Search results

Option to review land rents to prevailing market rents and option to renew leases for another term are two important options embedded in the public industrial land leases in Singapore, managed by the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC). The land rents of JTC leases are reviewed every year subject to a cap on the land rent increase. The rent cap, which is historically lower than the prevailing market growth rate, widens the gap between the contract rent and the prevailing market rent as the lease progresses. This creates disincentives to the lessor for not exercising the rent review option, because the option is in‐the‐money. The rent gap, on the other hand, is also translated into substantial profit rents for lessees who hold onto the leasehold interests of industrial lands. By assuming two different probability distributions for the ex‐ante prevailing market rents, the profit rents were simulated to derive at the values of a hypothetical 30‐year lease, which range from US$47.93 (S$86.45) per square meter (psm) (Sungei Kadut, Kranji) to US$236.05 (S$425.74) psm (West Coast Highway). Based on these simulated 30‐year leasehold values and assumptions of other input parameters: equated yield (e = 10 percent), risk free rate (R_f = 4.52), volatility of leasehold value (σ = 15 percent), term of lease (T = 30 years) and rental growth cap (g = 7.6 percent), the premiums for the lease renewal options were estimated to be in a range of US$4.55 (S$8.21) psm to US$22.26 (S$40.15) psm.

This paper examines the effect which the rent assessment process has on the level of rents and rental values in the commercial property market in England and Wales, by asking: is there an accepted definition of open market rental value which is consistently adhered to, irrespective of the context in which the rent is assessed? How, in theory, do the procedures by which an assessment of open market rental value is arrived at differ as between a new letting, a lease renewal, and a rent review? Is there any evidence to suggest that any theoretical differences in the operation of the various rent assessment procedures are borne out in practice? In particular, is there any evidence that in new lettings and lease renewals lease terms are changed after the rent has been finalised? Is there any evidence to demonstrate that there are different levels of rent which are sufficiently consistent to be referable to the context in which the rent was assessed? If so, does this produce difficulties in the valuation process which may not be presently fully appreciated? In addition to a review of the relevant literature, the primary research undertaken for the study was a survey of surveyors and solicitors involved in commercial lettings and rent reviews and the compilation of a database of rental valuations and transactions.

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.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: 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.

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 purpose of this paper is to help landlords and property managers to understand what they can do to increase tenants’ satisfaction and propensity to renew their lease, and their willingness to recommend their landlord to other people.

This paper analyses almost 5,000 interviews with private rented sector (PRS) tenants in the UK, conducted over a four-year period, to investigate determinants of resident satisfaction, loyalty (lease renewal) and willingness to recommend their landlord. Statistical analysis is performed using respondents’ ratings of satisfaction with many aspects of their occupancy as explanatory variables. Comparisons are made between interviewees who renew their lease and those who do not renew.

The research finds that “ease of doing business” with their landlord is a strong predictor of residents’ satisfaction, loyalty and advocacy. Other key indicators for lease renewal include relationship management, rent collection and residents’ perception of receiving value for money. Tenants’ willingness to recommend their landlord depends mainly on their relationship with their landlord, how the landlord compares with tenants’ previous landlords and the property management service they receive.

Limitations to this research include the fact that the residents have a single landlord and live on a single estate, one with particular cultural significance, therefore potentially restricting the general applicability of the findings. Although the sample size is large, the number of residents who have reached the end of their lease is relatively small, because the estate has only been occupied by PRS tenants since 2014.

Over the past five years, the PRS has become a significant asset class for institutional investors in the UK. This research should help to improve the landlord – tenant relationship in the PRS, and to increase occupancy rates without compromising rents.

The large sample size in this research, and the use of repeat interviews at various stages of a resident’s occupancy, highlight early signs of discontent that a landlord can act upon to reduce the risk of a tenant moving elsewhere.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

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.

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.