Skip to main content

So, is Greenland a government-owned entity? And what about those Chinese condo investors?

This is the second of a few articles based on the 1/24/17 Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park meeting. Yesterday I wrote about the unclear timing of the project buildout.

A bit of tension emerged at the meeting over the role of Chinese investors and also the Shanghai-based Greenland Group, whose Greenland USA subsidiary owns 70% of the Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park project going forward (with the exception of the B2 tower, aka 461 Dean, and the Barclays Center operating company). In the joint venture Greenland Forest City Partners, Forest City Ratner has 30%.

After Forest City Ratner's Ashley Cotton described Greenland as "a committed partner, they have financial wherewithal," Jimmy Greenfield, a Dean Street property owner, responded, "Greenland is a Chinese government-run corporation, so you don't meet the same--."

"We're publicly traded company," countered Scott Solish, Greenland USA's Project Manager, adding that they were excited about opening the new buildings.

That said, as I wrote, Greenland’s commitment may have diminished somewhat, since it and Forest City are marketing stakes in three towers (B12, B13, B4).

A government-owned entity? Yes. Even if not formally controlled by Shanghai.

Moody's Credit Opinion from 11/29/16
calls Greenland "a local state-owned enterprise"
Later in the meeting, resident Steve Ettlinger told Solish he was curious about the proper description of Greenland. "Everybody... identifies Greenland as a Chinese government-, Shanghai government-owned entity, and you said it's publicly traded company. Can you inform us a little bit about the ownership?"

"Me personally, I can’t," Solish responded.

"You work for them, you must know something," Ettlinger responded. "You said it was publicly traded."

"I don’t have the exact information," Solish said. "I have enough to do in my day-to-day job." Ettlinger asked to follow up by email.

It's fair to call it a publicly-traded, state-owned (or government-owned) enterprise, even if that state ownership is no longer a majority. However, even if Greenland may no longer be fully state-controlled, the current ownership structure seems to favor state control.

As I wrote last February, it's a bit murky: Greenland was long called a "state-controlled enterprise group," as noted by this 12/9/15 note from ratings agency Moody's, with the Shanghai State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) "effectively the largest shareholder." In November 2016, as shown in the screenshot above, Moody's called it a "local state-owned enterprise."

But state ownership is not incompatible with being publicly traded, and if the state ownership is now below 50%, that does not necessarily remove state control. After all, Wikipedia describes (without a footnote) the SASAC share as today over 46%, with nearly 29% more owned by managers and employees of Greenland Holdings. That seems to favor control, even if it doesn't assure it.

In 2015, Greenland was listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. As the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported 4/24/15, that was achieved via an asset swap with another company, Jinfeng, in a move the newspaper (and a Greenland press release) described as a "back-door listing."

"The asset swap deal is part of Shanghai’s increasing efforts to make its state-owned enterprises more profitable, efficient and market-based, in keeping with China’s reform agenda," Greenland Australia said in a press release. In other words, Greenland was not about to be a non-state-owned enterprise.

According to Greenland's Semi-Annual Report for the period ended 6/30/15, filed with the China Securities Regulatory Commission on 8/25/15, state entities held 44.72% of the shares, a Greenland spokeswoman told me last year. 

No English-language version of that report existed, I was told, but the 55%/45% split was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 7/21/15 after Greenland was listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. (Going by the Wikipedia numbers, the SASAC figure, as noted above, is more than 46%.)

At the very least, the company remains significantly state-owned. Greenland's own LinkedIn page (above) may not have been recently updated (or copy-edited), but it states that it "has become one of the biggest state-owned enterprise in Shanghai."

Obfuscation

Interestingly enough, parent Forest City Enterprises, in its first press release mentioning Greenland, on 10/11/13, did not even use the term state-owned:
Established in 1992, the Shanghai-based Greenland Group has formed a diversified industrial structure with a focus on energy, finance, and real estate. Greenland Group is involved in construction projects in more than 70 cities and provinces in China as well as in Korea, Australia and the United States, among others.
Such language form Forest City has continued. Similarly, Greenland USA's web site obscures the issue:
Greenland USA was established in 2013 as a subsidiary of Greenland Holding Group, which is publicly traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE) and ranked 311th on the Fortune Global 500. Greenland Group has developed properties in 26 provinces in China as well as in nine countries on four continents, including the US, Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Malaysia. We couple our international expertise in large-scale, mixed-use properties, our commitment to design innovation, quality and efficiency, and local market insight, to bring our vision to life. To date, we have invested more than $8B in projects on the east and west coast and we continually assess new opportunities.
Chinese condo owners?

At the meeting Tuesday, Greenfield, after getting a noncommittal answer regarding how many units at 550 Vanderbilt had been sold, asked what percentage of the condo buyers at the 278-unit tower were Chinese.

"We have buyers from all over the world," responded Solish. (Last year, a press report indicated that some 30% of condo buyers in Greenland's Los Angeles project, Metropolis, were from China.)

Greenfield asked if there was a way to find out how many buyers are going to live there--which implied that absentee owners must sublet, or do shorter-term rentals--and how many were American citizens before they bought the units.

"It begins to make me uncomfortable," responded Cotton, referring to the second part of the question and ignoring the first. "I'm not sure why it matters."

"It made us all uncomfortable for a very long time," Greenfield countered, referring to the project as a whole. The question of absentee ownership in a condo building lingers.

EB-5 role?


Both Greenfield and another audience member connected the potential condo purchase by Chinese nationals with the well-known efforts by the project developers to raise money via the EB-5 program, in which immigrant investors--most of them Chinese--gain green cards by making a purportedly job-creating investment.

Cotton said "EB-5 financing has nothing to do with this condo building," but rather was money for infrastructure. (Interestingly, they've previously pitched it as investing in an arena or towers.)

"What does it [EB-5] have to do with buying a condo?" Cotton asked. "Will Chinese people buy apartments? Absolutely. I'm sure they will, and I'm sure they have."

Indeed, most EB-5 investors from China want to live in California. While it's certainly possible that some Atlantic Yards EB-5 investors might also invest in condos that are part of the project, there's a much vaster universe of potential condo buyers from China.

Early wave of investors?

Greenfield reported spotting 25 Chinese people, none speaking English, apparently on a marketing tour of 550 Vanderbilt.

"What’s the problem with that?" Cotton asked.

"I have no problem with that," Greenfield said. "All I'm doing is suggesting there may have been a bump in your sales initially, because it was marketed to Chinese people in China, and and then it begins to go flat. I'm across the street, I get a little agitated, because it seems like nothing is on schedule, and it seems like you're doing a bait-and-switch at each juncture."

"Schedules are frustrating beyond belief to all of us," Cotton responded. "A bait-and-switch I dispute highly.... Anyone is allowed to buy a condo."

"As it should be," Greenfield said.

I wouldn't call the condo sales a bait-and-switch, but I would say they're not exactly completely candid. (How are those 8 acres of park space going?)

Indeed, the condo was marketed in China. And that potential pool of buyers was one reason Greenland got involved in Pacific Park, as it claimed it had "an enormous customer base."

Also, since many Chinese buyers are cash buyers, they supply a good foundation for a condo building sell-through; once a certain number of units are sold, banks can consider writing mortgages.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.