Archive annuelle 2005

Parrédaction

Encore une hausse du prix de l’acier?

Un accord a été conclu entre le japonais Nippon Steel Corp. et le groupe minier brésilien Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD).

J’y crois dur comme fer, ça va faire un carton à Marseille. Enfin une solution pour le coup de neuf du Printemps

Aux termes de celui ci, le premier a accepté une hausse des prix de plus de 70% dans le cadre de son contrat annuel d’approvisionnement en minerai de fer avec le second.

Parrédaction

Shurgard Announces Fourth Quarter and 2004 Annual Results

European Operating Results

At constant exchange rates, the Europe Same Store segment in the fourth quarter of 2004 generated increases in revenue of 7.7% and NOI before leasehold and indirect expenses of 2.0% over the fourth quarter of 2003. NOI after leasehold and indirect expenses in the quarter grew 0.5% from the same quarter in 2003. Strong revenue growth due to a combination of occupancy gains and rental rate growth was largely offset during the quarter by increased operating expenses, primarily related to special marketing efforts as management targets occupancy growth in the stores not yet at stabilized occupancy levels. At constant exchange rates, Europe Same Stores for the full year 2004 generated growth in revenue and NOI after leasehold and indirect expenses of 9.5% and 15.5%, respectively, over the previous year.

The average occupancy for the full year 2004 of the Europe Same Store pool (75%) is lower than the average occupancy of the Domestic Same Store portfolio during the same period (85%), in part because of the significantly younger average age of the stores in the European portfolio, with some stores in the Europe Same Store pool still in rent-up. The Company also believes its operating performance in Europe continues to be influenced by weaker economies in some of its European markets and by a temporary over-supply in certain markets from new developments by Shurgard and its competitors.

Table 14: SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS, INC. EUROPEAN YEAR TO DATE SAME STORE RESULTS European Same Store Results for year ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 (unaudited) As defined in 2004 (1) ——————————— Year ended December 31, ——————————— (in thousands except average rent) 2004 2003(5) % Change ———- ———- ——— Storage center operations revenue $ 73,241 $ 66,867 9.5% Operating expense: Personnel expenses 10,035 9,040 11.0% Real estate taxes 3,150 2,888 9.1% Repairs and maintenance 2,786 2,386 16.8% Marketing expense 4,972 4,297 15.7% Utilities and phone expenses 1,846 1,920 -3.9% Cost of Goods Sold 2,515 2,337 7.6% Store admin and other expenses 5,235 4,849 8.0% ———- ———- Direct operating and real estate tax expense 30,539 27,717 10.2% ———- ———- NOI 42,702 39,150 9.1% Leasehold expense 1,620 1,563 3.6% ———- ———- NOI after leasehold expense 41,082 37,587 9.3% Indirect operating expense (3) 8,781 9,610 -8.6% ———- ———- NOI after indirect operating and leasehold expense $ 32,301 $ 27,977 15.5% ========== ========== Avg. annual rent per sq. ft. (4) $ 21.52 $ 21.17 1.7% Avg. sq. ft. occupancy 75.0% 69.6% 7.8% Total net rentable sq. ft. 4,078,000 4,078,000 Number of properties 72 72 As defined in 2003 (2) ——————————— Year ended December 31, ——————————— (in thousands except average rent) 2003(5) 2002(5) % Change ———- ———- ——— Storage center operations revenue $ 44,523 $ 41,714 6.7% Operating expense: Personnel expenses 5,435 4,832 12.5% Real estate taxes 1,714 1,830 -6.3% Repairs and maintenance 1,447 1,287 12.4% Marketing expense 2,309 2,150 7.4% Utilities and phone expenses 1,084 996 8.8% Cost of Goods Sold 1,466 1,084 35.2% Store admin and other expenses 2,718 2,712 0.2% ———- ———- Direct operating and real estate tax expense 16,173 14,891 8.6% ———- ———- NOI 28,350 26,823 5.7% Leasehold expense 1,167 1,062 9.9% ———- ———- NOI after leasehold expense 27,183 25,761 5.5% Indirect operating expense (3) 5,328 5,480 -2.8% ———- ———- NOI after indirect operating and leasehold expense $ 21,855 $ 20,281 7.8% ========== ========== Avg. annual rent per sq. ft. (4) $ 19.28 $ 18.66 3.3% Avg. sq. ft. occupancy 75.5% 73.5% 2.7% Total net rentable sq. ft. 2,736,000 2,736,000 Number of properties 47 47 (1) Amounts have been translated from local currencies at a constant exchange rate using the average exchange rate for 2004 for the 2004 to 2003 comparison and at 2003 average exchange rates for the 2003 to 2002 comparison. (2) Amounts have been translated from local currencies at a constant exchange rate using the average exchange rate for 2003 for the 2003 to 2002 comparison. (3) Indirect operating expense includes certain shared property costs such as district and regional management, national contracts personnel and marketing, as well as certain overhead costs allocated to property operations such as business information technology, human resources and accounting. It does not include internal real estate acquisition cost or abandoned development expense. Indirect operating expense is allocated to storage centers based on number of months in operation during the period. (4) Average annual rent per square foot is calculated by dividing actual rent collected by the average number of square feet occupied during the period. (5) The 2003 results were not consolidated in our Consolidated Financial Statements. Table 15: SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS, INC. EUROPEAN 2004 ANNUAL COMPARISON Annual comparison for European same store of 2004 versus 2003 and the annual comparison for European same store of 2003 versus 2002 (unaudited) Percent change of 2004 compared to 2003 —————————– 2004 Number of Average Properties Occupancy Revenue NOI Occupancy Rate —————————– —– ——— —– Belgium 15 77.1% 4.2% 5.4% 1.5% 1.8% Netherlands 15 69.6% 10.6% 9.8% 10.3% 1.2% France 16 82.3% 11.6% 14.3% 11.0% -0.2% Sweden 17 72.2% 10.9% 10.4% 9.3% 2.1% Denmark 2 73.7% 22.5% 37.9% 16.8% 2.4% United Kingdom 7 72.9% 7.1% -0.6% 4.7% 2.6% ———- ———- ——- —– ——— —– Europe Totals 72 75.0% 9.5% 9.1% 7.8% 1.7% ========== ========== ======= ===== ========= ===== Percent change of 2003 compared to 2002 —————————– 2003 Number of Average Properties Occupancy Revenue NOI Occupancy Rate —————————– —– ——— —– Belgium 14 77.3% 1.2% -4.0% -0.9% 4.5% Netherlands 6 75.4% 10.7% 12.9% 5.2% 4.7% France 11 78.5% 14.2% 21.8% 6.1% 6.5% Sweden 11 70.9% -0.8% -5.8% 1.4% -3.0% United Kingdom 5 74.7% 7.0% 11.7% 7.3% 0.2% ———- ———- ——- —– ——— —– Europe Totals 47 75.5% 6.7% 5.7% 2.7% 3.3% ========== ========== ======= ===== ========= ===== Table 16: SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS, INC. DOMESTIC YEAR TO DATE SAME STORE VINTAGE TABLE Domestic Same Store Vintage Analysis for the year December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 (unaudited) (In Total Net millions) Rentable Total sq. ft. Storage when Average Occupancy Number of Center all phases —————– Properties Cost (1) are complete 2004 2003 2002 ———— ———- ———– —– —– —– Same Store since 2004 60 $222.6 4,449,000 78% 74% 63% Same Store since 2003 30 137.2 1,845,000 84% 79% 69% Same Store since 2002 or prior 321 1,242.6 20,750,000 86% 85% 85% ————- ———- ———– —– —– —– Same Store total 411 $1,602.4 27,044,000 85% 83% 81% ============= ========== =========== ===== ===== ===== (In thousands) Average Annual Rent (per sq. ft)(2) Revenue ———————– —————————– 2004 2003 2002 2004 2003 2002 ——- ——- ——- ——— ——— ——— Same Store since 2004 $8.15 $7.84 $7.20 $30,937 $27,534 $14,658 Same Store since 2003 13.18 12.58 12.50 22,048 20,287 17,881 Same Store since 2002 or prior 12.04 11.82 11.84 235,084 227,576 226,125 ——- ——- ——- ——— ——— ——— Same Store total $11.53 $11.30 $11.47 $288,069 $275,397 $258,664 ======= ======= ======= ========= ========= ========= (In thousands) NOI (after leaseholds expenses) —————————— 2004 2003 2002 ——— ——— ———- Same Store since 2004 $18,810 $15,800 $7,349 Same Store since 2003 11,596 10,593 8,301 Same Store since 2002 or prior 160,413 154,748 155,562 ——— ——— ———- Same Store total $190,819 $181,141 $171,212 ========= ========= ========== (1) Total capitalized costs to storage centers since the store was acquired or developed. (2) Average annual rent per square foot is calculated by dividing actual rent collected by the average number of square feet occupied during the period. Table 17: SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS, INC. EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT European Development Performance Vintage Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2004, 2003 and 2002 (unaudited) (in Total Net Average Occupancy millions) Rentable —————– Number Total sq. ft. For the year ended, of Storage when all December 31, Prop- Center phases are —————– erties Cost (1) complete 2004 2003 2002 ——— ——— ———- ——– —– —– Opened in 2004 Germany 4 $ 28.0 202,000 5.0% – – France 4 24.7 217,000 1.9% – – Denmark 2 15.4 101,000 10.2% – – United Kingdom 3 32.4 123,000 28.9% – – ——— —— ———- ——– —– —– Total opened in 2004 13 $100.5 643,000 9.3% – – ========= ====== ========== ======== ===== ===== Opened in 2003 Belgium 1 $ 3.8 46,000 51.8% 4.9% – Netherlands 7 42.2 351,000 30.3% 2.1% – Germany 5 38.2 268,000 25.8% 2.6% – France 7 46.9 371,000 25.1% 3.1% – Sweden 2 12.5 94,000 36.2% 7.8% – Denmark 1 8.4 50,000 53.1% 9.5% – United Kingdom 3 34.0 149,000 34.4% 4.2% – ——— —— ———- ——– —– —– Total opened in 2003 26 $186.0 1,329,000 30.4% 3.5% – ========= ====== ========== ======== ===== ===== Opened in 2002 Belgium 2 $ 7.8 101,000 46.8% 33.7% 11.7% Netherlands 7 44.0 368,000 49.1% 29.7% 5.1% France 7 46.9 376,000 59.5% 35.0% 10.2% Sweden 3 20.2 151,000 66.5% 40.8% 12.5% Denmark 2 15.7 106,000 60.6% 25.1% 2.1% United Kingdom 3 35.4 163,000 61.2% 27.2% 3.7% ——— —— ———- ——– —– —– Total opened in 2002 24 $170.0 1,265,000 56.6% 32.2% 7.6% ========= ====== ========== ======== ===== ===== New Store Total 63 $456.5 3,237,000 36.5% 14.0% 7.6% ========= ====== ========== ======== ===== ===== Same store: —————— Opened in 2001 Belgium 1 $ 4.0 51,000 65.7% 53.5% 25.8% Netherlands 9 51.7 484,000 64.1% 54.2% 32.3% France 5 35.9 280,000 80.2% 65.2% 40.5% Sweden 6 35.7 315,000 69.4% 55.6% 28.3% Denmark 2 14.4 110,000 73.7% 63.1% 42.0% United Kingdom 2 22.2 102,000 61.8% 56.2% 47.1% ——— —— ———- ——– —– —– Total opened in 2001 25 $163.9 1,342,000 69.4% 57.7% 34.7% ========= ====== ========== ======== ===== ===== Opened in 2000 and before Belgium 14 $ 72.4 855,000 77.8% 77.3% 78.1% Netherlands 6 37.5 345,000 77.2% 75.4% 71.7% France 11 63.2 585,000 83.4% 78.5% 74.0% Sweden 11 68.0 677,000 73.5% 70.9% 70.0% United Kingdom 5 47.6 274,000 77.0% 74.7% 69.6% ——— —— ———- ——– —– —– Total opened before 2001 47 $288.7 2,736,000 77.8% 75.5% 73.5% ========= ====== ========== ======== ===== ===== Same Store Total 72 $452.6 4,078,000 75.0% 69.6% 60.1% ========= ====== ========== ======== ===== ===== (In thousands) Average Annual Rent (per sq. ft) (2) (3) Revenue (2) ———————— ————————– For the year ended, For the year ended, December 31, December 31, ———————— ————————– 2004 2003 2002 2004 2003 2002 —— —— —— ——- ——- ——- Opened in 2004 Germany $17.00 $ – $ – $ 193 $ – $ – France 21.77 – – 106 – – Denmark 18.95 – – 250 – – United Kingdom 19.56 – – 753 – – —— —— —— ——- ——- ——- Total opened in 2004 $19.17 $ – $ – $ 1,302 $ – $ – ====== ====== ====== ======= ======= ======= Opened in 2003 Belgium $14.49 $ 9.43 $ – $ 369 $ 24 $ – Netherlands 19.93 14.97 – 2,266 125 – Germany 14.20 7.62 – 1,069 61 – France 22.24 20.58 – 2,430 287 – Sweden 17.41 13.05 – 717 119 – Denmark 21.98 20.23 – 670 119 – United Kingdom 40.05 36.06 – 2,317 279 – —— —— —— ——- ——- ——- Total opened in 2003 $21.64 $18.11 $ – $ 9,838 $ 1,014 $ – ====== ====== ====== ======= ======= ======= Opened in 2002 Belgium $12.28 $12.18 $11.48 $ 625 $ 454 $ 122 Netherlands 18.82 18.95 14.76 3,614 2,266 152 France 19.93 20.56 19.89 5,183 3,142 632 Sweden 20.05 18.07 17.13 2,277 1,319 255 Denmark 21.44 20.76 10.70 1,503 607 5 United Kingdom 40.32 42.88 34.91 4,526 2,226 109 —— —— —— ——- ——- ——- Total opened in 2002 $22.14 $21.49 $17.85 $17,728 $10,014 $ 1,275 ====== ====== ====== ======= ======= ======= New Store Total $21.82 $21.15 $17.85 $28,868 $11,028 $ 1,275 ====== ====== ====== ======= ======= ======= Same store: —————— Opened in 2001 Belgium $15.42 $14.77 $14.02 $ 573 $ 449 $ 209 Netherlands 17.94 17.97 17.45 5,906 5,061 3,032 France 22.05 21.84 21.30 5,554 4,449 2,867 Sweden 18.24 17.50 17.77 4,612 3,602 1,875 Denmark 21.23 20.73 20.33 1,888 1,542 998 United Kingdom 41.01 41.85 37.87 2,876 2,706 2,082 —— —— —— ——- ——- ——- Total opened in 2001 $20.76 $20.68 $20.75 $21,409 $17,809 $11,063 ====== ====== ====== ======= ======= ======= Opened in 2000 and before Belgium $15.87 $15.61 $14.91 $11,684 $11,317 $10,949 Netherlands 22.26 21.45 20.47 6,383 6,052 5,457 France 26.29 26.25 24.66 14,271 13,323 11,702 Sweden 20.80 20.37 20.92 11,821 11,222 11,143 United Kingdom 32.40 31.18 31.13 7,673 7,144 6,687 —— —— —— ——- ——- ——- Total opened before 2001 $21.85 $21.36 $20.64 $51,832 $49,058 $45,938 ====== ====== ====== ======= ======= ======= Same Store Total $21.52 $21.17 $20.68 $73,241 $66,867 $57,001 ====== ====== ====== ======= ======= ======= (In thousands) NOI (2) (4) (after leasehold expenses) ——————————– For the year ended, December 31, ——————————– 2004 2003 2002 ——- ——- ——– Opened in 2004 Germany $ (887) $ – $ – France (625) (2) – Denmark (259) – – United Kingdom 84 – – ——- ——- ——– Total opened in 2004 $(1,687) $ (2) $ – ======= ======= ======== Opened in 2003 Belgium $ 110 $ (93) $ – Netherlands (357) (829) – Germany (915) (941) – France (783) (790) – Sweden (92) (314) – Denmark 232 (222) – United Kingdom 456 (204) – ——- ——- ——– Total opened in 2003 $(1,349) $(3,393) $ – ======= ======= ======== Opened in 2002 Belgium $ 89 $ (145) $ (255) Netherlands 1,253 51 (580) France 1,658 (5) (791) Sweden 1,008 186 (413) Denmark 560 (191) (254) United Kingdom 2,274 361 (274) ——- ——- ——– Total opened in 2002 $ 6,842 $ 257 $ (2,567) ======= ======= ======== New Store Total $ 3,806 $(3,138 ) $ (2,567) ======= ======= ======== Same store: —————— Opened in 2001 Belgium $ 317 $ 143 $ (57) Netherlands 2,532 1,907 (4) France 3,073 2,010 809 Sweden 2,133 1,399 (223) Denmark 873 633 107 United Kingdom 1,633 1,557 1,035 ——- ——- ——– Total opened in 2001 $10,561 $ 7,649 $ 1,667 ======= ======= ======== Opened in 2000 and before Belgium $ 7,549 $ 7,322 $ 7,630 Netherlands 3,983 4,020 3,561 France 7,993 7,596 6,248 Sweden 6,475 6,366 6,748 United Kingdom 4,521 4,634 4,153 ——- ——- ——– Total opened before 2001 $30,521 $29,938 $ 28,340 ======= ======= ======== Same Store Total $41,082 $37,587 $ 30,007 ======= ======= ======== (1) The actual completed cost of these projects are reported in U.S. dollars translated at the December 31, 2004 exchange rate of $1.36 to the euro. Operating results (see note (2) below) are reported at the average exchange rate for the year 2004 which was $1.24 to the euro. As these exchange rates are different we believe it does not allow for an accurate measure of property investment yield. We believe the application of a constant exchange rate to both the property cost and operating results would provide a more meaningful measure of investment yield. The cost of the storage centers excludes the excess cost of approximately $247 million we paid for part of our ownership interest acquisition in Shurgard Europe in 2003. (2) The amounts have been translated from local currencies at a constant exchange rate using the average exchange rate for 2004. (3) Average annual rent per square foot is calculated by dividing actual rent collected by the average number of square feet occupied during the period. On the year of opening the average annual rent is lower as the store had not been opened a full year. (4) Expenses in some instances may include certain pre- opening costs Table 19: SHURGARD STORAGE CENTERS, INC. STORE ASSET VALUES AND OPERATING INFORMATION For the three months ended December 31, 2004 (Unaudited) Weighted average (in thousands Net except for No. of ownership Rentable Occupancy Gross Book number of Square properties) Properties interest Feet (Q4 Avg) Value (7) ———- ——— ——— ——— ———– Same Store —————- Domestic wholly owned or leased (1) 328 100% 21,105 85% $1,264,519 Domestic consolidated joint ventures (2) 83 79% 5,939 83% 337,863 European consolidated subsidiary (4) 72 87% 4,078 77% 618,821 ———- ——— ——— ——— ———- Total Same Store 483 94% 31,122 84% $2,221,203 ========== ========= ========= ========= ========== New Store —————- Domestic wholly owned or leased developments (1) 22 100% 1,283 67% $ 119,395 Domestic consolidated joint ventures developments (2) 12 73% 728 61% 53,467 Domestic acquisitions (3) 27 96% 1,950 80% 153,784 European consolidated subsidiary developments (4) 30 87% 1,550 60% 296,200 European 20% development ventures developments (5) 32 17% 1,649 30% 225,466 European acquisition (3) 1 100% 38 88% 15,713 Domestic Properties under leasing arrangements (6) 3 0% 211 61% 22,481 ———- ——— ——— ——— ———- Total New Store 127 71% 7,409 60% $ 886,506 ========== ========= ========= ========= ========== TOTALS 610 89% 38,531 79% $3,107,709 ========== ========= ========= ========= ========== (in thousands Fair except for Applicable Q4 Q4 Leasehold value number of properties) debt ( 8 ) Revenue NOI (9) Expense of debt ———- ——— ——– ——— ——— Same Store —————- Domestic wholly owned or leased (1) $ 50,793 $ 59,399 $40,441 $1,116 $ 51,022 Domestic consolidated joint ventures (2) 154,046 13,335 9,066 25 161,184 European consolidated subsidiary (4) 313,797 19,691 11,783 426 313,797 ——– ——– ——- —— ——– Total Same Store $518,636 $ 92,425 $61,290 $1,567 $526,003 ======== ======== ======= ====== ======== New Store —————- Domestic wholly owned or leased developments (1) $ – $ 2,847 $ 1,175 $ 120 $ – Domestic consolidated joint ventures developments (2) 3,807 1,498 668 – 3,837 Domestic acquisitions (3) 36,095 4,517 2,798 – 36,232 European consolidated subsidiary developments (4) 140,614 6,175 2,650 69 140,614 European 20% development ventures developments (5) 137,764 2,920 (691) 61 137,764 European acquisition (3) – 430 247 – – Domestic Properties under leasing arrangements (6) – 584 297 – – ——– ——– ——- —— ——– Total New Store $318,280 $ 18,971 $ 7,144 $ 250 $318,447 ======== ======== ======= ====== ======== TOTALS $836,916 $111,396 $68,434 $1,817 $844,450 ======== ======== ======= ====== ======== 1 Includes owned and leased properties in which we have a 100% interest. 2 Includes properties in which we own an interest less than 100% but that are consolidated in our financial statements. The store information and results reflected the full 100% amounts. Our pro-rata share in the same store pool is approximately 79% and our pro-rata share in the new store pool is represents approximately 73%. 3 Includes all stores acquired in 2004 and 2003. 4 Includes properties developed under Shurgard Europe in which we hold an 87.23% interest. 5 Includes properties developed under First and Second Shurgard in which we hold a 17.4% interest. 6 Three storage centers are operated through a leasing arrangement with a California developer for which the storage centers assets are consolidated in our financial statements but not the store operations. 7 Gross Book Value represents the cost of developing properties at the time they were developed, not the value at which partners interests in the properties may have been acquired for at a later date. The actual completed cost of these projects are reported in U.S. dollars translated at the December 31, 2004 exchange rate of $1.36 to the Euro. Operating results are reported at the average exchange rate for the year ended December 31, 2004 which was $1.24 to the Euro. As these exchange rates are different we believe it does not allow for an accurate measure of property investment yield. However, we believe the application of a constant exchange rate to both the property cost and operating results may provide a more meaningful measure of investment yield. 8 Applicable debt represents debt secured against each asset pool. Represents Net Operating Income after Direct Expenses. The indirect expenses not included in NOI for Domestic 9 Same Store, European Same store, Domestic New Store and Europe Store are the following (in thousands except indirect expense per revenue dollar): Indirect expense Q4 indirect per revenue expense Q4 revenue dollar —————- —————– ————— Domestic Europe Domestic Europe Domestic Europe ——– ——- ——– ——– ——– —— Same Store $4,702 $2,483 $72,734 $13,335 $0.06 $0.19 —— —— ——- ——- —– —– New Store $ 646 $2,798 $ 9,446 $ 9,525 $0.07 $0.29 —— —— ——- ——- —– —– SOURCE: Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. Dev Ghose or Stuart Blackie, 206-624-8100 or Broadgate Consultants, Inc. Alan Oshiki, 212-232-2222 (Media Contact) Copyright Business Wire 2005 News Provided by COMTEX
Parrédaction

Le site pour particuliers et professionnels dédié à l’actualité du Self Stockage en France et en Europe.

Le site self stockage est un blog dédié à l’actualité du Self Stockage en France et en Europe.

Parrédaction

L’imprimé sans adresse apprécié par 83 % des Français

Du 22 au 30 septembre dernier, TNS Sofres a réalisé pour Adrexo un sondage, auprès d’un échantillon de 1 000 personnes, représentatif des Français de plus de 15 ans, sur l’imprimé sans adresse.

Il en ressort que 91 % des Français reçoivent de la publicité sans adresse dans leur boîte à lettres et que 83 % d’entre eux aiment lire les prospectus et catalogues qu’ils y trouvent. D’ailleurs, en septembre, ils n’étaient que moins de 2 % à avoir apposé un autocollant « stop-pub » sur leur boîte. Par ailleurs, 52 % des lecteurs conservent les catalogues après les avoir lus et 43 % des Français, ayant reçu de la PNA, ont acheté un produit ou un service dans les deux mois suivant la lecture d’un prospectus ou d’un catalogue.

Apprécié, l’ISA l’est sans conteste, puisque 83 % des Français veulent en recevoir. Et ce, pour des raisons d’information – 69 % des lecteurs pensent que les catalogues et prospectus leur permettent d’être mieux informés – et d’économie – 57 % estimant que la PNA favorise la concurrence entre les grandes surfaces et limite la hausse des prix.

Avec les pages jaunes, les prospectus restent à ce jour le vecteur de prédilection pour les entreprises du self-stockage. Les mois de mai et juin sont ceux où ce concentre l’essentiel des campagnes.

Parrédaction

573 sites de self stockage en Angleterre

Les premiers résultats d’une grande enquête réalisée par Steel Storage, identifierait 573 sites de self stockage en Angleterre, dont 212 appartenant à de grands opérateurs.

Les résultats définitifs seront publiés en Juin, en attendant vous pouvez consulter l’étude provisoire au format pdf

Pour mémoire il y a à ce jour seulement 115 sites en France.

Parrédaction

Deal of the Year

The £209 million takeover of a storage company by a competitor five times smaller has been named the Birmingham Deal of the Year.

Safestore Holdings became the biggest self storage company in Britain after spending £209 million to acquire Mentmore Abbey.

The Hertfordshire firm is now the second largest storage company in Europe, with an annual turnover of £50 million.

Parrédaction

La vague des fusions dans le self-stockage anglais atteint les côtes françaises

Une pièce en plus, la filiale du groupe Safestore vient d’acquérir les 17 sites français d’Access self-stockage. Elle devient par la même le deuxième opérateur de self-stockage en France avec 20 sites en région parisienne, 3 sur Lyon et un à Nice

Access self-stockage qui était issue de la fusion d’Access, À la clef, Abri-Stock et Alfa self stockage, est composé de bâtiments très variés, reconvertis pour le self stockage, et en majorité en location. Un long travail d’intégration et d’homogénéisation attend maintenant l’équipe dirigeante d’Une pièce en plus.

Ceci n’empêche pas Une pièce en plus de continuer le développement de nouveaux sites, avec deux sites qui devraient ouvrir cette année région parisienne.

Parrédaction

Les Pages Jaunes coûtent chères, doublez leur rentabilité.

Encore aujourd’hui, les pages jaunes restent le mode publicitaire le plus efficace dans l’activité de self stockage Lyon ou votre garde meubles à Bordeaux, reste seulement à bien l’utiliser. Tout d’abord le choix de la rubrique est très important, puis la rédaction de l’annonce elle-même

Actuellement les Pages Jaunes proposent des rubriques telles que garde-meubles, location de boxes… Votre encart va être noyé au milieu d’une multitude de propositions, et la taille de l’encart ne vous classera pas en premier pour autant.

Le choix n’est pas aisé, le manque de connaissance du métier par le public impose de se positionner sur plusieurs rubriques. Notre dernier sondage, montre que la rubrique garde-meubles reste pour l’instant la principale rubrique (47% des suffrages), suivie par stockage (boxes de stockage individuels) et enfin déménagement.

Afin de vous conforter, et d’évoluer dans votre choix de rubrique, répertoriez tous les appels, demandes, afin de connaître la façon dont on vous a connu : Pages Jaunes, signalétique, prospectus, panneaux, presse…. Cet outil indispensable vous permet de quantifier chaque mode publicitaire, et ainsi de l’accentuer en fonction du taux de retour.

La réalisation d’une publicité dans les Pages Jaunes répond à un certain nombre de critères autres que purement esthétiques. Tous les conseils et superbe mise en page que l’on pourra vous proposer ne compenseront pas le non respect de quelques règles essentielles.

[b]Votre Titre [/b]

L’élément le plus important de votre annonce est votre titre. Beaucoup de sites de stockage mettent leur nom commercial en premier sur l’annonce, c’est un mauvais choix. Votre titre est l’accroche de votre annonce. Vouloir satisfaire votre ego avec votre nom en évidence, n’a pas de logique commerciale. Qui va être interpellé par votre nom, au milieu des multiples annonces, pensez-vous réellement que les clients viennent pour votre belle enseigne ?

Non, bien sûr, c’est ce que vous leur offrez qui les intéresse, et surtout ce qui vous différencie des autres. C’est cette particularité, cette offre de vente unique qu’il faut mettre en avant. Par exemple, « l’ouverture 24h/24 et 7jours sur 7 », « l’emplacement en centre-ville », … Le titre est l’élément le plus important d’une annonce de Pages Jaunes. Elle interpellera des prospects dans leurs recherches si vous l’employez efficacement.

La rédaction du titre devra être accrocheuse, comme « le seul site ouvert 24h/24 », « site unique au centre-ville ».

[b]Lister les services et leurs avantages [/b]

La plupart des prospects qui vont lire votre annonce, n’ont jamais loué de box auparavant. Ils ne connaissent pas le fonctionnement, il est important de lister les services et de préciser pour chacun l’avantage, l’intérêt qui en découle.
Voici un exemple : « chaque box a une alarme individuelle », il faudra préciser : « ceci nous permet de savoir quand une personne non autorisée a essayé d’entrer dans le box. » Si le service est « accès 24h/24 », l’avantage est : « ainsi vous pouvez disposer de vos affaires à tout moment, nuit et jour ».

Plan d’accès
Une carte routière petite mais lisible devrait être incluse dans chaque annonce des pages Jaunes. Elle doit fournir les indications principales pour arriver au site. Le but de la carte est de montrer aux gens dans quel secteur le site se trouve. Il est important de préciser l’implantation d’un supermarché ou commerce connu. Cette carte ne doit pas excéder un 6ème de l’annonce.
Si vous utilisez ces conseils à bon escient, vous allez voir presque instantanément vos retombées publicitaires augmentez.

Parrédaction

Financing in the U.K. Self-Storage Market

Fast growth, enormous potential attract investors

By Andrew Jacobs
The U.S. self-storage market is more than 30 years old and comprises more than 37,000 properties, with an average occupancy of 84.6 percent. It has grown rapidly from 1992, when 19,500 properties experienced an average occupancy rate of 84.8 percent. The U.K. market, on the other hand, is in its early stages, with only 400 facilities. U.K. investors and financiers, encouraged by cross-cultural comparisons, are hopeful their immature self-storage market will follow the product growth enjoyed in the United States over the past few decades.

The U.K. storage market has two distinct characteristics: It is highly fragmented and growing extremely fast. Both are attractive to financiers, as consolidation and growth in any industry require money. The rapid expansion and earning potential of self-storage in the United Kingdom is driving consolidation at the top and bottom ends of the market. The bigger companies in the sector are using their tremendous buying power to seize market share and force operational efficiencies via information-technology systems.

A year ago, the four major U.K. self-storage players were quoted on the London Stock Exchange (LSE): Big Yellow, Lok’nStore, Mentmore and Safestore. These companies used their quoted status to raise capital through the equity markets. The strategy allowed them to avoid expensive debt and finance growth early in the establishment of businesses that, at the time, weren’t generating cash, let alone profits.

The consolidation that has taken place in the United Kingdom over the past year is largely due to U.S. financial institutions that see the enormous potential for growth. U.S. private-equity business Bridgepoint bought Safestore in August 2003 and took it private. In 2004, following a bidding war against Guy Hands, another private-equity player, Safestore—again backed by Bridgepoint—bought Mentmore. Mentmore was removed from the LSE and assimilated into the Safestore business. It’s now the largest U.K. self-storage player, with 70 stores across the country.

Debt vs. Equity Financing

Top-end consolidation of the market is sensible because debt is a cheap way of financing growth in a period of sustained low interest rates. The cost of capital has decreased relative to equity finance, which is relatively expensive in a low-interest-rate environment.

In neither the equity nor debt-financed models are businesses run for dividend flow. It isn’t yield that interests either set of investors at this early stage. They are looking at capital growth and gaining a strong market position for future expansion and dividends. At this point, all the U.K. players are driving for scale and site location, key tenets to a successful business going forward.

There are advantages to both financing models. Being quoted on the LSE allows businesses to issue paper to finance growth, and that motivates those involved—including board members, storage managers and sales teams. Lok’nStore aligned the interests of much of its staff with shareholders by issuing options and discounted shares. The move has yielded significant results, creating motivated team members focused on what they need to make good money for themselves and, therefore, shareholders.

Big Players and the LSE

After the sales of Safestore and Mentmore, the only other LSE quoted player is Big Yellow, which has 32 stores and has just been reclassified from the Support Services sector to the Real Estate sector—an interesting move. This has been done to encourage the City to value the business—not on a discounted cash-flow basis, but in terms of its net asset value. Big Yellow accompanied its announcement with news the company will commission an external valuation of its property assets, all in an attempt to get a higher rating.

The U.K. industry expects Safestore to come back to the market and list on the LSE at some point as Bridgepoint looks for an exit. The move will come as the cost of debt increases in the future and the entire industry matures; all the players will generate not only significant cash, but profits to pay generous dividends to shareholders.

This move would be welcomed by Lok’nStore. A problem with having only two quoted self-storage companies listed on the LSE is the relative lack of comparative businesses. The more quoted players there are, the more interest broking houses will show. Also, it increases the following of sell-side analysts and attracts more investors in the sector, which, again, helps communicate the value of the business and drives liquidity. Lok’nStore’s rating would likely improve if there were more listed self-storage companies.

The relatively green U.K. market is growing fast and already generating noteworthy amounts of cash. It is showing every sign that it will follow the United States in terms of growth, profitability and continued consolidation. An interesting and exciting few years lie ahead for the industry and its financiers as U.K. self-storage grows from adolescence to adulthood.

Andrew Jacobs is chief executive of Lok’nStore Group PLC, one of two self-storage companies quoted on the London Stock Exchange. For more information, visit www.loknstore.co.uk.

This article was reprinted with permission from Inside Self-Storage magazine, the premier magazine of self-storage professionals. For more information, visit www.insideselfstorage.com.

Parrédaction

Huge in the US, gaining ground in UK

Self-storage is big business in the US where it has been established for over 40 years and everything we are seeing anecdotally suggests the concept is gaining in popularity here too.

The concept of self-storage is simple enough. It is basically do-it-yourself warehouse storage space for businesses and households on a pay-as-you-go basis. Every customer is provided with a set of keys and access to goods is 7 days a week. The installation of CCTV cameras, fire alarms and remote monitoring systems provides for high level security at all times. Our research indicates that the average price for a 50 sq ft box is £65 per month, dependent on location, so this is a low-ticket item.

In addition demand tends to be price-inelastic because it is based on the growing need for flexibility. Key industry growth drivers include a rising level of consumer familiarity, an active housing market, increasing population mobility and cultural changes that have led to a rise in the divorce rate and single parent families.

In the business category, Lok’nStore says retailers, removal companies, manufacturers and even councils and universities are all using self storage to cope with peak trading periods such as the run up to Christmas, for instance.

Latest industry estimates suggest the US has over 35,000 self-storage centres, or c.4.5 sq ft per head of population. The numbers for the UK are c.400 selfstorage centres providing the equivalent of c. 0.2 sq ft per head of population. Lok’nStore management believe the UK could potentially support at least 1,500 self-storage sites.

Presently, 70% of the available sq ft in the UK is based in the South of England, partly because of high catchments of A-B-C socio-economic groups, but also because of high penetration rates that allow for multiple stores in any one location.

Obtaining external estimates on the growth of the UK self-storage industry is difficult – this is an immature market that has only truly been established since the early 1990’s. Anecdotal evidence from the industry’s 5 biggest players, Shurguard, ACCESS, Safestore/Mentmore, Big Yellow and Lok’nStore (which between them control 45% of the market in terms of developed space) all point to growth of 20% 4 plus over the past five years however, and most industry observers believe this trend is set to continue.

In its latest results to end March 2004, Big Yellow reported sales growth in its mature outlets of 17% while the growth reported by Lok’nStore’s eight stores over 5 years of age in the year to end July was 17.8%. Below the 5 leading players, we believe the selfstorage market in the UK is still very fragmented with a high proportion of small operators running between one and five units.

Self-Stockage.info