© 2024 Alpha Spread Limited. All Rights Reserved.
www.alphaspread.com is not operated by a broker, a dealer, or a registered investment adviser. Under no circumstances does any information posted on www.alphaspread.com represent a recommendation to buy or sell a security. The information on this site, and in its related newsletters, is not intended to be, nor does it constitute, investment advice or recommendations. The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way. In no event shall Alpha Spread Limited be liable to any member, guest or third party for any damages of any kind arising out of the use of any content or other material published or available on www.alphaspread.com, or relating to the use of, or inability to use, www.alphaspread.com or any content, including, without limitation, any investment losses, lost profits, lost opportunity, special, incidental, indirect, consequential or punitive damages. Past performance is a poor indicator of future performance.
You don't have any saved screeners yet
Intrinsic Value is all-important and is the only logical way to evaluate the relative attractiveness of investments and businesses.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the First Quarter 2021 Results Conference Call. I would now like to turn the meeting over to Phillip Burns. Please go ahead, Mr. Burns.
Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Before we begin, let me remind everyone that during our conference call this morning, we may include forward-looking statements about our future financial and operating results. I direct your attention to Slide 2 and our other regulatory filings. Joining me today is our CFO, Stephen Co. After I provide an update on our operational progress during the quarter, Stephen will provide an overview of our financial results and position. This quarter end marks the 2-year anniversary since the inception of the European Residential REIT. For a significant period since ERES' inception, the business environment has been far from usual due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these circumstances in which we and the rest of the world have been operating, over the past year, we were still able to grow our suite count by 415 units with several accretive acquisitions throughout the Netherlands, representing an increase of 7% in the residential portfolio. Assets under management grew by even more than this, increasing by 9%, thereby, reflecting the high quality and inherent value that characterizes our properties. Our market capitalization and public float continued to steadily combine as we rebound from the negative market reaction that came with the widespread onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their disconnect from ERES' intrinsic value remains. Slide 5 contains an overview of business developments during the first quarter of 2021, which had been steady as we continue to navigate through an environment of the COVID-19 pandemic. The fair value of our investment property portfolio has remained stable at EUR 1.5 billion compared to the prior quarter, and our liquidity position likewise remained strong with EUR 96 million in cash and undrawn credit facility capacity, which is immediately available as that period end for acquisition purposes. This excludes an additional EUR 165 million that is available to ERES to acquire properties through its pipeline agreement with CAPREIT, which was extended during Q1 for an additional 2-year period, now effective until March 2023. The extension evidence is not only CAPREIT support for ERES and its strategic path, but also its ability to execute on these objectives in the near-term and transform opportunity potential into realized long-term value. FFO and AFFO were both strong for the 3 months ended March 31, 2021, at EUR .036 and EUR 0.032 respectively. Moreover, our payout ratios remain on target, inclusive of an increase in our distribution rate by 5% that the Board of Trustees approved during the first quarter and which became effective for distribution with respect to March 2021. This increase is a further testament to the strength of ERES' robust ongoing operational performance, combined with the stability and security of its liquidity position. Slide 6 provides some statistics on our current residential portfolio. Average occupied monthly rents were EUR 858 as at March 31, 2021, representing an increase of 3.6% since Q1 of 2020. Occupancy remained high and stable at 98.3%, with a large majority of vacancy in the current period attributable to renovation. As at March 31, 2021, 80 residential suites are under renovation, representing 78% of the vacancy. Upon completion of this renovation, a significant portion of these suites will convert from regulated to liberalized, demonstrating execution of our value-add capital investment program. Turnover was 3.8% for the first quarter compared to 4.1% in the prior year period. Rental uplift on that turnover was especially strong this quarter at 13.7% compared to 7.7% uplift achieved in the comparative period. The ERES portfolio is well diversified by number of bedrooms, ensuring we meet the demand for smaller units as well as family. You can also see that approximately half of the current portfolio was constructed since 1980, providing an average age of under 40 years, resulting in lower ongoing repairs and maintenance costs and driving higher asset values. To elaborate further on the balanced mixture of our properties that constitutes our total portfolio. On Slide 7, you can see that over 40% of our current properties are located in the high-growth urban conurbation of the Randstad with approximately 25% directly located in the cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague, and Utrecht. The rest of the portfolio was situated in smaller urban areas throughout the country. Further, approximately 35% of our portfolio is comprised of single-family homes, also known as Dutch row houses, a segment which represents an additional diversifying and unique contributor to our portfolio mix. Importantly, our suites continue to be nearly evenly divided between regulated and liberalized with a modest weighting towards liberalized, providing balanced growth in rents on turnover and indexation as well as the opportunity to liberalize more suites. On that note, the Dutch government has recently enacted certain restrictions on indexation with a view to supporting the Dutch people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rental increases due to indexation effective July 1 of this year, the rents of tenants of regulated suite cannot be indexed from July 1, 2021, up until and including June 30, 2022. Additionally, for an initial period of 3 years, the government has legislated that the maximum annual indexation for liberalized suites is capped at CPI plus 1%. Accordingly, within these parameters, ERES has served tenant notices to 94% of its liberalized suites, across which the weighted average rental increase due to indexation [indiscernible] 2.3%. In light of these regulatory and legislative developments, we want to highlight that ERES already has been operating successfully within the complex Dutch regulatory regime. In fact, this expertise constitutes one of our key competitive advantages, a competence that is now becoming increasingly more valuable. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that these changes do not apply to rent uplifts on turnover or CapEx-driven increases, including converting regulated suites to liberalized suites, which are significant drivers of our rental growth. Combined with the diverse composition of our talent portfolio between urban and suburban, regulated and liberalized, and across single-family and multifamily homes, ERES is well positioned to continue operating efficiently and strategically within this continuously fluid and dynamic Dutch regulatory system. That brings us to Slide 8, where I can provide a further update on the Dutch government's response to the COVID-19 epidemic to date. The substantial government assistant programs enacted since the beginning of the crisis continue today as we now fight a third wave of the coronavirus. The extension of social restrictions in response to this have been matched with continued support measures provided by the government to sustain the economy and the people of the Netherlands effective until at least June 2021. With proactiveness in their response efforts, the Dutch government has been able to mitigate as much as possible the adverse impact of the outbreak. Combined with strong market fundamentals and underlying economic stability inherent in the Netherlands, unemployment has remained low, and the Dutch economy continues to outperform most of its Eurozone counterparts, evidencing the effectiveness of the Dutch government support alongside the resilience of its economy and the robustness and the market dynamics throughout the country. And with that, I will now turn the call over to Steven.
Thank you, Philip. As you can see on Slide 10, our financial results continue to improve despite the diversity that still clouds the operating climate. Accretive acquisitions since the prior year period and strong top line rental growth are the primary drivers behind this operational performance, together, accounting for the 10% increase in our operating revenues compared to the first quarter of 2020. Net operating income, likewise, increased by 10% for the 3 months ended March 31, 2021, compared to the prior year period, also attributable to contribution from acquisitions and our higher monthly rents. However, this was offset by higher property and operating costs as a percentage of revenues, primarily due to higher R&M, including an increase in cleaning costs associated with the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemics as well as certain onetime recoverable R&M expenses incurred in our REIT's commercial portfolio. In aggregate, NOI margin remained strong at 75.5% for the 3 months ended March 31, 2021, compared to 76% in the quarter ended March 31, 2020. Importantly, NOI margin on our residential portfolio did remain stable at 75.4% for the 3 months ended March 30, 2021 and 2020. FFO and AFFO increased by 9% and 8%, respectively, compared to the first quarter of 2020 on both a total and per unit basis. FFO per unit increased by EUR 0.03 and AFFO by EUR 0.02, primarily due to the positive impact of increased stabilized NOI and accretive acquisitions since the prior year period. The consistently improving trend line of our financial results and operating metrics continues on to Slide 11, where you can see that our residential suite count increased by 7.4% compared to the first quarter of 2020. Our residential occupancy remained stable at 98.3% at both period ends. As Philippe mentioned, the majority of our vacancy in the current period is due to units under renovation, pursuant to the execution of our value-enhancing CapEx program. Stabilized occupied AMR increased by 3.9%, demonstrating the top line rental growth that we continue to achieve, supporting a corresponding 3.7% growth in net operating income on our stabilized portfolio. As mentioned, the latter was impacted by slightly higher operating costs. But in aggregate, the NOI margin on our stabilized portfolio remained stable at 75.3% for the 3 months ended March 31, 2021, compared to 75.4% in the first quarter of 2020. Notably, and particularly in the context of COVID-19 pandemic, ERES continues to collect residential rental revenue at a rate consistent with its historical average. Our 2 office properties also provide stable [ interest ] and cash flows. This collection profile has been underpinned by the operational focus on the process itself over the past year, which has allowed ERES to lower its aggregate accounts receivable year-over-year, a positive contrarian trend during these unprecedented times. Our liquidity position continues to support our business endeavors and remains conservative and strong as at March 31, 2021, as you can see on Slide 12. Amid the unpredictability of the capital markets, ERES has been able to maintain its debt to gross book value within the target range of 45% to 50%, lower its weighted average mortgage effective interest rate, reflecting the persistently low financing rates throughout the European Union and lower the conservative turn to maturity of its mortgage portfolio. In addition, with ample available liquidity of EUR 96 million as of March 31, 2021, which excludes the pipeline agreement and cash on hand dedicated to ongoing operational and CapEx requirements, we have immediate capacity to acquire over EUR 240 million in assets, further reinforcing the strong standalone financing structure is a significant supplemental source of in-place capital that is provided by cap rate via the pipeline agreement, which we have recently extended, which increases capacity to over EUR 500 million, magnifying ERES' ability to capitalize on attractive opportunities. Our conservative financial profile not only supports our future growth but enables us to grow our distributions as well. Thus, we were able to increase our rate of distribution by 5% during this past quarter and going forward. This pushes our distribution yield to approximately 4%, subject to exchange rate fluctuation, which is high relative to industry average. Slide 13 provides more detail on our staggered mortgage portfolio with the nearest debt maturity not occurring until December 2022. You can see that our recently added mortgage with its 4-year term maturing in 2024, balances well within our existing profile. In addition, the majority of our mortgages are non-amortizing. As we continue to grow, we will ensure we maintain a smooth maturity profile in order to reduce renewal risk. Thank you for your time this morning, and I will now turn things back to Philip to wrap up.
Thank you, Stephen. In summary, in passing the 2-year milestone since ERES' inception, we are proud to establish a track record of strong performance, which has substantiated the fundamental value and strength inherent in our strategy, operating platform, and business model. Although we continue to operate in atypical circumstances that over the past year has had limiting consequences on our ability to achieve fast priced growth by acquisition, we are certain of ERES' ability to continue to grow organically and strengthen operationally even in ongoing adversity. Notwithstanding these unprecedented times, we do expect that growth will be mirrored externally through accretive acquisitions in the quarters to come. As we look to emerge from the uncertainty of this pandemic and its dampening ramifications, we look forward to realizing ERES' potential in releasing its inherent strategic value to stakeholders. In this regard, we believe that ERES offers a compelling investment opportunity. The REIT provides unique opportunity to invest in the fast-growing and attractive European multi-residential real estate market. Our partnership with CAPREIT brings significant benefits to our unit holders. We are growing our portfolio at attractive yield spreads with strong and highly accretive organic and external growth opportunities. We've established a strong foothold in the Netherlands, multi-residential market, and we are building size and scale to drive value going forward. Our conservative balance sheet and financial position provides the flexibility and resources to drive further growth, and we have in place an experienced management team and Board of Trustees. Thank you for your time this morning, and we would now be pleased to take questions you may have.
[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Jonathan Kelcher with TD Securities.
First question, just the limits on the liberalized suites, like 3 years, why was that number chosen?
I mean we don't have great insight into that. I think the message was they wanted it to be more than a short-term 1-year solution. So they have indicated that it is initially for a 3-year term and have suggested that it will be reviewed after that point in time. But there was no great disclosure, transparency on how they arrived at 3 years.
Okay. So is that something that you think could become permanent?
Honestly, it's speculating. It's possible. Again, things like this from a policy perspective, as a practitioner, we think it's very counterproductive to solving the larger problem, which is a lack of supply. Politicians don't always take that on board. So it's in the coming 3 years. As anticipated, the supply side does not get better, which it's hard to believe that it would. You would hope that the politicians would extend it further, but they don't always follow tangible market indicators when setting policy.
Do you think this will change your operating model at all in terms of maybe running with a bit higher vacancy in order to maximize your rents on turnover?
Again, I mean, I don't think we'll need to. I saw your preview note this morning. I think you're accurate. And even though this does dampen the rental growth that comes through indexation, we are seeing the ability to maintain high occupancy levels, and we're getting substantially higher turnover uplifts. So net-net, we still believe that we're going to be within our range of 3% to 4% top line growth, probably closer to the lower end than to the higher end as a result of the indexation, but it really doesn't change our approach. We are seeing significant demand across all of the segments, regulated, liberalized, and conversion, and seeing stronger uplifts on those turnovers. So I don't think it requires, and we don't anticipate a different operating paradigm as a result of this.
And then just last question. What, if any, impact on property values do you think this has?
I don't think it will affect the property values very much, if at all. Yields through last year continued to compress even in light of the pending real estate transfer tax changes. I mean there has been very little transaction activity in Q1 in any event. But you're still -- if you can get inflationary plus rental growth this year, the cap would be 2.4%. That's still, in my mind, absolute good top line growth. And in today's environment on a relative basis. I think that's still good top line growth.And then if you layer on ERES and CAPREIT's ability to outperform that and get above 3%, I don't think it's going to have an expansionary effect on cap rates.
The next question is from Brad Sturges with Raymond James.
Just to follow-on Jonathan's question there. With the 3-year term on the indexation cap for liberalized suites, does that -- could that suggest an extension on the cap for regulated suites as well?
I mean you have to make a slight distinction between how those 2 things happen. So taking the regulated to 0 indexation for 2021 was not a change in law. That was just the housing minister exercising discretion that she had already, where putting a cap on indexation for liberalized units was actually a change in law.So again, whether or not the housing minister may choose to extend that next year. I think it's to be determined. It probably has a lot of influence on the recovery from the pandemic. It also will be influenced by who the new housing minister is going forward. The previous housing minister is in the party, which was the second largest vote getter in the recent elections, but it's really hard to say what that new regulator will do. But that was a change in law. That was just a change in the parameters that the minister -- I'm sorry, I keep on saying regulator -- it was a minister already has the power to set each year.
And there's no legislation for the regulated suites at this stage in terms of making that more permanent?
No, because it's -- the regulated regime is already designed to control the regulated volume of suites. Inflation is what it is, and then they can set how much the cap is depending upon revenue or party's income. And so this year, she, as it were, was a woman. She elected to set it at 0. So there isn't required a law change going forward as it pertains to the regulated suites. But that didn't apply to liberalized suites because they were outside that regime. So that's why a law was required to put that cap in place.
And then I guess you're getting higher realized rent growth on term. Where do you think that can trend to in the coming quarters given the [indiscernible].
Basically -- it's just deferring the rental growth, quite frankly. So if you think that last year, we saw some post account on our indexation. The market has been in unprecedented time, but we had consistently beginning higher turnover uplifts when our suites turn. I think that's a result of the strength of the market, but it's also a result of deferred growth because we didn't index people as high as we could last year.This year, we were putting in 0 for regulated and we'll be putting in 2.4 for the liberalized. So when those suites turn over, then we would be able to take those to the maximum regulated rent or to what then prevailing market is. So it isn't lost rental growth as a result of these. It is just deferred rental growth. And because I believe we've consistently demonstrated our ability to maximize that upon turnover with ERES and CAPREIT working collectively, we will still be able to extract that growth, but it just defers it to the turnover point in time as opposed to necessarily capturing a lot of it at the indexation points.
Okay. Maybe switching gears. I guess you've highlighted in the past about eventually or potentially the acquisition strategy will expand to new regions or countries. Does the change in legislation in the Netherlands, does that accelerate maybe expansion plans or thinking about how to more manage political risk? And if so, what would be, I guess, the required scale to enter into a new market?
I don't think this change in and of itself or independently influences us to go to another market. I mean, I don't want to downplay that yes, this is a change. But what it is now is, again, we've always advocated, CAPREIT has always advocated regulation isn't necessarily bad so long as it's transparent and you know the rules, and then you can operate within the rules.And then if you have the type of experience in systems and teams that can maximize those rules, which we at ERES and CAPREIT do, then we can live within that. So the thing that is okay with this is, yes, the rates are lower at indexation level, but I was explaining, I think we can, in part, capture those at turnover and you're seeing our turnover uplift increase substantially. But again, it gives us transparency, and we now know those parameters going forward. And again, if we were targeting between 3.5% to 4% over the past 2 years, and we were getting closer to 4%, we're still targeting 3% to 4%, and we're still going to be getting above 3%. I think that is a great place to deploy capital, and we would continue to seek to do that. Again, as you see, we've mentioned in the past that we would expect to ultimately go into other jurisdictions, and that remains to be the case. If we saw an interesting opportunity in the right market with the right dynamics at the right pricing, we certainly would explore it. But these regulatory changes in and of themselves are not forcing us to move earlier than we otherwise would, although we continue to be and monitor those other markets to see if they're interesting for ERES
The next question is from Himanshu Gupta with Scotiabank.
So just on the impact from the indexation limit imposed on the liberalized suites. I think you mentioned not much impact expected on the valuation. What about the valuation spread between Randstad and non-Randstad markets? I mean, do you think that spread might come down now? I mean, given that you don't have much ability to charge higher rents on the Randstad liberalized portfolio?
I don't see there being a big distinction between the Randstad and the non-Randstad. And again, our portfolio is well diversified. Again, the market rents tend to trend up faster in the Randstad. The turnover tends to be higher in the Randstad than in the non-Randstads.So again, if we're consistently doing better on our turnover uplift, and I think the profile for the Randstad flats remains very attractive. Again, I also am pleased that we continue to have a good diversification, but I don't think there's going to be a marked difference in terms of valuation profile going forward with the Randstad and non-Randstad.In our segments, just to be clear, Himanshu. Again, we're in the mid-market segment. So at the high end, the luxury segment, you might see some softening in the Randstad and Amsterdam in particular, but that's not a segment in which we play.
Got it. And then again, on the impact, you spoke about valuation. What about the transaction volumes? I mean, do you think those might trigger more transaction volume in the near-term or less transaction volume?
Again, as we all have talked about either on the last call or independently or in other context, it was very much anticipated that Q1 and probably Q2 would be slower this year, not because of any changes in terms of the regulatory regime, but just because there was so much volume that transacted in the second half and in particularly Q4 of 2020, and that's very much the case.There just has not been very much transaction volume happening year-to-date. Again, we're constantly in the dialogue with all the players, both on the buy side and on the sell side. Everybody is saying the same thing, that yes, there hasn't been a lot of activity. But people do expect that activity to come in the second half of the year. The predominant sellers that we've transacted with over the past years has been the insurance companies and the pension funds. They still have capital to deploy. They still want to deploy that in the new build, forward funding, forward purchasing segments. And as a result, they want to rotate their older, more stabilized stock, which we've historically been a good outlet for them. We anticipate that happening, but just there was enough volume at the end of last year, they're not pressed to do it, and people expect for that to happen in the second half of the year. Again, Q1 was very, very quiet. Q2, there's a bit more activity, more on the off-market side. We're looking at some things that we remain optimistic about. So again, we're very committed to. We remain very optimistic that we will grow externally this year within the Dutch market.
And then on the acquisition strategy, obviously, the focus will be on acquisitions. What will be the strategy now? I mean, are you more focused on regulated now versus liberalized? I mean, with the view that you have an optionality to convert them down the road? Is that where the focus is going to be?
No, I mean, I think you have to be careful if you make a dramatic strategic change because of this. Again, we very much like the conversion profile of the regulated to liberalized, but not every regulated flat is liberalizable or convertible. It needed to have the right characteristics.We generally liked having that 50-50 plus or minus split between regulated and liberalized. I think we're closer to 40-60 right now, but I think that's the right split because, again, the pendulum might turn back the other way. And so I think having that diversification, we tend to think of the regulated stuff, even if it's not converting, being more bond like, very transparent, steady as she goes. We tend to think that the liberalized stuff has a bit more growth potential in it. The market in which they sit are probably growing a bit more. So I think it continues to be the right approach to have good diversification, which is what we've built so far and what we would intend to do going forward. I certainly wouldn't envision us making a significant turn toward focusing only on one segment.
That's fair enough. And then just turning on the IFRS valuation, no change in cap rates on a quarter-over-quarter basis. Was there any impact from the real estate transfer tax? I think it was effective January and tax has increased to 8% from 2%. So anything -- any [indiscernible]?
I mean, it was already incorporated with the view that there will be a real estate transfer tax. So in terms of year-end values, they stayed consistent. We didn't see significant transactions in Q1. So we kept the value the same.
Got it. And maybe just last question from my side on the overall rent growth outlook. So basically, is it fair to say that 3% rent growth from July is still very much possible? I mean given that assuming 1.35 on the indexation stuff liberalized versus regulated. And then 10% to 15% on the turnovers. That gets to you around like 3% in growth. Is that fair?
Yes. We continue to believe and would just maintain our guidance of top line rental growth of 3% to 4%. But as you've just highlighted and as we're talking about with Jonathan, it will probably be toward the lower end of that as a result of the new regulatory parameters.
The next question is from Matt Logan with RBC Capital Markets.
When you roll all of the rent control changes up, it really sounds awfully familiar with what we have in Ontario, where you get 1% to 2% contractual growth for setting tenants. You've got a mid-teens mark-to-market potential when suites turn and generally, about 10% to 15% of your portfolio turns over every year. Would that be a fair assessment of the framework for rent growth in the Netherlands today?
Yes. I mean, as we sit there today, that's absolutely correct. I mean we have historically been -- I think, again, my knowledge of the Ontario or the Canadian market is not so deep, but it's my understanding that historically, turnover rates have been closer to 20%, but trending down.Where what you're seeing in the Netherlands, at least in the past 12 to 15 months for us is ours have been closer to 12% or 13%, and now they're trending up to maybe 14%. We don't know exactly where it's going to end up for the year. So yes, I mean, I think our -- indeed, turnover rates are trending up modestly. I don't have a sense, and I've interrogated. It's probably a little bit too strong a word, but I've inquired regularly from the operational guys. Do they see that uplift in turnover being any indicator of a lagging effect of COVID. They don't. And we're also seeing in parallel, a substantial uplift in the turnover increases, which would demonstrate that it's probably not a negative catalyst. But I do see now more of the growth coming from the turnover than before, it would have been more evenly balanced when we were getting the consistent CPI plus on the indexation.
And was there anything unusual in the 14% leasing spreads in Q1? Or would that be fairly reflective of the mark-to-market potential currently?
No. I mean, nothing unusual. Again, if you compare it to our quarters throughout 2020, relatively consistent. Just good strong turnover uplift across each of the segments -- regulated, liberalized, and the conversions. Even a little bit stronger as it were on the regulated suite turnover uplift than we would have seen in a couple of quarters before.
And on the margin front, would it be fair to say the outlook is still for things to remain generally stable to perhaps up 100 basis points?
Yes. We're still targeting that 76% to 77% NOI margin. I think in Q1, it was really just due to some of the onetime R&M type costs and timing and seasonality of R&M. So if you're building it into your model, I would say, 76% to 77% makes a lot of sense.
And then maybe one last keeping item for me. In terms of your same-property table on Page 17 of your MD&A, would you have the revenue expense and NOI growth figures handy, excluding the service charge income? Or perhaps you could circulate those figures after the call?
Yes, we can take that off-line and we can share that.
The next question is from Kyle Stanley with Dejardins.
So just kind of not to beat a dead horse, but looking at the regulation on a liberalized suite, could you just talk maybe historically how you set indexation for the liberalized portion of your portfolio? And do you expect this to be much different going forward?
So historically, the only thing you had to be aware of was restrictions within your lease and, of course, the market's ability to bear it. And so we went through -- it's basically a suite-by-suite exercise. It's incredibly time-consuming to see where the maximum amount each lease could be.Again, our template lease is CPI plus 5. But again, we have historic leases that there's a variety, some might be CPI, CPI plus 1, CPI plus 3. So we go through and we see, okay, what does the lease say? Where is the current rent versus market? And how much room do we think that we have. And then we would always look to optimize that. And then, of course, has market moved, et cetera. And it was a very granular exercise. This year, it was much less granular. We basically said, okay, everybody gets 2.4%. CPI is 1.4% plus 1%, that's 2.4%. Unless, of course, there's a lease restriction that wouldn't have allowed that, or if it would have been somebody who just moved in. And so that's why you saw 94% and the average is like 2.3% instead of 2.4%. So historically, very, very granular, heavy lifting to understand where each suite was and also what a potential lease cap might be.
I think just moving on, is there any update on the EUR 200 million in landlord concessions from the government as a result of the freeze earlier this year and kind of how that may impact the REIT?
Yes. I mean, there isn't just a short answer. When the Housing Minister announced the regulated indexation guidance of 0% this year, that is the point in time where she also made available the EUR 200 million. Again, the landlord levy only applies to regulated suites.And it has not been taken further in terms of defining how that may come to pass. Since that point in time, we've had elections and also now, the parties are trying to form the government. So we don't have a lot of visibility on that yet. But if it does come through, as she had suggested, then we believe that provides some margin upside for us, which would, in part, offset some of the top line growth.
And then just the last one, I guess, a little bit of a segue on kind of what you just said. So given that the Dutch elections are now past us and they're forming the government, although it is the incumbent is still in power. Do you expect any kind of political changes to the landscape that may impact, I guess, the rental markets, I guess, in addition to the new regulation that we've seen more recently?
Again, just to make certain everybody is aware, I am not a political pundit or expert and do not know much more, if any, than the next person. But our impression is, our belief is the election results were fine/good. The party of the current Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, the VVD party, they continue to be the second high -- or sorry, the highest participation in Parliament.Their coalition partner, the D66 party who also is the party where the outgoing Housing Minister sat. They're now the second largest party in the new government. So they need one other party to join them to have a majority. So that is a lot of continuity in terms of the political environment. They're both market-oriented parties. We don't anticipate any dramatic shifts from the government previously. And we would expect also Mark Rutte to continue to be the Prime Minister.So strange things can happen. But as a result of the election and what we anticipate a coalition to look like, we would not expect anything dramatic coming out of that in in and of itself.
[Operator Instructions] The next question is from Matt Kornack with National Bank Financial.
Just one for me. It's been a pretty thorough call. In terms of turnover, it is fairly low. It did tick up, which I guess, would be somewhat counterintuitive going forward given the rent controls. But is your thought that turnover as it is now is kind of the equivalent of natural turnover, death, divorce, et cetera? Or could we expect that it would go lower on things like liberalized suites?
Yes. I mean, it's a good question. Over the past years, it's really been around that 12% to 13%. Last year, it was a little bit higher because Q1 was a little bit higher because we went into Q1 with some higher vacancy that we had bought with some of the acquisitions.And then you saw it in Q2, 3 and 4 last year trend back down to where on an annualized basis, it would have been around 13%. If you annualize our Q1, you're going to be 14%, 15%. I don't think that's a dramatic move, firstly. And secondly, off of the one quarter, I'm not prepared to say it's the new level. But again, I think in that 10% to 15% range is probably where the natural turnover percentage is going to lie. And we've been right in the middle of it. And if we tick up a little bit more now, it's not going to cause me to think there's a big change afoot. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we have been aware that it's ticking up a little bit, and I've been very keen and regularly chatting with the local operational managers on the ground to make certain that it's not suggesting something coming out of COVID and demographic shifts, and I'm assured that it's not. And we're seeing such strong turnover rental uplifts in parallel. It's not like people are trying to search for cheaper flats either. So I'm not saying it's an anomaly in the data. It definitely has ticked up a little bit, but I'm not reading anything or taking in away from it in terms of a big shift.
And presumably, tenants aren't leaving liberalized -- sorry, regulated suites that can be liberalized unless they have to because they're getting pretty favorable products there for the location size, et cetera. Is that a fair point?
Yes. And again, if you really want to investigate the data, the regulated turnover uplifts were -- on a percentage basis, up a lot compared to what they were doing last year. So it's hard to say. But yes, the turnover percentages almost rock solid the same. So we're not seeing any real outlier that's grabbing our attention in terms of a structural shift in any of the categories that we track, although we're watching very carefully.
There are no further questions registered at this time. So I will turn the meeting back over to Mr. Burns.
Again, thank you all for joining us this morning. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact either of us at any time. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The conference has now ended. Please disconnect your lines at this time, and we thank you for your participation.