listed over the

period September 2006September 2007. According to

the SEBI, the data represented in the table captures the

funding commitments into Indian real estate investments

by real estate PE funds that are declared to the regulator

in prescribed reporting formats.


4/20


Real Estate Private Equity Investments

Quarter

DomesticFunds

Offshore Funds Total

Amtin INRbillion

Amt inUSDbillion

Amtin INRbillion

Amt inUSDbillion

Amtin INRbillion

Amt inUSDbillion

September2006

22.50 0.563 13.20 0.330 35.70 0.893

December2006

26.26 0.657 14.30 0.358 40.56 1.014

March2007

15.65 0.391 12.92 0.323 28.57 0.714

June2007

19.00 0.475 8.88 0.222 27.88 0.697

September2007

21.33 0.533 15.14 0.379 36.47 0.912

Total 104.74 2.619 64.44 1.611 169.18 4.230Source: www.sebi.gov.in/index.jsp?contentdisp=sitemap

Securities and Exchanges Board of India (SEBI)Exchange rate assumed USD 1 = INR 40

Released on 8 November 2007

In terms of other broad trends, it is notable that many

new third-party funds have been launched since we

conducted our first survey on real estate private equity

investments in India. Also, most of the funds that

were previously operational have gone for subsequent

round(s) of fund raising, augmenting their corpus size.

Interestingly, fund of funds continue to more or less

Almost every day, there are media reports of huge

investments by fundsIndian or global, developers

and corporations. These are typically in large and

small projects like integrated townships, IT and office

parks, SEZs, mega retail and amusement complexes

etc. Even just five years back, such large investmentsby domestic developers and investors were few and

new developments were typically funded by Indian

developers own equity, some institutional debt funding

and pre-sales. Exit from these assets was almost

inevitably through sale of the product on a strata-

titled basis to High Net-worth Indian investors, Indian

Financial Institutions and Corporates.

However, as the size of investments grows significantly

on the back of FDI inflows, more exit options haveemerged, such as in the form of listing asset or a

bouquet of assets of a similar category on Indian or

overseas stock exchanges. In the future, it is possible

that other exit routes might emerge such as selling

assets to a single investorlike Real Estate Investment

Trusts (REITs) or Real Estate Mutual Funds (REMFs) or

Foreign Institutional Investors.

There has already been considerable discussion

regarding allowing REITs and REMFs in India, although

regulations are yet to be formalised. As has been seen

globally, the advent of REITs and REMFs typically

open up many more exit options for private equity

funds as well as enhance the liquidity of real estate

assets, all of which works towards expanding and

increasing the depth of the real estate market and its

conjoint securities market. Until the time these new

routes are allowed, the funds would have to be contentwith the existing options of exit from their respective

investments.

Investing is as much about exit as it is about returns

follow their established strategy of investing through

other third-party funds rather than taking direct

exposure in terms of real estate investment.

Also, it is increasingly being noticed that global hedge

funds and proprietary funds are coming in as anchor

investors in new third-party fund launches or in

subsequent capital raising by existing third-party funds.

Another trend which has emerged is that there has

been a perceptible influx of foreign pension funds and

endowment funds that have started investing through

domestic real estate third-party funds, even when they

had previously been exposed to Global/Asia Pacific

real estate funds launched by global leaders in asset

management businesses.

Finally, with more wealth management firms

increasingly evaluating real estate as an asset class,

allocations to real estate funds in total portfolio is rising.

Typically, some of these wealth-management firms are

tying up with Indian real estate funds for deployment of

their clients capital, albeit at a retail level, which would

enable easy fund raising in the future as well as increase

the assets under management (AUM) of domestic funds.


5/20


Cpit Riin in Indi nd arod

The capital raising momentum continued strongly all of

2007 and has shown signs of abating, at least on Indian

bourses, during Q12008. The story of capital raising

from foreign stock exchanges AIM and Euronext,which was quite significant and highlighted as such

in the first investment report, seems to have sobered

down considerably in the last one year. The only

reported instances of further capital raising in foreign

stock exchanges include real estate fund Yatra raising

a second round of funds on Euronext and Ascendas a

Singaporean developer that owns IT Parks in India got

listed as a REIT at a yield of 4.75% on Singapore Stock

Exchange (SGX).

Fund raising by Indian developers and real estatecompanies on the Indian stock exchanges seems to have

remained strong in 2007. In FY2006, real estate IPOs

were the second largest mobiliser of funds from the

stock markets, grossing INR 39.9 billion (USD 0.998

billion) and in FY2007-08, a further INR 142.2 billion

(USD 3.55 billion; assuming USD1=INR40) is estimated

to have been raised by real estate companies in India.

This is almost a three-fold increase over capital raising

in 2006, and is much attributable to large IPOs such as

DLF, which itself raised INR 91.88 billion (USD 2.297

billion)

The following table attempts to compile details of

notable IPO listings which have taken place in the period

April 2007 to December 2007:

Money Raised by Indian Real Estate Companies by IPOs fromApril 07- December 07

Company Issue Size Oversub-scribedby

IssuePriceBand(INR)

ListingDate

IssuePrice(INR)

ConsolidatedConstructionConsortium Ltd

3,700,000 81 460510 18 Nov2007

510

DLF Ltd 175,000,000 3.47 500550 11June2007

525

Gremach

InfrastructureEquipments &Projects Ltd

8,194,445 NA 7286 8

March2007

86

HousingDevelopment andInfrastructure Ltd

29,700,000 6.5 430500 28June2007

500

Maytas Infra Ltd 8,850,000 67.86 320370 27Sept2007

370

Omaxe Ltd 17,796,520 76.51 265310 17 July2007

310

PuravankaraProjects Ltd

21,467,610 NA 400450 31 July2007

400

Roman TarmatLtd

2,900,000 29.67 150175 12June2007

175

IVR Prime UrbanDevelopers

14,510,000 5.75 510600 16August2007

418

BrigadeEnterprisesLimited

16,624,720 13 351-390 10 Dec2007

390

Kolte-PatilDevelopers Ltd

19,000,836 46 125-145 19 Nov2007

145

Source: www.bseindia.com and related websites

Stock markets continued their buoyant northbound

journey and the countrys leading indicator Sensex

touched 20,000 on 29 October 2007. Thus, India became

the twentieth nation in the world to have seen its stock

market benchmark touch the 20,000-point milestone.

Despite over 2,000 points of correction preceding the

run-up to this new high in the markets, listed real estate

stocks as well as real estate IPOs only gained from

the overall buoyancy in sentiments and the resulting

heightened liquidity in the year 2007.

Apart from the general upbeat market sentiment, there

are other reasons behind the success of IPO raisings

especially in the year 2007. Firstly, there was improved

profitability of real estate developers on the back of

REAL ESTATE: GRABBING MEDIA SPACE


6/20


consistent sales. Secondly, the real estate sector, despite

steep valuations, continued to attract retail investor

and institutional investor attention on the back of the

improving perception of the sector at least till end 2007.

However the IPO market sobered down in the beginning

of the year 2008 and Emaar MGF had to withdraw its

IPO due to lack of adequate subscription. The global and

domestic market volatility, global credit crunch and lack

of investor confidence in general can be attributed to

this.

There are two trends worth noting in the IPO space.

First, while real estate IPOs in 2007 sailed through

on the back of investor subscription, the level of

over subscription figures for the IPOs was not as

overwhelming as compared to their preceding peers.

Second, real estate IPOs also came under scrutiny by the

SEBI, which issued cautionary comments on companies

that were asking for high IPO valuations on the back of

land bank valuations.

This was based on three important aspects noticed by

the SEBI in the past few quarters that raised its eyebrows

and prompted real estate companies IPOs to be brought

under the scanner. These include the fact that real estate

stocks had been steadily attaining very high valuations

as well as real estate IPOs being offered at relatively

high valuations on the back of their land banks during

2007. This in-turn resulted in a few policy changes and

tightening of controls and also laying down fur ther

norms for real estate companies going in for IPOs which

are detailed as follows:

IPO valuations were typically driven by quantum

and value of land bank of companies. In many cases,

land bank valuations were also based on subjectivity

and the element of discretion. In some cases, it was

seen that land banks included parcels which were not

fully owned by the company or some parcels that did

not have clear marketable titles. To tackle this during

March 2007, SEBI has initiated a process of setting

valuation guidelines, which are due to be released.

Also, in the interim, SEBI asked real estate companies

that are going for IPOs to mention the details of land

ownership and the method of valuation. This would

allow investors to clearly understand the contribution

of land not totally acquired, or not having marketabletitles in the overall valuation of the company going in

for IPO.

Previously, pre-IPO placements of real estate

companies were categorised as FII investments in

the company and did not require any permissions,

approvals etc. However, the RBI stopped clearingapplications from several real estate companies that

were hoping to tap overseas investors ahead of their

plans to launch IPOs around April 2007, stating that

pre-IPO placement by a real estate company to FIIs

would be allowed only if all projects undertaken by the

company are FDI compliant. This was on the premise

that FII investment is also considered as foreign

investment and has to comply with FIPB guidelines.

This provision did slowdown the activity on real estate

pre-IPO placements but only for a short while, as this

guideline did not remain in force for long and was

reversed in August 2007, allowing pre-IPO placements

as it was earlier.

There is one trend that is steadily picking pace and

going forward. It seems that it could be a shape of

things to come, at least in the build up to more IPOs

of unlisted real estate companies. This trend is that of

enterprise-level transactions, wherein funds invest in

the development company itself, instead of investing

in a project. During the last one year, there has been a

steady rise in enterprise-level transactions, wherein thenal outcome is expected to be an IPO, which is also

the route for the developer and the fund to dilute their

equity. The benets of this route include:

Discovering and setting valuation benchmarks and

unlocking value in an unlisted real estate company

and the inherent value of the companys projects

Allowing the developer to understand the

investment cycle and the psyche of institutional

investors before going public

Infusing equity early on at the enterprise level to

leverage the ability to increase project sizes and

land banks with a view to eventually achieve higher

valuations

Going through a formal rst round of due diligence,

making things easier during the second round of due

diligence as a run-up to an IPO

Allowing the enterprise to progress on corporate

governance and systems in order to ensure higher

levels of transparency for institutional investors insuch companies

i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.


7/20


Going forward there is expected to be heightened

activity in such enterprise-level transactions, and

eventually building the pipeline for IPOs by such

companies, when the stock market conditions arefavourable. This could be a win-win situation both for

the funds and developers as well as for the institutional

and retail investors as it would considerably increase

the depth of the real estate listed securities in the stock

market. This would allow investors to choose from more

options as well as benefit from increased and improved

disclosures by the companies going public.

Currently, going by the figures of capital raising on stock

markets (in India and overseas) as well as FDI by way of

private equity, the former seems to have slightly highervolumes on a year to year basis. Whilst it is difficult to

predict which one would take the lead over the other in

terms of the quantum of funds raised for the real estate

sector; going forward all routes of capital funding would

maintain their importance for real estate companies.

POlICy ChaNges OveR The lasTONe yeaR

In our previous report, we had detailed regulatory

changes which allowed FDI into real estate over the last

few years and had also indicated to some proactive policy

changes that were in the pipeline. In this section, we try

and detail the policy changes that have occurred in the

last one year.

Firstly, SEBI has moved a step ahead in driving

interest in enterprise-level transactions by giving some

relaxations to registered private equity (PE) funds, which

would be a positive move for investors as well as real

estate companies. According to the SEBI (Disclosure and

Investor Protection) Guidelines 2000, PE funds, which

are registered with the SEBI and investing in unlisted

companies, proposing an IPO have to hold the shares forone year from the day of listing. This is known as the

lock-in period requirement. However, in the SEBI Press

Release 166/2006, this has been amended, exempting

SEBI-registered PE funds from the lock-in period

requirements if they have held the shares of the then-

unlisted company for at least one year at the time of ling

of the draft prospectus by the company proposing an IPO.

This move is expected to ensure that only those PE

funds that participate in the company with a long-term

perspective are allowed to receive the benet of theexemption from the lock-in period requirements, as

intended by the SEBI. Moreover, this could give a llip

to enterprise-level transactions, and result in more real

estate IPOs in the Indian stock exchanges.

In addition, the move by SEBI to come out with long

awaited Draft REIT Guidelines as a rst attempt to

initiate the process of operationalising REITs in India

has been a very important announcement, which has

been seen as a very positive move by analysts in the

sector. Internationally India has not been late to join thebandwagon as some developed (G8) countries like UK

and Germany allowed REITs in 2007 even as markets

such as Russia and Italy still do not have REITs.

The draft guidelines issued by SEBI are still under

review and discussion. Once this process is completed,

the legislation would be framed and thereafter notied,

which is expected to take some time. In the instance

that the nal regulation is formulated allowing REITs


8/20


to operate in the country, the Indian real estate market is

likely to graduate to the next level of maturity, allowing

developers and investors in Indian real estate an easier

option for exit as well as infusing higher levels ofliquidity and activity in the markets.

Also the guidelines for REMFs are expected to be issued

by SEBI shortly which would enable the retail investors

to participate in the countrys booming realty sector.

While the regulatory changes stated above relate more

to listed and unlisted real estate companies proposing an

IPO, the policy changes of Indias central bank Reserve

Bank of India (RBI) are somewhat more sector specic.

Notably, in the last one year, the RBI has taken a lead in

regulating capital inows into real estate markets in India

due to concerns of inationary pressure building up in

this sector. Consequently, there has been a spurt of RBI

circulars aimed at regulating the capital inows into this

sector.

The RBI has been concerned with the dual issues of the

Indian economy facing challenges of a strong rupee,

which hurt export-oriented industries, as well avoiding

scenarios like the late-1990s South-East Asian meltdown

experience. A pointer of this concern is the fact that the

RBI vide AP (DIR Series) Circular No 5 dated 1 August

2005, has completely stopped inows through debt route

for real estate projects in the country by disallowing

external commercial borrowings (ECBs) in the sector.

Apart from the ECBs various other quasi-debt routes

such as non-convertible debentures were also disallowed.

The following is a compilation of the indicative summary

of the RBI circulars of 2007, which actually show the

policy changes that have been effected:

RbI Circur 30 apri 2007

To curb debts coming under the guise of preference

shares, the RBI amended the guidelines stating that any

foreign investment should come in as fully convertible

preference shares instead of partly/optionally/non-

convertible preference shares. Also, these fully

convertible preference shares would be treated as part

of the share capital. This move would deter many

lenders to lend to Indian real estate companies in

absence of adequate security and comfortable structure.

To increase the impact of this circular, the RBI further

stated that other types of preference shares like

non-convertible and optionally convertible would be

treated as debt and are required to conform to ECB

guidelines and caps. Also, ECBs are disallowed in the

real estate sector, except for the development of SEZs

and integrated townships. This means that any structureor instrument other than fully convertible preference

and equity shares would be treated as debt, and hence

totally stopping debt inows.

RbI Circur 18 m 2007

Later, the RBI took a step forward by bringing

integrated township development within the net of

real estate development projects wherein ECBs are

disallowed. This move left only SEZ development

companies amongst all real estate projects, which could

raise ECBs.

ECB guidelines allow only those companies that

have a better credit rating and repayment capacity to

venture into international markets to raise debt. This

could be judged by the companys ability to raise debt

at lower rates. To shrink the ECB window and only

allow better companies to raise ECBs, the RBI has

reduced all incost ceilings to 150 basis points over the

sixmonth London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR)

from 200 basis points for ECBs of three to ve years.

For more than veyear tenor ECBs, the cost ceilingwas reduced to 250 basis points over LIBOR from 350

basis points.

These moves reduced the number of borrowers who

could raise debt overseas.

RbI Circur 7 auut 2007

Increased ECB inow and a weakening dollar caught the

RBIs critical attention, thus the RBI brought a check on

inows through ECBs through the following measures:

ECBs are permitted only for foreign-currency

expenditure and funds must be parked overseas and not

brought in India. This means that foreign currency debt

raised is used only for making payments in foreign

currency, and also, that this money does not come into

India and get converted into Indian rupee, and in turn,

hurt the US dollar.

Borrowers deliberating ECB up to USD 20 million

for rupee expenditure for permissible end-uses (like

developing SEZ) will require prior approval from the

RBI. This means that a domestic borrower can bring

in a maximum debt of USD 20 million in India and

convert it into Indian rupee, subject to RBI approval.


9/20


The ne print to this permission is that it is only for

those sectors and end uses that were allowed by the

RBI.

Along the same lines, the RBI seems to be equally

concerned about the quantum of domestic debt flowing

into the real estate sector and the banks exposure to

this sector. The RBI has on various occasions raised

concerns regarding the same, which is evident from the

moves that are outlined below:

Increasing the cash reserve ratio (CRR), which would

increase the amount of monies that a bank has to

keep in cash within itself. This in turn would reduce

the quantum of monies that the bank can lend to all

sectors.

Increasing risk weightage for the real estate sector

from 100% to 150% would result in the increased

requirement of equity in the overall debt that is

advanced to the real estate sector. This would reduce

advances to the real estate sector because banks would

need commensurately higher equity to lend to real

estate. Also, this would increase debt cost, as the equity

portion of advances would rise, and equity is always

costlier than debt.

The overall sectoral cap on advances to the real

estate sector. Again, housing loans and lease rental

discounting (LRD) are classied in the real estate

sector, reducing the amount available for disbursement

to real estate developers as construction loans.

These policy amendments by RBI have denitely curbed

the recourse to debt, whether overseas or domestic,

for Indian developers of real estate projects. Coupled

with the rising interest rate regime, this means that the

Indian real estate development sector has been hit on

two accounts. Firstly, debt curbing reduces the ability

to leverage equity and the latterinterest rate hike

increases their cost of funds. All in all, whether for land

acquisition or for project construction, the role of equity

has assumed even greater importance. This may be good

news for real estate funds, but eventually, higher debt

costs and higher equity capital base would inevitably

hit returns. If one adds the slackening IPO market, then

funding prospects for develoopers looks quite an uphill

task in the near future.

Finally another signicant policy announcement, albeit

specic to Mumbai city was the long due and awaited

repealing of archaic Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act

(ULCRA) in Maharastra. With Maharastra repealing

ULCRA, only three states in India still continue to have

the restrictive Urban Land Ceiling legislation including

- West Bengal, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh. The Actled to locking of prime parcels of Urban land in main

metropolitan cities and its repeal in Mumbai is expected

to free signicant prime urban land parcels in Mumbai

city for development. Given the exponential demand for

land in Mumbai over the last few years, this pro-active

move by the government, is anticipated to release prime

land for development.

Overall, it would not be wrong to note that the policy

changes are being proactively adjusted to the pace of

changes that are taking place on ground in the Indian realestate investment sector. This is reective of the growing

importance of the sector and the global fund ows that

it is attracting. There has certainly been heightened

interest in the sector by regulatory organisations such as

the RBI, SEBI and the DIPP, and even though there are

other policy changes awaited by the industry, the pace

of proactive policy change has been quite impressive till

now.


10/20

Accelerated Transformation Investments in Indian Real Estate10

Real esTaTe FUNDs sURvey

Ojcti nd approc

As with our first report on investment in the Indian realestate sector, the objectives of this study has remained

to understand the sentiments and anticipation among

the various funds that are already active in the Indian

property markets. To achieve this, a structured primary

survey of active real estate funds and investors was

conducted during Q42007. The intent behind the second

survey is to capture the change in views and opinions

regarding investment funds in the real estate markets

since the first survey was done in Q12007.

A structured questionnaire covering both macro andmicro issues pertinent to the Indian real estate markets,

was circulated to over 90 such real estate funds and

feedback was solicited from them. Around 50% of

positive responses were obtained after completion of the

survey and the remaining balance either declined the

request or did not respond.

The collated results of the survey detailed in this

section provide pointers to the overall sentiment that is

prevailing within these funds regarding the state of the

economy, the anticipated returns from Indian real estate,top cities and sectoral choices for investment as well as

other specific issues relating to the investment process

such as the expected IRR.

The survey is by no means comprehensive nor all

encompassing and is pegged to the time frame in which

it was conducted, given that both the investment and

the real estate market are currently quite dynamic.

The responses by the same token may vary over

time, depending on macro-market and micro-market

conditions. However, the collated results shouldhopefully provide an insight into the prevailing

investment sentiments as of end of 2007.

sur Outco

Headline Indicators

Like in the preceeding funds survey conducted in

Q12007, an attempt has been made to obtain some

headline indicators as regards the number and the status

of various real estate funds operating in the country. To

achieve this objective, data was collated from various

sources, including primary sources (survey), as detailed

in the preceding section and ratified with secondary data

published in various media and other reports.

The ballpark headline estimates that emerged from this

collation are as follows:

As mentioned earlier, we estimate that as of now, the

total number of private equity funds operational in

India could be as many as 150, with around two thirds

of them in the active category. It is important to state

here that the active category of funds can generally

be dened as those that have operations on ground in

the country and are actively sourcing and completing

investment transactions.

Based on the available data from primary and

secondary sources on a ballpark basis, the indicative

average corpus per fund is typically around USD 350

million, which is higher than what was the average

corpus of USD 250 million that is stated in our rst

report. It is important to note here that there are quite

a few proprietary funds whose corpus was not dened

at the outset and could change over the years. Also, the

indicative gure that was stated would be the typical

size per fund and not per-principal investor, as there are

many cases wherein the principals may have invested

in more than one fund for Indian real estate. Finally,

the average corpus per fund is just an indicative gure

and is not an absolute indicator, as there are funds that

may have a much larger or smaller corpus than the

average gure stated

The other main indicator of activity levels of such

real estate funds is the broad gure of investment that

is in the pipeline by these funds. This continues to

be an uphill task as there are various estimates that

keep getting reported in the media from time to time

as regards the total FDI in the pipeline for Indian

real estate. These estimates of FDI in pipeline range

from anywhere between USD 15 billion and USD 20

billion to be deployed over the next three years. Given

the number of operational funds and others that are

planning to enter the country, it is quite possible that

the total investment pipeline can eventually be higher

than the estimates that were published.

In terms of the categorisation of these funds, there

are two norms that can be applied. One method is to

categorise by source of funds, i.e. either proprietary

or third party and there is a fair mix of both among

the funds that are currently operational. The second

way of categorising these funds is by their investment

strategy, which could be core, core-plus (value-added)

or opportunistic. From the survey samples, it is evident


11/20

Accelerated Transformation Investments in Indian Real Estate 11

that most of the funds operational as of now fall in the

opportunistic category.

It is notable that many domestic real estate funds have

moved onto raising capital in subsequent offerings,

with most having committed their initial fund corpus

either in part or full. Moreover, the subsequent corpus

being raised by such funds is typically larger than the

rst round of capital raising.

This time around, it is interesting to note that many of

the rst ush of real estate specic funds have moved

ahead in the transaction cycle, from just sourcing and

evaluating deals as was the case earlier, to actually

concluding and implementing transactions, which is

more evident now.

Finally, as in our rst report, real estate funds are not

just restricted to the traditional large metropolitan cities

when it comes to sourcing investment opportunities.

Currently, there are established transactions by these

funds in Tier II cities and clear instances of real

estate funds that are seeking opportunities and even

transacting in much smaller Tier III and IV towns such

as Bhavnagar, Jalandhar and Dehradun.

It is important to note here that the headline trends that

are stated are indicative and not absolute in any way,

especially given the high level of activity and churn that

is presently being witnessed in the real estate investment

sector. Moreover, the survey indications that were stated

are time bound as of Q42007 and may change in the

future.

sur Findin

The findings from the primary survey of real estate

funds operating in the country that are presented in

this section is a compilation of individual responsesby the funds that chose to reply to the structured

survey questionnaire. The survey does not claim to be

comprehensive or all encompassing and is pegged to the

time frame in which it was conducted (Q42007). The

responses by the same token may not remain the same

over time due to changing macro-market and micro-

market conditions. The collated responses have been

presented in the order that the questions were asked,

moving from general issues to specific ones.

The survey has covered a wide spectrum of issuesrelated to investments in real estate which is of particular

significance to real estate funds investing in India.

View on the future growth potential of the Indian

economy

The robust India growth story has triggered positive

responses of the funds regarding the future growth

potential of the Indian economy. As was seen in the

previous survey, this time, the funds are also quite

upbeat about the overall economic growth in the

economy. This is inline with the forecasts by the

government and various agencies.

GDP < 8%

(11%)GDP > 10%

(0%)

GDP 8 - 10%

(89%)

POSITIVE GROWTH EXPECTATIONS

It is quite apparent from the graph that the majority of

the funds (89%) that were surveyed foresee GDP growth

between 8% and 10% per annum, which is even greater

than the last time response of 86% within this band.

India is the second-fastest growing major economy in the

world with a GDP growth rate of 9.6% for FY200607

and projected growth rate of GDP of 8.7% for FY2007-

08 , which falls within this band.

The confidence in the strong fundamentals can be

judged by the response of the funds, as only 11% of them

foresee a GDP growth of less than 8%.

Interestingly, unlike last time when 10% of the fundssurveyed were expecting over 10% GDP growth, not a

single fund this time anticipates a GDP growth rate of

more than 10%, showing a pragmatic outlook of funds

towards the macro-economic growth rate.

View on the future growth potential of the Indian

real estate market

Overall, a positive sentiment about the economy and

the sectors therein has also led to a continued positive

outlook of the funds in the Indian real estate market.

Majority of the funds (64%) that were surveyed currently

expect the Indian real estate sector to remain stable as

compared to 58% last time. This shows that stability in


12/20


the real estate markets is a widely held view within the

fund community and would remain so in the next two

years.

Over Perform

24%Remain Stable

64%

Under Perform

12%

POSITIVE OUTLOOK ABOUT REAL ESTATE MARKET

Around 24% of the funds surveyed this time consider

that the real estate sector would over-perform in next

two years, which is less than 45% of the funds which

had expected over-performance in the previous survey.

However, it is important to note that as compared to last

time when not a single fund anticipated that the real

estate sector would under-perform, this time around,

12% of the funds are of the opinion that the real estate

sector could under perform in the next two years. This

is much reflective of the cautiousness that is creeping inthe funds view on the back of over supply concerns in

the future.

Ranking of the investment attractiveness of various

cities in India

Funds were asked to rank the investment attractiveness

of cities Tier I, II and III and the analysis of the

findings on investment attractiveness of the categories of

cities shows quite interesting results this time around.

In the previous survey, funds were categorically more

bullish on Tier II cities, followed by Tier I and then Tier

III cities. A significant change is observed in this survey,

with higher preference being given to Tier I as against

Tier II cities. The second preference of the funds is Tier

II cities and the third position is held by Tier III cities.

There has been a resurgence of interest in some Tier

I cities (main metropolitan cities like Mumbai, Delhi

and Bangalore) due to the continued demand, maturity,

depth and supporting infrastructure of these well-tested

markets. In this survey, majority of the funds are in

favour of the metropolitan cities, whereas in the earlier

survey, Tier II cities (emerging metros) were ranked

higher than Tier I cities.

Ranking of cities in terms of overall investment

attractiveness

In the funds rating of cities from the overall investment

attractiveness standpoint, Mumbai has displaced

Chennai (which was the most preferred destination in

the previous survey) and has secured the top position in

terms of investment attractiveness amongst Tier I cities.

Mumbai, which is rightly known as the financial capital

of India, is followed by Chennai, Bangalore, Delhi NCR

and Hyderabad. Chennai, which topped the list the last

time, is not far behind at second position as a lot of

TIeR

I

TIe

RI

II

TIeR

II

STACKING CITIES BY INVESTMENT ATTRACTIVENESS

MumbaiChennaiBangaloreDelhi NCRHyderabad

KolkataPuneAhmedabadChandigarhKochi

NagpurMysoreNashikCoimbatoreVizagIndoreGoaBhubneshwarLudhianaLucknowJaipurDehradun

JalandharBhopal

MULTIPLE EPICENTRE OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITY

TIER I

TIER IITIER III

INDIAN OCEAN

Arabian Sea Bay of Bengal

PUNE

GOA

CHENNAI

HYDERABAD

MUMBAI

KOLKATA

BHUBANESHWAR

DELHI

r

CHANDIGARH

LUDHIANA

JALANDHAR

JAIPUR LUCKNOW

DEHRADUN

AHMEDABAD

NASIK

INDOREBHOPAL

NAGPUR

MYSORE

KOCHI

COIMBATORE

VIZAG

BENGALURU


13/20


activity continues to take place in the city, attracting the

foreign investors.

Among Tier II cities, Kolkata has been ranked as the

highest after witnessing investment interest from real

estate funds followed by Pune, Ahmedabad, Chandigarh

and Kochi. In the first survey, Pune was the top choice

of funds followed by Kolkata, Chandigarh, Ahmedabad

and Indore.

Among Tier III cities, Nagpur has retained the top

position in this survey, with a lot of interest focusing

on this city. The major factors that contributed to this

position of Nagpur are its central location and the

development of the Multimodal International Hub

Airport at Nagpur (MIHAN). Other locations that have

emerged in Tier III cities as investment destinations

include Mysore, Nashik, Coimbatore, Vishakapatnam,

Indore, Goa and Bhubneshwar.

Ranking of the most preferred sectors in terms of

potential investment returns

The choice of favourite sectors for investment from

the standpoint of potential returns on investment can

be a somewhat fleeting point of view as opinions can

vary with time depending on market twists and turns.However, when posed the question this time, the

responses that resulted are presented in the graph. This

highlights the relative ranking of the various real estate

investment verticals in descending order of priority in

terms of their anticipated potential return.

As was the case in the previous survey, land has

emerged as the most attractive choice for investment

among all the verticals for the funds. This is followed

by integrated township, residential and office sectors.Integrated townships and the residential sector are also

popular among the funds, showing the promise that these

sectors hold. While most of the funds target the middle-

income and upper-middle-income brackets in such

developments, there are also a few funds evaluating the

mass housing space.

Contrary to the response last time, the retail sector has

gone down the ladder and has been deposed by the

office and residential sectors. Importantly, unlike the

previous survey, there has been an emergence of many

new sectors that have come under the focus of funds,

including SEZs, logistics and warehousing, hospitality

and IT SEZs.

Time horizon of investment in the Indian real estate

market

When one contrasts the time horizon of investment in

real estate from the funds standpoint in the previousand present survey, an interesting theme emerges. This

time around, relatively higher portion of the funds

surveyed have indicated a short-term to medium-term

view. About 44% of the funds favoured short term (35

years) horizon as against 24% in the previous survey.

Around 46% have indicated medium term (510 years)

time horizon as against 65% of responses in the previous

survey. About 10% of the funds that were surveyed

showed long-term investment horizon preference as

against 11% in the previous survey, thereby keeping the

set of long-term fund view almost similar.

0

24

6

8

10

12

14

No.

ofResponses

Land

Integrated

TownshipsResidential Offices

HospitalityIT SEZs

RetailIndustrial

StandaloneMixed use

Product

specificSEZ Warehousing

& Logistics

TOP SECTORAL INVESTMENT CHOICES


14/20


Ranking of the main criteria for city evaluation prior

to investment

The following are the main criteria for city evaluation

that have emerged from the survey and are presented in

descending order of priority, i.e. from the most important

to the least important, as ranked by the funds surveyed.

This was an open-ended question and the choices of

cities and relative ranking of the criteria were collated

from the direct suggestions of respondents.

Main Criteria for City Evaluation

Rank Q42007 Survey Q12007 Survey

1 Good infrastructureStatus of infrastructure andlinkages

2Presence of economicdrivers

Presence of regionaleconomic and income-growth drivers

3 Demand supplyPresence of qualityworkforce

4Business activity andenvironment

Proactiveness of the localgovernment

5Proactive governmentpolicies

Land and sectoral demand supply scenario

6 Geographic location Demographic profiles

7 Presence of qualityworkforce Presence of educational andsocial infrastructure

8 Regulatory framework Law and order situation

9 Availability of landStatus of regulatoryframework

10 IT activityInstances of other FDIflowing in

11Historical performance ofreal estate markets

12 FDI flowing in the city

Notably, the majority of the criter ia highlighted by

funds for evaluating a city have to do more with broad

macro-level variables, which are not direct real estate

parameters, like good infrast ructure, presence of

economic drivers, quality workforce, business activity

Long term

(over 10 years)10%

Short term(3-5 years)

44%Medium term

(5-10 years)

46%

TAKING SHORT-TERM AND MID-TERM VIEWand environment, to name a few. However, these factors

have a considerable impact on real estate investment.

During the survey, the funds stressed on the need for

good physical and urban infrastructure in the city or

alternatively, the capacity and will to provide such

infrastructure by the government, which would drive

investment. This is in line with the earlier responses and

reflects the importance of macro-economic variables for

investment in a particular city.

The inclusion of parameters, such as historical

performance of respective real estate markets, indicates

the cautious and more objective view of the funds as

they go up the learning curve in understanding the

context of an investment deal rather than just focusing

on the returns of the project.

Views on whether there are too many funds chasing

too little quality product

On the issue of too many funds chasing too little quality

product, the survey findings in the previous and present

rounds has been consistent. Majority of the responses

point to a yes and also more or less in the same

proportion as in the previous survey. There is no doubt

that this time around as well, funds have been pragmaticin answering this somewhat tr icky question.

No 36% Yes 64%

BEING PRAGMATIC

Factors that cause distortions in the deal-making

process

When requested to rank headline concerns and irritant

factors in the real estate investment process, almost

all the funds came up with a somewhat similar bunch

of concerns as in the previous survey,. These have

been collated and presented below in descending

order of priority. Notably, this was an open-ended and

unprompted question and hence, the responses collated

were as per the direct opinion of the respondents.


15/20


Ranking the Issues in Investment Process

No. Q42007 Survey Q12007 Survey

1Unrealistic valuationexpectations and terms

Unrealistic valuationexpectations and terms

2Lack of clarity in the titleof land

Regulatory hurdles

3Unreasonable terms bydevelopers

Lack of clarity in land titles

4Regulatory hassles Developers credibility and

track record

5Execution capability ofdevelopers

Transparency issues

6Social and governanceissues

Danger of project deliveryoverruns

7 Project financials Change in government policy

8Developers non

transparency

Complex taxation structures

9 Availability of information Availability of debt financing

10Availability of debtfinancing

Infrastructure issues

11Lack of quality land parcels Limited availability of verifiable

market information

12 Legal structure of a deal

13 Over supply

POTENTIAL EXPECTED IRR

Potential IRR expectations from the market

This survey attempted to raise a new issue which was

an attempt to understand the funds view in terms of the

potential IRR returns scenario from the market.

It is interesting to note that majority of the funds

surveyed have indicated that the most likely potential

IRR scenario would remain in the 2025% range

given the current market conditions and the expected

dynamics in the immediate future. Despite this, there is

still a significant number of funds that have indicated

returns in the range between 25% and 30%, even as the

responses in the 30%-plus potential IRR return category

are much less.

The results from the survey were quite unique, and like

the previous survey conducted in February 2007, provide

a deeper insight into the collective opinions and thoughts

of real estate funds, which are currently an important

part of the market as are developers, investors, occupiers

and institutions. Increasingly, it is anticipated that the

role of such funds would grow not only as investors,

but also as important instruments of accelerating the

transformation of Indian real estate markets towards

much higher levels of maturity and momentum.

It is important here to acknowledge the vital

part icipation of all the fund managers who took time out

to respond to the survey and provide meaningful insights

into their views. On the back of this, it is also important

25-30%

(29%)

Above 30%

(6%)

Less than 20%

(12%)20-25%

(53%)

Less than 20% 20-25% 25-30% Above 30%


16/20


to provide caveat here that this primary survey is merely

indicative and pegged to the time frame that has been

mentioned. Moreover, its is not absolute in any way as

the responses to the question raised can change over timeas they are dependent on the changing market conditions

and economic dynamics as well as prevalent investment

sentiments at any point in time.

PeRTINeNT PeRsPeCTIves

The findings of this study are both interesting and

revealing. There is a clear indication now that real estate

funds, whether overseas or domestic, have certainly

moved forward in the learning curve from just sourcing

opportunities to actually completing deals and are wellon the way to managing the investment process. The

views of the funds that were expressed in the survey at

this time as well as the evident dynamics clearly point

to this fact. The main themes that are likely to prevail in

the future as regards investment in the Indian real estate

would include more money, more deals, more supply

and hopefully more maturity. Some of these themes are

summarised below for a better understanding of the

pertinent perspectives of this important sector.

Struggle for Quality and Returns

There are two distinct developments in the supply side

over the past few months. First, new funds are setting up

shops in India. Second, existing funds are raising more

money. Resultmore money.

On the demand side, there is now a greater requirement

of equity by developers for financing various projects,

not just in Tier I or II cities but also in Tier III towns.

The heightened willingness on both sides only points to

the fact that the future could witness higher number of

deals.

While deal f lows have already started r ising, analysts

in fund houses are burning midnight oil to weed out the

good ones from the not so good ones. Hence, the word

risk analysis has assumed even greater proportions

as far as funds are concerned. Eventually, the struggle

for the twin objectives of quality and returns is likely

to gain steam as fund houses and investors weed out

investment-grade assets from the total stock, thereby

creating a class of assets that would move in separate

strata from the rest of the market.

Over Supply A Recurrent Theme

The enthusiasm of almost every stakeholder in the real

estate sector worldwide almost always manifests itself

physically in the way of a possible over supply. This

is also one of the recurring risks and worries for any

investor in real estate markets. There are numerous news

articles and media coverage which have been noticed

in last few months, highlighting this issue either in a

part icular asset class or in a particular city or micro-

market. In its own way, fund houses, developers and

investors, from time to time, take bearings of the supply

situation and correct their course accordingly. Hopefully,

greater transparency and the increasing maturity of

markets will allow the funds and developers to avoidover building in sectors and markets that are already

supply dominated.

Valuations How much is too much?

One established fact is that land, real estate built product

and listed Indian real estate companies have witnessed

a significant increase in valuations over the last few

years. Of these, the concern from funds and developers

as regards runaway land valuations is quite justified.

This not only results in a precarious risk and returns the

equation for the players but also endangers the very basis

for sustainable long-term growth in the sector.

The solution to this may just lie in the release of land

parcels for valid development both in prime inner-

city areas as well as in suburban areas, which may be

locked today into lower uses or regulatory impediments.

But that is only one part of the story. The fact that

the development process itself can achieve far more

efficiency is an issue that will increasingly assume

greater importance, both from the investors standpoint

as well as the developers standpoint. In fact, end-

users would only stand to benefit from an improved

and more efficient development process, which in turn

may just allow for appropriate course adjustments in

the valuations itself. But until the time that more land

is released or the process is made more streamlined,

valuations will continue to be dictated by market forces

or impediments within market dynamics.


17/20


With the rising numbers of deals, there is a concern

of too much of investment flowing into the market orproduct and hence, typically higher risks. The following

are few important risks that an investor is exposed to at

any time and an accurate analysis of these could define

the success of the investment:

1. Market Risk: Market risk covers macro-market

and micro-market risks in which the project is being

developed. The factors evaluating risk/growth mainly

involve infrastructure development, migration and

local economic development for the macro-market. Onmicro-market level, the major factors are accessibility,

internal infrastructure development and price points,

which are typical parameters. To a great extent, this

is a systematic risk that comes with any real estate

investment.

2. Product Risk: Product risk covers product categories

wherein the investor takes exposure. This risk is a mix

of systematic and unsystematic risks, covering micro-

market risks and product feasibility on the back of

demandsupply status, absorption and pricing.

3. Developer Risk: This is the only pure unsystematic

risk in the matrix. However, this can be a boon or abane as well, depending upon the product and the

micro-market. Take for instance, a small developer

with very little experience of developing a huge project

can easily deliver a small project very fast and get the

first-mover advantage. The small developer can serve

as a better partner at times compared to a large-format

development in the same micro-market, which is being

done with an established player. The decision making

pertains to settling on what is the right product in the

said micro-market, whether a small format with a first-

mover advantage, or a large format.

4. Delivery Risk: It is not only important to identify and

deploy funds into a promising investment opportunity.

It is equally important to see the end of the delivery

process. However, there is a perceptible shortage in

the talent pool that is required to ensure the delivery of

such projects. Investment decisions should definitely

account for this important risk aspect, which is notoften outlined as much.

Understanding Risks

lOOKINg aheaDGlobally, due to the sub-prime crisis, highly leveraged

deals are a thing of the past and raising debt has

become diff icult. Faced with resultant subdued market

sentiments, investors are favoring a wait and watch

approach. Though analysts suggest that cross border

investor interest still remains, the bid/ask spread gap has

diverged. The credit crunch developed so quickly that

there has not been sufficient time for buyers capacity

and sellers expectations to readjust to converge into

transactions.

In this scenario, the global real estate equity capital that

is still available for seeking cross border opportunities

in general and in specific to the Asia Pacific region,

is expectedly much more conservative and seeking

fundamentally sound economies and projects. In a

nut shell, this could well be the new theme for global

investors for some time to come and real estate

investment could well concentrate as much on financial

engineering as well as on fundamentals. The silver

lining to this, is that, even now when compared to other

investment categories (stocks, bonds, etc.), real estate

remains a robust investment vehicle due to its long term

inherent stability character coupled with the possibility

of risk rationalisation by diversifying investment among

many sub asset classes and geographies.

India has been relatively insulated from the sub - prime

crisis till now, owing to strong domestic growth and

sound fundamentals. The Indian real estate market as a

result has till now been able to post impressive growthrates and hence there is no doubt that investments in

the Indian real estate market has only accelerated from

the point when we first started tracking it in 1Q07.

Looking forward, on one hand while expansion of the

macro economy is anticipated, on the other hand, the

progression in the growth of Indian real estate and the

improvements in the maturity of investors, developers

and all the other stakeholders in Indian real estate

is inevitable. Driven by this process of growth, the

Indian real estate market is well on the way to expand

not only in terms of geographies, but also in termsof diversification within sub asset classes, which is

anticipated to continue attracting attention from global

and domestic investors in future.


18/20


For more information on India Retail and how Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj can assist companies making

high quality real estate decisions in India, please contact:

Shobhit Agarwal

Joint Managing Director - Capital Markets

Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj (Mumbai)

tel +91 22 2482 8400

[email protected]

Mridul Upreti

Joint Managing Director- Capital Markets

Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj (Gurgaon)

tel +91 124 460 5000

[email protected]

Anuj Puri

Chairman & Country Head

Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj (Mumbai)

tel +91 22 2482 8400

[email protected]

Vincent Lottefier

Chief Executive Officer

Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj (Gurgaon)

tel +91 124 460 5000

[email protected]

Compiled by Capital Markets, Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj

Acknowledgements:

Shweta Kakkar (Knowledge Centre)

Sumeet Mehta (Capital Markets)

Adishesh Mitra (Capital Markets)

Deepak Sankhye (Capital Markets)

Printed for internal use by Jones Lang LaSalle Meghraj Property Consultants Pvt Ltd


19/20

abOUT JONes laNg lasalle

Jones Lang LaSalle (NYSE:JLL) is a professional

services firm specializing in real estate. The firm offers

integrated services delivered by expert teams worldwide

to clients seeking increased value by owning, occupying

or investing in real estate. With 2007 global revenue of

USD 2.7 billion, Jones Lang LaSalle has approximately

170 offices worldwide and operates in more than 700

cities in 60 countries. The firm is an industry leader in

property and corporate facility management services,

with a global portfolio of approximately 1.2 billion

square feet. LaSalle Investment Management, the

companys investment management business, is one

of the worlds largest and most diverse in real estatewith approximately USD 49.7 billion of assets under

management. For further information, please visit our

website, www.joneslanglasalle.com

Jones Lang LaSalle has over 50 years of experience in

Asia Pacific, with over 16,000 employees operating in

more than 70 offices in 13 countries across the region.

abOUT JONes laNg lasalle meghRaJJones Lang LaSalle Meghraj, the Indian operations of

Jones Lang LaSalle, is the premiere and largest real

estate professional services firm in India. With an

extensive geographic footprint across ten cities (Delhi,

Mumbai, Bangalore, Pune, Chennai, Hyderabad,

Kolkata, Kochi, Chandigarh and Coimbatore) and a

staff strength of over 3300, the firm provides investors,

developers, local corporates and multinational

companies with a comprehensive range of services

including research, consultancy, transactions, project and

development services, integrated facility management,

property management, capital markets, residential, hotels

and retail advisory. For further information, please visit

www.jllm.co.in


20/20

COPYRIGHT JONES LANG LASALLE MEGHRAJ 2007. All rights reserved.

JONES LANG LASALLE OFFICES

SINGAPORE

9 Rafes Place, #39-00, Republic PlazaSingapore 048619Tel +65 6220 3888Fax +65 6438 3360

www.joneslanglasalle.com.sg

CHICAGO

200 East Randolph DriveChicago, IL 60601Tel +1 312 782 5800Fax +1 312 782 4339

www.am.joneslanglasalle.com

LONDON

22 Hanover SquareLondon W1A 2BNTel +44 20 7493 6040Fax +44 20 7408 0220

www.joneslanglasalle.co.uk

JONES LANG LASALLE MEGHRAJ - INDIA

BANGALORE

tel +91 80 4118 2900tel +91 80 4112 1271

CHENNAI

tel +91 44 4299 3000

CHANDIGARH

tel +91 172 3047 651

COCHIN

tel +91 484 3018 652

COIMBATORE

tel +91 422 2544 433

GURGAON

tel +91 124 460 5000tel +91 124 408 3337

HYDERABAD

tel +91 40 4040 9100

KOLKATA

tel +91 33 2227 3293

MUMBAI

tel +91 22 6658 1000tel +91 22 2482 8400tel +91 22 2497 2652

NEW DELHI

tel +91 11 2331 7070

PUNE

tel +91 20 4019 6100

Accelerated Transformation

Documents

Transcript of Accelerated Transformation