Search results

Many established trading companies have had considerable capital value locked into their operational properties. These properties have been identified as producing lower returns on invested capital than core business activities. Consequently, there has been a growing trend for the splitting of operational property from core business activity. This paper seeks to identify trends in sale‐and‐leaseback, which is the most common model in the UK.

This paper reviews, the existing literature and some past transactions in order to identify the motivations of both operational businesses and property investors in adopting the model. Some transaction case studies are also highlighted.

Identification of the motives behind this approach. Accounting, taxation and capital release are identified as the main drivers when the model first became widespread in the UK two decades ago. It is now driven by taxation and capital release. Originally adopted by leading companies, sale‐and‐leaseback has more recently been used by weaker covenants. The model has remained popular with investors, but there have been some recent failures.

This paper examines recent trends and seeks to identify how the sale‐and‐leaseback model may develop in the UK. Furthermore, the application of the model in the UK may give some insight into its application in other parts of the world, where it is either gaining further acceptance or may have greater potential application.

The purpose of this paper is to give an overview of the sale‐and‐leaseback transactions in The Netherlands over the past ten years, and to compare the rents and yields in those transactions with what is common on the market at that moment.

The method chosen is a straight mathematical calculation, the only possible way at this initial stage. A unique dataset provided by Vastgoedmarkt is used for this paper.

Of the sale‐and‐leaseback transactions, 60 percent are concluded against a higher rent than the market rent, and contract rent for the biggest areas is on average concluded at 17.4 percent above the market rent.

Because of the incompleteness of the reporting of the transactions and the lack of transparency in this area, further analysis is necessary.

When entering into a sale‐and‐leaseback transaction, the seller and the buyer in particular should be much more aware of the circumstances on the market.

Prior papers on sale‐and‐leaseback generally do not consider rents and there are almost no recent papers. This paper does focus on rents and uses data from the past ten years.

This paper questions whether carrying out the ‘sale‐and‐leaseback’ of corporate real estate is compatible with achieving the flexibility and cost effectiveness that companies need in the operation of their facilities. It looks at the advantages and disadvantages of sale‐and leaseback transactions and analyses how these compare with achieving wider business planning issues. The paper also reports on new real estate techniques pioneered by corporate real estate partnerships (REPs) transactions in Europe and examines whether this form of outsourcing is more in harmony with the goals of the modern corporate.

Structured sale and leasebacks and corporate property asset outsourcing are often claimed to have benefits that seem to be inconsistent with financial theory. Eight such UK deals are analysed to investigate the impact on corporate value. The results show that impacts are contingent ‐ on the capital structure of the firm, on the use of the capital raised and on market attitudes towards management and the sector. Two apparently similar deals can have quite different outcomes: benefits to shareholders and bondholders cannot be simply assumed.

The purpose of this paper is to review the context, rationale, execution strategies and results of the biggest property sale and leaseback programme Barclays has yet undertaken.

The paper is a review and analysis of Barclays' project documentation plus report and accounts, interviews with key decisionmakers, analysis of external economic and property market data in order to set the strategy choices and results achieved into context.

The sale and leaseback programme released capital and supported business objectives at a material level for Barclays; it achieved sales values that were at cyclical highs; flexibility in execution allowed additional value to be delivered across changing market conditions; a mixed skills team was critical for success.

The paper documents why the sale and leaseback programme made sense for the organisation and what elements were key to success both as a strategy and through execution. It provides a case study for how a large organisation approached a recent and large‐scale sale and leaseback opportunity across a portfolio of 900‐1,000 properties.

Suggests that the sale and leaseback of property provides a way for owner‐occupiers to redistribute capital invested in property with either the release of capital or its reinvestment in a more balanced property portfolio. Outlines a case study which shows how such a programme is carried out. Considers the strategy adopted, method of sale, legal considerations and market influences. Reveals that the degree of market interest reflected the strength of covenant being offered and the perception of an assured investment.

Existing approaches to the financial lease versus purchase decision assume, at least implicitly at the moment of the decision, that purchase entails ownership of the leasable asset over its entire remaining economic life. At any subsequent moment in time, however, if a firm already owns the leasable asset, it can retain long-term use of the asset by deciding to either retain ownership or enter into a sale and leaseback agreement. The purpose of this chapter is to detail the derivation of an innovative, yet intuitive, theoretical approach to analyze a firm's financial lease versus purchase decision in asset markets conducive to future sales and leaseback of owned assets.

For many corporate occupiers, commercial property constitutes one of their largest operational assets. With a desire to improve shareholder value and efficiency and to refocus on core business, the continued necessity to retain such assets on the balance sheet is now under challenge. Changes in accountancy practice and a desire to maintain flexibility are, however making the choices ever more complicated. This paper examines the current options available for corporate users seeking to extract value from their property assets.

The purpose of this paper is to review the range of options available to corporates to raise capital from their real estate.

The paper provides a brief description of alternative capital raising capital options and their costs and benefits.

There are many options available to corporates to raise capital other than a sale and leaseback with different potential proceeds and costs of capital depending on the objectives of the corporate and the lease term they are prepared to sign.

This paper provides an introduction to alternative methods to raise capital from property including fixed and strip income investment models, raising debt against corporate property, the opco/propco model as well as the traditional sale and leaseback.

Purpose – This paper intends to respond the question that comes up to CRE managers when they consider the outsourcing technique for their CRE management and portfolio. The question, if it is possible to capture in the outsourcing contract sufficient flexibility to meet the changing needs of the business and add value, addresses the existing debate on flexibility arguing the suitability of the outsourcing structures for corporates portfolio. Design/methodology/approach – The paper undertakes a methodological analysis, considering the main outsourcing deals in the UK and continental Europe and discussing the main theories on management outsourcing. Theories of flexibility of CRE portfolios are considered and the main characteristics of the new REPs discussed. Findings – The paper finds that it is possible to capture in the outsourcing contract sufficient flexibility to meet the changing needs of the business and add value because a contract can capture all the flexibility desired and iit would add value as the properties would be used efficiently. Two outsourcing contracts in the UK are explained in two case studies, which support this. Originality/value – The paper suggests methods to outsource CRE portfolios and obtain adequate flexibility to add value to shareholders.