Case StudiesExtracts

Excerpts from the files.

What follows are accounts drawn from Manus Management’s own working papers. Every mandate we hold generates the same document each year, and these are extracts from that document rather than accounts written afterwards for a website.

They have been anonymised thoroughly. No property is identifiable, locations are given only by canton or region, dates are approximate and the figures have been rounded to a degree that protects the owner while keeping the shape of the outcome honest. Relevant clients have read and approved the versions published here.

Mixed-use·Canton of Geneva·Asset management and capital works·34 months

The building that was worth more empty

The file, as we found it: Five storeys, built in the early sixties, held by the same family since 1974. The ground-floor commercial unit was let to a retailer whose turnover had been falling for six years, at a rent roughly a third below what the location supported, on a lease the managing agent had been renewing automatically. Above it sat four apartments of around 180m² each, all let, all difficult to move whenever a tenant left.
What we said: The retail unit should not be re-let as retail under any circumstances. We advised that the ground floor would produce more as professional office space, subject to consent, and that two of the four apartments were the wrong size for the market and should be subdivided at the next vacancy.
What was said back: That the retailer had been a tenant for twenty-two years and the family felt an obligation to him. This was not an unreasonable position and we did not treat it as one.
What we did: Negotiated a surrender by agreement, with a payment to the tenant and an introduction to a smaller unit two streets away that suited his trade rather better. We established the consent position before instructing an architect. We coordinated the conversion of the ground floor, subdividing two apartments as their tenants left and ran the works to a fixed programme.
Where it stands: Rental income from the building is a little over 60% higher than when we took it on. There were nine months of substantially reduced income during the works, which we forecast at eleven. The retailer is still trading.

Residential portfolio·Two cantons·Portfolio review and disposals·Ongoing since 2019

Nine buildings, and the argument for five

The file, as we found it: An inherited estate divided between four siblings, none of whom were residents in Switzerland, managed by an agent appointed by their late father. Nine buildings, two of which produced almost no net income after debt and works, and one of which had been the subject of an unresolved boundary dispute for over a decade.
What we said: Sell four. Not because they were bad buildings but because nine holdings managed remotely by four people who disagreed politely with one another was producing worse outcomes than five holdings managed properly. We also recommended settling the boundary matter at a cost the family considered offensive.
What was said back: Agreement on three of the four disposals. On the fourth – a small building in a commune we regarded as having limited prospects – one sibling refused outright. Her argument was that the commune had a new development plan under consultation and that we had underweighted it.
What we did: Sold three, settled the boundary dispute within seven months, and kept the fourth building under a watching brief at her insistence.
Where it stands: She was right. The plan was adopted, the building sits within the affected perimeter and it is now the second most valuable asset in the portfolio. We have said so in each annual review since, because a file that only records the recommendations that worked is not worth keeping.

Mixed portfolio·Switzerland and France·Financial management and refinancing·19 months

When the debt and the roof arrived together

The file, as we found it: Rental income earned almost entirely in Swiss francs, against borrowings held partly in euros because the rates had looked attractive at the time. Four mortgages maturing within the same fourteen-month window. A roof replacement on the largest holding that had been deferred twice and could not be deferred again.
What we said: The currency mismatch was an unpriced position the family had never consciously taken, and the maturity clustering meant a single bad quarter in the rate market would land on the entire portfolio at once.
What was said back: Very little. This was one of the rare occasions where the recommendation was accepted without argument, largely because the roof made the timing concrete.
What we did: Prepared a full refinancing package and took it to five lenders rather than to the incumbent alone. Retired the euro exposure. Staggered the new maturities across six years and sized the amortisation so that the works programme could be funded from operating cash instead of a further facility.
Where it stands: Financing costs fell by an amount the family found surprising, though the greater benefit is that no single year now carries more than one maturity. The roof was replaced in the summer of the following year.

Commercial·Lake Geneva region·Investment advisory·4 months, then 14

The acquisition we advised against twice

The file, as we found it: A client resident outside Switzerland asked us to review a building he had already viewed and, by the tone of the instruction, already decided upon. Prime position. A tenant covenant that looked stronger on the letterhead than in the accounts. An asking price implying a net yield of 2.9%.
What we said: No. The Lex Koller position on the residential portion was unresolved and would have required restructuring the purchase entirely. The tenant's accounts showed a business consuming its own reserves. At that price the building needed everything to go right for eight years.
What was said back: Considerable irritation was expressed, though communicated politely. We were asked to look again. Our Manus Management analysts looked again and gave the same answer, in writing, with the underwriting attached.
What we did: Nothing, which was the point. We kept a note on the file and stayed in contact with the vendor's notary.
Where it stands: The tenant entered difficulty fourteen months later. The vendor returned to the market, and our client acquired the building at a price approximately 19% below the original asking, with the residential portion structured correctly and a new tenant agreed in principle before completion.

Residential·Canton of Vaud·Property management handover·First 12 months

Five years of service charges nobody had reconciled

The file, as we found it: A well-maintained building in an excellent street, managed by an agent who was neither dishonest nor especially interested. Service charge accounts had not been reconciled since 2018. Arrears stood at just over four months of rental income across the tenancies, with no recovery action commenced against anyone. The insurance schedule described a building substantially smaller than the one that existed.
What we said: Manus Management analysts pointed out that the underinsurance was the urgent item and everything else could wait a fortnight.
What was said back: The owner had assumed all of this was being done. Most owners do assume it, which is precisely why it goes unnoticed for years.
What we did: Corrected the insurance within eleven days. Reconstructed and reconciled five years of service charge accounts, which produced a refund position for some tenants and a recoverable balance from others. Opened recovery on the arrears, settling the majority by instalment agreement rather than through the courts. Retendered the maintenance contracts, two of which had rolled over annually since 2016.
Where it stands: Arrears are now under two weeks of income. Recoverable expenditure is being recovered. The owner's annual reporting pack runs to fourteen pages and is, by her own description, the first document about her property she has read all the way through.