Search results

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

The London office market is a major destination of international real estate capital and arguably the epicentre of international real estate investment over the past decade. However, the increase in global uncertainties in recent years due to socio-economic and political trends highlights the need for more insights into the behaviour of international real estate capital flows. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of the global and domestic environment on international real estate investment activities within the London office market over the period 2007–2017.

This study adopts an auto-regressive distributed lag approach using the real capital analytics (RCA) international real estate investment data. The RCA data analyses quarterly cross-border investment transactions within the central London office market for the period 2007–2017.

The study provides insights on the critical differences in the influence of the domestic and global environment on cross-border investment activities in this office market, specifically highlighting the significance of the influence of the global environment in the long run. In the short run, the influence of factors reflective of both the domestic and international environment are important indicating that international capital flows into the London office market is contextualised by the interaction of different factors.

The authors provide a holistic study of the influence of both the domestic and international environment on cross-border investment activities in the London office market, providing more insights on the behaviour of global real estate capital flows.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Office markets and particularly international financial centres over the past decade have experienced rapid financialisation, developments and indeed changes in the post-global financial crisis (GFC) landscape. Importantly, the volume and types of international capital flows have witnessed more foreign actors and vehicles entering into the investment landscape with the concentration of investment intensifying within key financial centres. This paper examines the interaction of international real estate capital flows in the London, New York and Tokyo office markets between 2007 and 2017.

Using Real Capital Analytics (RCA) data comprising over 5,700 office property transactions equating to $563bn between 2007 and 2017, the direct global capital flows into the London, New York and Tokyo office markets are assessed using an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach. Further, Granger causality tests are examined to analyse the short-run interaction of international real estate capital flows into these three major office markets.

By assessing the relativity of internal to external investments in these three central business district (CBD) office markets, differences in market dynamics are highlighted. The London office market is shown to be highly dependent on international flows and the USA, the foremost source of cross-border investment on the global stage. The cointegration and causality analysis indicate that cross-border real estate investment flows in these markets (and financial centres) show both long- and short-run relationships and suggest that the London office market remains more distinct and the most reliant on international capital flows with a wider geographical spread of investment activities and investor types. In the case of New York and Tokyo, these markets appear to be driven by more domestic investment activity and capital seemingly due to subtle factors pertaining to investor home bias, risk aversion and diversification strategies between the markets in the aftermath of the GFC.

Given the importance of the CBD offices in London, New York and Tokyo as an asset class for institutional investors, this paper provides some insights as to their level of connection and the interaction of the international capital flows into these three major cities.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Within the context of ESG (Environment, Social and Governance), environmental sustainability has taken on increased global importance in recent years. Similarly, real estate investment managers in developing their global real estate investment portfolios need a fuller understanding of the ESG and environmental sustainability dimensions of these global real estate markets for more informed real estate investment decisions. Using the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index, this paper examines the environmental sustainability transparency status of 99 global real estate markets over 2016–2020 and explores various strategic issues regarding ESG and environmental sustainability; particularly the critical issues relating to climate risk mitigation, climate resilience and zero-carbon. The current status of environmental sustainability in these 99 real estate markets is assessed, with areas for “best practice” improvement identified to the benefit of real estate investment managers; particularly the improvements needed in ESG to support real estate investment in the emerging real estate markets.

The JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index is analysed to examine strategic issues relating to environmental sustainability transparency. 99 real estate markets are assessed globally for a range of critical ESG issues over 2016–2020. Differences between the developed and emerging real estate markets are highlighted.

Considerable variation was seen in the ESG and environmental sustainability practices, procedures and frameworks across these 99 real estate markets. This was particularly evident amongst the emerging real estate markets. Compared to the other five dimensions for real estate market transparency, environmental sustainability was seen to be well behind these other dimensions in most markets. Progress has been made in recent years, but it has been slow and steady rather than at a dynamic level. Clearly, more is needed globally to enhance the stature of environmental sustainability in the context of an increasing focus on ESG and specifically on climate risk mitigation, climate resilience and zero-carbon in real estate investment.

With ESG and environmental sustainability taking on increased importance across the international real estate markets, it is important that real estate fund managers have a full understanding of the ESG and environmental sustainability status of these real estate markets where they may be considering real estate investment opportunities; this includes both the developed and emerging real estate markets. This is essential to ensure future capital raising for new funds, as well as supporting the global ESG agenda by the real estate investment community. Specific strategies are also identified for emerging real estate markets to improve their environmental sustainability practices and ESG status.

This is the first paper to use the JLL GRETI sustainability sub-index to assess the environmental sustainability status of 99 real estate markets globally; providing strategic insights for real estate investment managers as they develop their global real estate portfolios and more fully embrace the challenges of ESG and environmental sustainability in the real estate space going forward. Specific strategies are clearly identified for all markets to improve their environmental sustainability ratings to the benefit of both global real estate investment and the broader communities.

Real estate investment has been generally accepted as a value-adding proposition for a portfolio investor. Such an impression is not only shared by investment professionals and financial advisors but also appears to be supported by an overwhelming amount of research in the academic literature. The benefits of adding real estate as an asset class to a well-diversified portfolio are usually attributed to the respectable risk-return profile of real estate investment together with the relatively low correlation between its returns and the returns of other financial assets. By using the regime-switching technique on an extensive historical dataset, we attempt to look for the statistical evidence for such a claim. Unfortunately, the empirical support for the claim is neither strong nor universal. We find that any statistically significant improvement in risk-adjusted return is very much limited to the bullish environment of the real estate market. In general, the diversification benefit is not found to be statistically significant unless investors are relatively risk averse. We also document a regime-switching behavior of real estate returns similar to those found in other financial assets. There are two distinct states of the real estate market. The low-return (high-return) state is characterized by its high (low) volatility and its high (low) correlations with the stock market returns. We find this kind of dynamic risk characteristics to play a crucial role in dictating the diversification benefit from real estate investment.

As 1987 progressed the reverberations of the Big Bang continued to send shock waves through the investment markets. One such wave, which emanated from ‘deregulation’, is enhanced international portfolio diversification opportunities for the investor. If real estate is to compete successfully with other investment media and other financial centres also in the process of deregulation, it must urgently adapt to meet this challenge. Property analysts must respond positively to this global investment market by providing new and diversified real estate investment opportunities for the investor — the alternative is to allow real estate attractiveness as an international investment option to sink into a decaying trough. As a response to this challenge, I recently undertook research into the potential benefits of diversifying funds into international real estate assets supported by the use of correlation analysis. The findings and implications are relevant to any institution or individual which has the resources globally to expand or establish a real estate investment portfolio.

The purpose of this paper is to provide new empirical evidence on the important role of market transparency in international real estate investment.

The authors apply the augmented panel regression method (or the correlated random effects approach) by using national panel data from 44 countries from 2004 to 2016.

Countries with better accessibility to market information and higher enforceability of regulations have less information asymmetry and attract more inward real estate investment. In contrast, the accounting quality of corporate governance is negatively correlated with investment, indicating the possibility that foreign investors enjoy high excess returns by investing in real estate in countries with poor accounting quality.

Countries lacking market transparency can increase inward investments by providing richer market information to foreign investors and by boosting enforceability of regulation to mitigate the uncertainty of returns on investment. Investors and public sectors in countries facing a saturated real estate market may expand investment by investigating less-explored markets and by seeking bilateral negotiations to secure higher predictability of return on investment in targeted countries.

The authors utilize updated multiple transparency indices instead of a conventional aggregate index to examine how the investment is attributed to different aspects of market transparency and employ the augmented panel regression method for investigation of the intra- and international determinants of the investment.