Special Purpose Vehicles verändern den Zugang von Investoren zu Schweizer Immobilien

In Switzerland, special purpose vehicles, typically single-asset companies established to hold individual properties, have become a standard structuring tool in real estate investment. While such vehicles have long been used by pension funds and insurers to isolate risk and financing at asset level, they are increasingly employed to give private investors exposure to properties that would otherwise require equity commitments well above CHF 1 million and full compliance with Swiss ownership and regulatory rules.

Structure does not alter return drivers

Regardless of ownership structure, Swiss real estate performance remains largely income-driven. According to MSCI’s Switzerland Annual Property Index, income return accounted for roughly 65 % of total performance between 2004 and 2023, with capital growth contributing the remainder. Following the valuation correction triggered by rising interest rates in 2022, income represented more than 80 % of total return in several institutional portfolios, underlining the limited role of short-term price appreciation in the Swiss market.

This performance profile applies equally to assets held directly and those owned through single-asset holding vehicles. Vacancy risk, tenant quality, maintenance costs and financing conditions remain decisive. Special purpose vehicles therefore function as organisational infrastructure rather than as instruments that change the economic fundamentals of property investment.

Fixed costs and minimum economic scale

One of the most frequently underestimated aspects of SPV structures is their fixed cost base. Legal setup, notarial services, accounting, audit, tax reporting and governance documentation represent expenses that are largely independent of asset size. Swiss fiduciary firms and law practices estimate annual running costs for a professionally administered single-asset company at CHF 20’000 to CHF 40’000, depending on complexity and reporting requirements.

Institutional investors typically apply internal thresholds to determine when a single-asset structure is economically justified. Market practitioners indicate that such vehicles become cost-efficient only once ongoing expenses fall clearly below 0.5 % of invested equity per year. Below that level, fixed costs can materially erode net returns, particularly in a market where long-term total returns have historically averaged 5 % to 6 % per annum, according to MSCI and IPD Switzerland data.

This scale discipline explains why institutions rarely use SPVs for small assets and why, for private investors, structure selection must be assessed against ticket size rather than access considerations alone.

Liquidity remains conditional

SPVs are often perceived as more liquid than direct ownership. In practice, liquidity is conditional rather than inherent. Swiss real estate is structurally illiquid, and single-asset vehicles replicate this characteristic unless supported by an active secondary market and permissive transfer rules.

Many Swiss SPVs restrict share transfers to preserve regulatory status, financing covenants or investor composition. Such restrictions are common in institutional joint ventures and often legally necessary. Their consequence, however, is that exits may be infrequent, price discovery limited and transaction timelines uncertain. By contrast, listed Swiss property companies offer daily liquidity but expose investors to market volatility and sentiment effects largely absent in private vehicles.

Evidence from Swiss non-listed real estate funds shows that redemption restrictions and notice periods are standard, particularly during periods of market stress. SPVs should therefore be assessed as long-term investments with conditional exit options rather than as substitutes for liquid instruments.

Governance outweighs asset quality

Institutional investors consistently identify governance as the primary risk factor in single-asset structures. This assessment is reflected in supervisory commentary by Finma, which has repeatedly highlighted governance weaknesses as a vulnerability in parts of the non-listed real estate market. Concentrated decision-making power, insufficient minority protections and opaque valuation processes have been cited as sources of instability.

Institutional SPVs address these risks through detailed shareholder agreements, clearly defined voting rights and predefined rules for refinancing, capital increases and asset disposal. These mechanisms are not ancillary features but core components of risk management. For private investors, governance quality often matters more than property quality, particularly in stressed scenarios where interests between investors diverge.

Financing alignment and interest-rate exposure

Financing strategy is another area where SPVs can either enhance resilience or amplify risk. Swiss institutional real estate vehicles typically operate with conservative leverage. Annual reports of major listed property companies show average loan-to-value ratios of 30 % to 35 %, average remaining debt maturities of around four years and equity ratios frequently exceeding 50 %.

This positioning proved decisive during the rapid rise in interest rates between 2022 and 2023, when transaction volumes declined sharply and valuations adjusted. While highly leveraged private owners faced refinancing pressure, institutional SPVs were largely insulated by long-dated debt and predictable amortisation schedules.

For SPVs targeting private capital, alignment between financing horizon and intended holding period is therefore critical. Short-term or aggressively structured debt undermines one of the core rationales for using a single-asset vehicle, namely risk isolation at asset level.

When SPVs are the appropriate tool

Institutional practice suggests that SPVs are most effective when investors seek targeted exposure to a specific asset, accept a long-term horizon and value transparency at property level. They are particularly suitable where investors aim to replicate institutional structuring standards without building their own operational infrastructure.

In such cases, SPVs allow risk to be ring-fenced, governance to be formalised and reporting to be standardised. For Swiss real estate, where regulatory clarity and financing discipline are decisive, this alignment with institutional practice can be a material advantage.

When alternative structures dominate

SPVs are less suitable where investors prioritise liquidity, very small ticket sizes or broad diversification. In these cases, listed property companies or regulated collective investment schemes may offer better alignment, even if asset-level visibility is reduced.

Similarly, investors unwilling to engage with governance documentation or accept limited exit optionality may find SPVs ill-suited to their objectives. Institutional investors routinely choose between direct ownership, single-asset vehicles and pooled structures based on these trade-offs rather than on access considerations alone.

Structure as an investment decision

The growing availability of SPVs in Swiss real estate reflects genuine demand for structured access, but availability should not be confused with suitability. Institutional experience shows that structure selection is itself an investment decision, with measurable implications for cost efficiency, risk and return stability.

For private investors, the lesson is clear. Special purpose vehicles can bridge the gap between direct ownership and institutional portfolios, but only when scale, governance and financing are aligned. Used selectively, they enable disciplined participation in Swiss real estate. Used indiscriminately, they add complexity without changing the underlying economics.

Readers seeking background on SPV mechanics and Swiss real estate regulation may cread the following content published in our Capiwell Insights:

• Understanding SPVs and real estate shares provides an overview of single-asset holding structures and fractional ownership models.
• Swiss real estate investment guide outlines market access, asset classes and risk drivers.
• The regulatory implications for foreign investors are discussed in How Lex Koller affects foreign real estate investment in Switzerland.