Annual Report 2020

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Annual Report 2020 Growing with values. Annual Report 2020 peachproperty.com 2 Annual Report 2020 of Peach Property Group AG Key Figures Peach Property Group AG is a real estate investor with its investment focus on residential real estate in Germany. Our tenants are at the center of our activities. With innovative solutions for modern living needs, we offer clear added value. Our portfolio comprises high yielding investment properties, typically in German Tier II cities in the commuter belt of metropolitan areas. In addition, we are developing selected projects to be sold as condominiums. Our services span the entire value chain, from location evaluation and acquisition to active asset management and the rental or sale of our properties. We have our registered office in Zurich; our German headquarters are based in Cologne. The shares of Peach Property Group AG are listed on the SIX Swiss Exchange. Peach Property Group (consolidated) Dec 31, 2020 Dec 31, 2019 Operating income in CHF thousands 213 584 160 734 EPRA like-for like rental income in % 4.7 4.5 Operating result in CHF thousands 178 563 129 827 Result before tax in CHF thousands 153 354 109 675 Result after tax in CHF thousands 127 282 91 004 NAV IFRS in CHF thousands 754 862 389 564 NAV Market Value in CHF thousands 762 459 401 298 Equity ratio (IFRS) in % 33.9 32.3 Equity ratio (NAV market value) 1 in % 34.2 32.9 Real estate portfolio at market values (incl. right-of-use assets) 1 in CHF thousands 2 112 450 1 130 696 Number of FTEs 119 78 Number of shares (nominal value of CHF 1.00 each) 12 494 751 6 601 474 Share capital in CHF thousands 12 495 6 601 Diluted earnings per share in CHF 14.30 12.06 Diluted FFO II per share 2 in CHF 0.60 -0.35 NAV IFRS per share 3 in CHF 50.70 43.34 NAV market value per share 1,3 in CHF 51.31 45.11 EPRA NTA per share in CHF 57.29 50.63 Share price as of December 31 in CHF 46.00 39.50 Market capitalization as of 31 December 4 in CHF thousands 574 497 260 719 1 NAV market value based on the independent appraisal of Wüest Partner incl. assets held for sale. 2 Excluding the dilutive effect in the current and previous year. 3 Excluding hybrid capital and non-controlling interests. 4 Excluding treasury shares. 3 Content Editorial 4 Business Model 8 Milestones 2020 – Focus on digitalization 10 Milestones 2011 - 2020 12 Sustainability Report 15 Highlights 2020 27 Portfolio 28 Interview with Management Team 34 Investor information 37 Corporate Governance and Remuneration Report 45 Section 1 - Corporate Governance 46 Section 2 - Remuneration Report 64 Report of the statutory auditor on the remuneration report 72 Consolidated financial statements 75 Consolidated statement of income 76 Consolidated statement of comprehensive income 77 Consolidated statement of financial position 78 Consolidated statement of cash flows 80 Consolidated statement of changes in shareholders’ equity 82 Notes to the consolidated financial statements 86 Report of the Statutory Auditor on the Consolidated Financial Statements 147 Report by the independent appraisal expert 152 EPRA Reporting 156 Individual financial statements 165 Statement of financial position 166 Statement of income 168 Notes to the financial statements 169 Proposed appropriation of retained earnings 181 Report of the Statutory Auditor on the Financial Statements 182 Contact / Events / Imprint 187 4 Annual Report 2020 of Peach Property Group AG Reto A. Garzetti Dr. Thomas Wolfensberger Chairman of the Board of Directors Chief Executive Officer Dear shareholder, Due to the prevailing extraordinary circumstances, 2020 CHF 127.3 million speaks for itself. We maintained the suc- proved to be challenging for all of us, yet it was a very cessful trends of recent years while accelerating momen- successful year for Peach Property Group AG from a bu- tum. Against this backdrop and with an additional, active, siness standpoint. We consistently implemented our stra- and strong anchor shareholder at our side, we believe we tegy as a highly digitized, tenant-centric, and high-growth are ideally positioned for our next growth steps. real estate Group, achieving record business results in the process. A 40 percent increase in profit after tax to Digital platform as success factor Our digital platform has once again proven its efficiency. mented SAP S/4HANA in the Group, a uniform and integ- During this financial year, we acquired around 10 800 new rated system for rental accounting, financial accounting, apartments in Germany and integrated them smoothly. and CAPEX management. We further increased our ad- By expanding our residential portfolio by 87 percent to ded value with continued insourcing. In 2020, Peach Pro- 23 200 units, while overhead costs rose by only 14 percent, perty Group has thus once again demonstrated, under we converted economies of scale into an above-average extraordinary circumstances, that digitalization, increased contribution to earnings. Accordingly, we further impro- efficiency, and tenant-oriented actions can be a fruitful ved our operating margin from around 73 percent to 75 symbiosis in the German real estate industry. percent. During the financial year, we successfully imple- Editorial 5 Portfolio expanded to a market value over CHF 2 billion – vacancy rate down despite COVID-19 As planned, we dynamically increased our residential port- In line with our strategy, the focus of Peach Property folio over the financial year. As a result of two large-volu- Group‘s growth in 2020 was on locations where we alrea- me acquisitions, we expanded our total floor space by 82 dy had a presence. We formed clusters, leveraged syner- percent to around 1.5 million square meters. At just under gies, and generated economies of scale. The new portfo- CHF 2.1 billion, the market value of our real estate portfo- lios are located primarily in the Rhine-Ruhr metropolitan lio as of December 31, 2020 was 86.3 percent higher than region. We were able to significantly expand our number one year before. As a result, we were able to achieve our of residential units in the Kaiserslautern area as well. medium-term goals of portfolio value and the number of residential units, which we set only during the year, alrea- Our portfolio generated net rental income of CHF 54.7 dy by the end of the year. We did not need to compromise million in 2020, an increase of 40.7 percent over the on our return targets even in the context of accelerated same period last year. The residential units acquired over growth, as illustrated by a gross return of 5.0 percent, the course of the year contributed to the increase, as did very attractive by industry standards. Our portfolio volu- prudent rent increases, aligning with market levels and a mes allowed us to reach new levels of attention among reduction in vacancies. On a like-for-like basis, our ren- investors and transaction partners and allowed us access tal income grew by 4.7 percent. Despite the COVID-19 to international investors. Against this backdrop, we are pandemic we reduced vacancies by about a quarter, from also reporting selected key figures according to the EPRA 9.3 percent at the end of 2019 to 7.0 percent at the end of standard for the first time for the 2020 financial year. 2020, by means of active asset management and inten- sive leasing activities, many of them digital. The portfolios newly acquired at the end of the year had an average va- cancy rate of 8.6 percent at the time of acquisition. Financial figures once again significantly improved In addition to the aforementioned increase in our net Group. At the same time, we almost doubled our equity profit, we were able to significantly improve our result to CHF 754.9 million within 12 months and further increa- before tax by 39.8 percent to CHF 153.4 million. At CHF sed our equity ratio at market values from 32.9 percent to 0.59 per share, FFO I was significantly higher than the over 34 percent – despite the significant increase in total negative figure for the previous year. The NAV per share assets. As announced, we have further reduced our leve- at market values of CHF 51.31, an increase of around 14 rage and, with an LTV of 57.8 percent (previous year 59.6 percent compared to the previous year, also illustrates the percent), we are on course to further improve our rating. value-creating business development of Peach Property 6 Annual Report 2020 of Peach Property Group AG Additional major shareholder and strong financial basis accompany growth As in previous years, we have built our growth on a tion joined the company as a new anchor shareholder, solid financial basis with a balanced mix of equity with a stake of around 30 percent. The Extraordinary and debt, attracting strong interest from internatio- General Meeting also elected Klaus Schmitz, Managing nal investors. In addition to issuing an unsecured Euro Director of Ares Real Estate Group, to the Board of Di- corporate bond of EUR 300 million, we successfully rectors of Peach Property Group AG. With this financial- carried out a capital increase through the issuance of a ly strong and extremely well-connected partner by our mandatory convertible bond for CHF 230 million. In this side, we are optimally positioned for further growth. context, the global investor Ares Management Corpora- Sustainable focus and tenant-centered philosophy We see our focus on the needs of our tenants and sustain- sive multi-channeled tenant communication: a personal able management as important prerequisites for success visit to one of our Points, telephone, email, WhatsApp, that will last for many decades and years.
Recommended publications
  • Mandaterechner Wie Groß Wird Der Bundestag?
    #Mandaterechner Wie groß wird der Bundestag? Ausgabe 1 | 2021 Wie groß wird der Bundestag? Ergebnisse einer Projektionsrechnung Robert Vehrkamp WIE GROSS WIRD DER BUNDESTAG? – ERGEBNISSE EINER PROJEKTIONSRECHNUNG Impressum © Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh Juli 2021 Verantwortlich Dr. Robert Vehrkamp Christina Tillmann Inhaltliche Mitarbeit Lars Bischoff Matthias Moehl Autor Redaktionelle Unterstützung Gaëlle Beckmann Dr. Robert Vehrkamp Sandra Stratos ist Senior Advisor der Bertelsmann Stiftung im Programm „Zukunft der Demokratie“ und war Gast- Gestaltung wissenschaftler der Abteilung „Demokratie und Demo- Markus Diekmann, Bielefeld kratisierung“ am Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB). Im Juni 2021 wurde er als Sachverständiger in die Kommission des Deutschen Bundestages zur Reform des Bundeswahlrechts und zur Modernisierung der DOI 10.11586/2021065 Parlamentsarbeit berufen. [email protected] 2 WAS IST UND WAS KANN DER #MANDATERECHNER? Was ist und was kann der #Mandaterechner? Mit dem #Mandaterechner lassen sich Projek- Der #Mandaterechner erweitert damit bisher vor- tionsrechnungen zur Größe des Bundestages nach liegende Berechnungsmodelle um die Variable des der Bundestagswahl 2021 durchführen. Auf der Splittingverhaltens. Anstatt mit einer konkreten Grundlage des aktuellen Umfragetrends und in Annahme über das Splittingverhalten zu arbeiten Abhängigkeit von konkreten Annahmen über das und die Größe des Bundestages dann in Abhän- Splittingverhalten der Wähler:innen zwischen gigkeit vom Zweitstimmenergebnis zu berechnen,
    [Show full text]
  • (Auf) 1 Marienburger SC (Ab) 1 Etuf Essen II
    Hallensaison HERREN Regionalliga Oberliga A Oberliga B 1 ETuF Essen (Auf) 1 Marienburger SC (Ab) 1 ETuF Essen II 2 Bonner THV 2 RW Bergisch Gladbach 2 HC Essen 99 3 Düsseldorfer HC II (Auf) 3 THC Hürth 3 TV Jahn Oelde 4 ETG Wuppertal 4 SW Köln II (Auf) 4 Oberhausener THC (Auf) 5 SW Köln 5 Düsseldorfer SC 99 II (Auf) 5 Moerser TV 6 HTC Uhlenhorst Mülheim II 6 Crefelder HTC II 6 HTC Uhlenhorst Mülheim III (Auf) 7 Eintracht Dortmund 7 Aachener HTC 7 Kahlenberger HTC II 8 RTHC Leverkusen (Ab) 8 RW Köln III 8 RW Köln II (Ab) 1. VL A 1. VL B 1. VL C 1. VL D 1 Marienburger SC II 1 Crefelder SV 1 Kahlenberger HTC III 1 Buerscher HC 2 Bonner THV II (Ab) 2 GW Wuppertal 2 HC Essen 99 II 2 Dortmunder HG 3 SW Troisdorf 3 Düsseldorfer HC III (Ab) 3 MSV Duisburg 3 HC Herne 4 RTHC Leverkusen II 4 ETG Wuppertal II (Auf) 4 THC Mettmann (Ab) 4 THC Münster 5 Bonner THV III (Auf) 5 Richrather SV 08 5 ETB SW Essen 5 TuS Iserlohn 6 BW Köln II 6 Viersener THC 6 Club Raffelberg II 6 Bielefelder TG 7 SW Bonn 7 Rheydter SV 7 HTC Uhlenhorst Mülheim IV 7 Eintracht Dortmund II (Ab) 8 SW Neuss II 8 Gladbacher HTC II 8 TV Jahn Hiesfeld (Auf) 8 VfB Hüls (Auf) DAMEN Regionalliga Oberliga A Oberliga B 1 DSD Düsseldorf (Auf) 1 RW Köln II 1 ETuF Essen II 2 Bonner THV 2 GW Wuppertal 2 Crefelder HTC (Ab) 3 SW Köln 3 Düsseldorfer HC II 3 TV Jahn Oelde 4 RTHC Leverkusen (Ab) 4 ETG Wuppertal (Auf) 4 THC Münster 5 Düsseldorfer SC 99 5 Crefelder HTC II 5 ETB SW Essen 6 HTC Uhlenhorst Mülheim 6 BW Köln (Ab) 6 Club Raffelberg 7 Kahlenberger HTC (Auf) 7 Aachener HTC (Auf) 7 Eintracht Dortmund (Auf) 8 Gladbacher HTC 8 SW Neuss II 8 VfB Hüls (Auf) 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Karte Der Wahlkreise Für Die Wahl Zum 19. Deutschen Bundestag
    Karte der Wahlkreise für die Wahl zum 19. Deutschen Bundestag gemäß Anlage zu § 2 Abs. 2 des Bundeswahlgesetzes, die zuletzt durch Artikel 1 des Gesetzes vom 03. Mai 2016 (BGBl. I S. 1062) geändert worden ist Nordfriesland Flensburg 1 Schleswig- Flensburg 2 5 4 Kiel 9 Rendsburg- Plön Rostock 15 Vorpommern- Eckernförde 6 Dithmarschen Rügen Ostholstein Grenze der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Länder Neu- 14 münster Grenze Kreise/Kreisfreie Städte 3 16 Segeberg Steinburg 8 Lübeck Nordwestmecklenburg Rostock Wahlkreisgrenze 11 17 Wahlkreisgrenze 29 Stormarn (auch Kreisgrenze) 7 Vorpommern- Cuxhaven Pinneberg Greifswald Schwerin Wittmund Herzogtum Wilhelms- Lauenburg 26 haven Bremer- 18-23 13 Stade Hamburg Mecklenburgische Saalekreis Kreisname haven 12 24 10 Seenplatte Aurich Halle (Saale) Kreisfreie Stadt Friesland 30 Emden Ludwigslust- Wesermarsch Rotenburg Parchim (Wümme) 36 Uckermark Harburg Lüneburg 72 Wahlkreisnummer Leer Ammerland Osterholz 57 27 Oldenburg (Oldenburg) Prignitz Bremen Gebietsstand der Verwaltungsgrenzen: 29.02.2016 55 35 37 54 Delmen- Lüchow- Ostprignitz- 28 horst 34 Ruppin Heidekreis Dannenberg Oldenburg Uelzen Oberhavel 25 Verden 56 58 Barnim 32 Cloppenburg 44 66 Märkisch- Diepholz Stendal Oderland Vechta 33 Celle Altmarkkreis Emsland Gifhorn Salzwedel Havelland 59 Nienburg 31 75-86 Osnabrück (Weser) Grafschaft 51 Berlin Bentheim 38 Region 43 45 Hannover Potsdam Brandenburg Frankfurt a.d.Havel 63 Wolfsburg (Oder) 134 61 41-42 Oder- Minden- 40 Spree Lübbecke Peine Braun- Börde Jerichower 60 Osnabrück Schaumburg
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001
    ICPSR 2683 Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001 Virginia Sapiro W. Philips Shively Comparative Study of Electoral Systems 4th ICPSR Version February 2004 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 www.icpsr.umich.edu Terms of Use Bibliographic Citation: Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Secretariat. COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS, 1996-2001 [Computer file]. 4th ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004. Request for Information on To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of Use of ICPSR Resources: archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Visit the ICPSR Web site for more information on submitting citations. Data Disclaimer: The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Responsible Use In preparing data for public release, ICPSR performs a number of Statement: procedures to ensure that the identity of research subjects cannot be disclosed. Any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment violates the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • Wahlkreise Nach Parteien Und Zweitstimmenanteil
    Endgültiges Ergebnis der Bundestagswahl 2009 9 Wahlkreise nach Parteien und Zweitstimmenanteil Lfd. Wahlkreis Länder- Zweitstimmen in % Nr. kennzeichen 2009 2005 SPD 001 124 Gelsenkirchen NW 42,0 53,8 002 117 Duisburg II NW 40,7 55,3 003 142 Herne - Bochum II NW 40,2 54,0 004 118 Oberhausen - Wesel III NW 39,4 53,9 005 120 Essen II NW 39,0 51,5 006 025 Aurich - Emden NI 38,8 55,9 007 145 Unna I NW 37,6 50,3 008 126 Bottrop - Recklinghausen III NW 37,1 50,4 009 123 Recklinghausen II NW 36,8 51,4 010 141 Bochum I NW 36,3 49,2 011 116 Duisburg I NW 36,3 49,9 012 144 Dortmund II NW 35,6 50,8 013 119 Mülheim - Essen I NW 35,6 47,6 014 122 Recklinghausen I NW 35,5 50,7 015 140 Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis II NW 34,9 47,2 016 136 Lippe I NW 34,5 43,1 017 170 Werra-Meißner - Hersfeld-Rotenburg HE 34,4 45,3 018 050 Salzgitter - Wolfenbüttel NI 34,2 47,7 019 171 Schwalm-Eder HE 33,9 45,0 020 146 Hamm - Unna II NW 33,4 47,9 021 047 Hameln-Pyrmont - Holzminden NI 33,4 47,4 022 168 Waldeck HE 33,0 44,1 023 053 Goslar - Northeim - Osterode NI 33,0 45,9 024 143 Dortmund I NW 33,0 48,2 025 041 Nienburg II - Schaumburg NI 33,0 47,0 026 134 Herford - Minden-Lübbecke II NW 32,9 40,7 027 139 Hagen - Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis I NW 32,9 45,8 028 049 Hildesheim NI 32,9 47,0 029 046 Gifhorn - Peine NI 32,9 46,4 030 048 Hannover-Land II NI 32,8 46,8 Endgültiges Ergebnis der Bundestagswahl 2009 9 Wahlkreise nach Parteien und Zweitstimmenanteil Lfd.
    [Show full text]
  • Gesundheitsausschuss Bundestag
    Vorname Nachname @bundestag.de [email protected] Mailadresse alternativ Partei Rolle Wahlkreis Wahlkreis Mailadresse alternativ Rudolf Henke [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 087: Aachen I [email protected] Michael Hennrich [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Obmann Wahlkreis 262: Nürtingen [email protected] Erich Irlstorfer [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 214: Freising [email protected] Georg Kippels [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 5 Rhein-Erft-Kreis I [email protected] Alexander Krauss [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 15 Erzgebirge III [email protected] Roy Kühne [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 52 Goslar Northeim [email protected] Karin Maag [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 259 Stuttgart II [email protected] Dietrich Monstadt [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 12 Schwerin [email protected] - Parchim I - Nordwestmecklenburg I Stephan Pilsinger [email protected] [email protected] CDU/CSU Wahlkreis 220 München-West/[email protected] Lothar Riebsamen [email protected] [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to the Measurement of Public Opinion in Subpopulations
    Contributions to the Measurement of Public Opinion in Subpopulations Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Sozialwissenschaen vorgelegt von Simon Munzert an der Sektion Politik – Recht – Wirtscha Fachbereich Politik- und Verwaltungswissenscha Tag der mundlichen¨ Prufung:¨ þÉ. Juli óþÕ¢ Õ. Referent: Prof. Dr. Susumu Shikano, Universitat¨ Konstanz ó. Referent: Prof. Dr. Peter Selb, Universitat¨ Konstanz ì. Referent: Prof. Michael D. Ward, PhD, Duke University Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-0-296799 To Stefanie Acknowledgments I would not have been able to write and nish this dissertation without the help and support of many people. First of all, I want to thank my collaborators, Peter Selb and Paul Bauer, for their great work and support. eir contributions to the research presented in this thesis are of no small concern. e single papers received manifold and invaluable feedback over the course of their cre- ation. In particular, Peter Selb and I are grateful to Michael Herrmann, omas Hinz, Winfried Pohlmeier, Susumu Shikano as well as the editors and reviewers of Political Analysis for helpful comments and support. is work was also supported by the Center for Quantitative Methods and Survey Research at the University of Konstanz. e second paper that I wrote together with Paul Bauer also got valuable support. We are grateful to Delia Baldassarri for providing materials of her and Andrew Gelman’s analysis to us. We give the raters of the ALLBUS survey items our most sincere thanks for their contribution. Furthermore, we thank Klaus Armingeon, Matthias Fatke, Markus Freitag, Birte Gundelach, Daniel Stegmuller,¨ Richard Traunmuller¨ and Eva Zeglovits for helpful comments on previ- ous versions of this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • NRW-Landtagswahl 2017
    NRW-Landtagswahl 2017 Parteienranking - sortiert nach AfD (vorläufige Ergebnisse) AfD CDU SPD FDP GRÜNE Rang Wahlkreis in % 1 Gelsenkirchen II 15,2 22,2 37,5 8,6 4,0 2 Duisburg IV – Wesel V 14,6 21,8 38,3 8,2 3,8 3 Gelsenkirchen I 14,1 23,6 38,2 9,6 3,8 4 Essen I – Mülheim II 13,1 24,3 38,6 9,5 4,0 5 Essen II 12,0 27,0 35,5 9,8 4,9 6 Duisburg III 11,9 20,7 37,5 8,7 5,6 7 Oberhausen I 11,9 24,8 38,8 8,1 3,9 8 Herne I 11,2 23,5 39,5 9,3 4,7 9 Recklinghausen II 11,0 27,1 38,4 9,6 3,7 10 Bottrop 11,0 27,5 38,1 9,5 3,9 11 Recklinghausen III 10,9 29,4 36,7 9,9 3,7 12 Bochum III – Herne II 10,7 23,8 36,9 9,1 5,8 13 Duisburg II 10,7 24,2 38,5 9,9 4,8 14 Recklinghausen I 10,3 28,3 36,1 10,2 4,7 15 Hagen I 9,9 30,0 34,1 11,4 4,4 16 Wuppertal I 9,8 27,3 33,1 12,2 6,3 17 Märkischer Kreis I 9,7 33,6 32,4 11,2 3,9 18 Oberhausen II – Wesel I 9,5 27,1 38,6 10,1 4,7 19 Bochum I 9,4 23,6 36,8 9,4 7,1 20 Recklinghausen V 9,4 27,9 38,7 9,6 4,4 21 Duisburg I 9,3 26,6 36,2 10,7 5,5 22 Hagen II – Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreis III 9,2 28,4 36,1 12,1 4,8 23 Dortmund I 9,1 20,7 37,4 8,5 8,6 24 Unna III – Hamm II 8,8 23,3 44,6 8,4 4,9 25 Unna II 8,8 29,3 37,5 9,9 4,6 26 Düsseldorf IV 8,7 31,5 28,6 14,5 6,2 27 Wesel IV 8,7 28,1 37,2 11,1 4,7 28 Mettmann IV 8,7 31,7 31,3 13,8 5,3 29 Mülheim I 8,6 27,3 34,9 13,7 6,2 30 Dortmund III 8,6 25,7 39,4 10,0 5,8 31 Bielefeld II 8,6 30,2 33,4 10,6 6,2 32 Siegen-Wittgenstein I 8,4 32,3 32,3 10,9 5,8 33 Köln V 8,4 31,2 29,7 13,0 7,1 34 Recklinghausen IV 8,4 34,2 34,1 10,4 4,5 35 Märkischer Kreis II 8,4 37,3 30,4 12,4 3,9 36 Essen III 8,3
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 3
    COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS - MODULE 3 (2006-2011) CODEBOOK: APPENDICES Original CSES file name: cses2_codebook_part3_appendices.txt (Version: Full Release - December 15, 2015) GESIS Data Archive for the Social Sciences Publication (pdf-version, December 2015) ============================================================================================= COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ELECTORAL SYSTEMS (CSES) - MODULE 3 (2006-2011) CODEBOOK: APPENDICES APPENDIX I: PARTIES AND LEADERS APPENDIX II: PRIMARY ELECTORAL DISTRICTS FULL RELEASE - DECEMBER 15, 2015 VERSION CSES Secretariat www.cses.org =========================================================================== HOW TO CITE THE STUDY: The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (www.cses.org). CSES MODULE 3 FULL RELEASE [dataset]. December 15, 2015 version. doi:10.7804/cses.module3.2015-12-15 These materials are based on work supported by the American National Science Foundation (www.nsf.gov) under grant numbers SES-0451598 , SES-0817701, and SES-1154687, the GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, the University of Michigan, in-kind support of participating election studies, the many organizations that sponsor planning meetings and conferences, and the many organizations that fund election studies by CSES collaborators. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding organizations. =========================================================================== IMPORTANT NOTE REGARDING FULL RELEASES: This dataset and all accompanying documentation is the "Full Release" of CSES Module 3 (2006-2011). Users of the Final Release may wish to monitor the errata for CSES Module 3 on the CSES website, to check for known errors which may impact their analyses. To view errata for CSES Module 3, go to the Data Center on the CSES website, navigate to the CSES Module 3 download page, and click on the Errata link in the gray box to the right of the page.
    [Show full text]
  • Zweitstimmenanteile in Den Wahlkreisen Nach Parteien
    Arbeitstabellen für die Bundestagswahl 2017 7 Endgültige Zweitstimmenanteile in den Wahlkreisen nach Parteien Stimmen- Lfd. Nr. Wkr. Nr. Wahlkreisbezeichnung Land anteil CDU 1 032 Cloppenburg – Vechta NI 53,1 2 031 Mittelems NI 49,4 3 126 Borken II NW 47,0 4 202 Bitburg RP 44,5 5 127 Coesfeld – Steinfurt II NW 44,0 6 124 Steinfurt I – Borken I NW 43,9 7 292 Biberach BW 43,1 8 025 Unterems NI 42,4 9 147 Hochsauerlandkreis NW 41,7 10 112 Kleve NW 41,6 11 200 Mosel/Rhein-Hunsrück RP 41,6 12 137 Paderborn – Gütersloh III NW 40,7 13 149 Olpe – Märkischer Kreis I NW 40,6 14 198 Ahrweiler RP 40,6 15 038 Osnabrück-Land NI 40,4 16 130 Warendorf NW 40,3 17 276 Odenwald – Tauber BW 39,8 18 089 Heinsberg NW 39,5 19 288 Waldshut BW 39,3 20 174 Fulda HE 39,0 21 030 Stade I – Rotenburg II NI 38,9 22 294 Ravensburg BW 38,9 23 029 Cuxhaven – Stade II NI 38,5 24 131 Gütersloh I NW 38,4 25 002 Nordfriesland – Dithmarschen Nord SH 38,3 26 197 Neuwied RP 38,2 27 270 Aalen – Heidenheim BW 38,2 28 111 Viersen NW 38,1 29 285 Rottweil – Tuttlingen BW 38,0 30 295 Zollernalb – Sigmaringen BW 38,0 31 033 Diepholz – Nienburg I NI 37,9 32 273 Rastatt BW 37,9 33 128 Steinfurt III NW 37,8 34 199 Koblenz RP 37,8 35 286 Schwarzwald-Baar BW 37,8 36 035 Rotenburg I – Heidekreis NI 37,7 37 204 Montabaur RP 37,5 38 136 Höxter – Lippe II NW 37,3 39 203 Trier RP 37,3 40 280 Calw BW 37,2 41 284 Offenburg BW 37,1 42 293 Bodensee BW 37,1 43 291 Ulm BW 37,0 44 044 Celle – Uelzen NI 36,6 45 099 Oberbergischer Kreis NW 36,5 46 298 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Bundestagswahl 2017 Heft 2 – Vorläufige Ergebnisse in Nordrhein
    Bundestagswahl 2017 Vorläufige Ergebnisse in Nordrhein-Westfalen Heft 2 www.im.nrw.de/wahlen Bundestagswahl 2017 Vorläufige Ergebnisse in Nordrhein-Westfalen Bestell-Nr. B 72 3 2017 51 Information und Technik Nordrhein-Westfalen, Geschäftsbereich Statistik Mauerstraße 51, 40476 Düsseldorf • Postfach 10 11 05, 40002 Düsseldorf Telefon 0211 9449-01 • Telefax 0211 9449-8000 www.it.nrw.de • [email protected] Erschienen im September 2017 © Foto: Deutscher Bundestag / S. Büker Preis der gedruckten Ausgabe: 11,00 EUR Alle Statistischen Berichte finden Sie als PDF-Datei zum kostenlosen Download in unserer Internet-Rubrik „Publikationen“. © Information und Technik NRW, Düsseldorf, 2017 Auszugsweise Vervielfältigung und Verbreitung mit Quellenangabe gestattet Inhalt Seite Wahlvorschläge bei der Bundestagswahl am 24.September 2017 ....................................................................... 5 Tabellenteil 1. Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Bundestagswahl 2017 mit Vergleichsergebnissen früherer Wahlen (Landesergebnis) ................................................................................................................... 9 2. Vorläufige Ergebnisse der Bundestagswahl 2017 mit Vergleichsergebnissen früherer Wahlen ...................... 10 3. Erststimmen einzelner Parteien und gewählte Direktbewerber/-innen bei der Bundestagswahl 2017 nach Wahlkreisen (Vorläufiges Ergebnis) ........................................................ 74 4. Bei der Bundestagswahl 2017 (vorläufiges Ergebnis) in den Bundestagswahlkreisen gewählt ......................
    [Show full text]
  • Wer Sitzt Wo? Politik, Verbände, Medien BUNDESRAT
    Köpfe der Gesundheitspolitik 2018 Wer sitzt wo? Politik, Verbände, Medien BUNDESRAT 2 INHALT BUNDESREGIERUNG 4 • Bundeskanzleramt 4 • Bundesministerium für Gesundheit 4 • Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales 4 • Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend 5 • Beauftragter der Bundesregierung für die Belange behinderter Menschen 5 • Beauftragter der Bundesregierung für die Belange der Patientinnen und Patienten 5 • Bevollmächtigter der Bundesregierung Alles auf Anfang für Pflege 5 Die Bundestagswahl 2017 war in mancher Hinsicht eine be- • Beauftragte der Bundesregierung sondere Wahl. Ganze 117 Tage, so lange wie nie zuvor, hat es für Drogenfragen 5 bis zur Regierungsbildung gedauert. 709 Abgeordnete, so viele wie nie zuvor, gehören dem 19. Deutschen Bundestag an. Die • Bundeswahlbeauftragte für die Zahl der Fraktionen ist von vier auf sechs gestiegen. Auch in Sozialversicherungswahlen 5 der Gesundheitspolitik gab es einen umfangreichen Personal- wechsel: Das Gesundheitsministerium wurde neu aufgestellt, BUNDESTAG 6der Ausschuss für Gesundheit ist größer geworden. Und bei Verbänden, Behörden und Medien hat sich im Laufe der letz- • CDU 6 ten Jahre ebenfalls einiges geändert. Damit stellt sich wohl • CSU 7 dringlicher denn je die Frage: „Wer sitzt wo?“ • SPD 7 Damit Sie auch in dieser Legislaturperiode schnell wissen, • AfD 8 welche Abgeordneten sich um das Thema Gesundheit küm- • FDP 8 mern und welche Journalisten darüber berichten, haben wir unsere Orientierungshilfe auf den neuesten Stand gebracht. • Die Linke. 9 Auch die nunmehr sechste Ausgabe soll Ihnen als Wegweiser • Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 9 durch die Berliner Gesundheitspolitik dienen, Ihnen das Kon- taktmanagement im Gesundheitswesen erleichtern und Sie • Ausschuss für Gesundheit 10 bei der Suche nach der richtigen Ansprechpartnerin und dem • Ausschuss für Arbeit und Soziales 17 richtigen Ansprechpartner unterstützen.
    [Show full text]