Re: Rate of return in forestry

• To: Multiple recipients of list FOREST <FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI>
• Subject: Re: Rate of return in forestry
• From: Sam Radcliffe <samr@GBCMKE.SOL.NET>
• Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:27:17 +0000
• content-length: 1186
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
• Priority: normal
• Reply-To: FOREST Mailing list on forest research and studies <FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI>
• Sender: OWNER-FOREST@LISTSERV.FUNET.FI

\From:           Ted Bilek <t.bilek@FORE.CANTERBURY.AC.NZ>
\
\While I agree that 20% seems most unrealistic as a planning basis for a
\forestry investment, I just wanted to point out that 2-4% is far worse than
\we expect in New Zealand.  I'm also curious what rates of return are
\expected elsewhere.  I'll be happy to summarize any information I receive
\on this for a future posting to the list.
\
\Ted


Hi Ted,

The institutional (pension fund) timberland investors in the US
report the following rates of return (nominal, pre
tax):


Wachovia (southern pine) 1981-94:    11.22
    "      "       "        1994:     5.13

NCREIF Timberland Index (mostly reflects the returns of John
Hancock):
    South                1987-95:    14.58
    Pacific NW              "        38.10
    South                   1995:    21.52
    Pacific NW              "         9.89

These indexes include both income and capital appreciation
(often based on appraised values).


                    ...Sam
-----------------------------------------------
Samuel J. Radcliffe         Voice: 414-276-2062
George Banzhaf & Company    Fax:   414-276-5206
-----------------------------------------------

• Prev: Re: Vegetation field data & handheld computers
• Next: Re: Vegetation field data & handheld computers
• Index: Forest mailing list February 1996
• Thread: Forest list subjects in February 1996