Search results

This paper has two aims: to consider the negotiating strength of landlords and tenants in lease negotiations; and to calculate the level of deposit which is necessary to mitigate income risk.

The paper reviews the existing literature on the negotiation strength between landlords and tenants in different stages of the property cycle; investigates the well established deposit system in South Korea for lessons that might be applied in the UK; estimates the appropriate level of deposit using simulation methodology, given different states of the market; and places the contractual arrangement in a legal framework.

Evidence from the Seoul office market suggests that deposits can be very effective in protecting income return. In the UK during the down phase of the cycle, when supply of space exceeds demand and business conditions are uncertain, tenants are unwilling to pay deposits and landlords are more inclined to offer incentives in a bid to get the property let, even though the down phase is exactly the time when a deposit system is needed most. Landlords should be looking through the cycle and insisting that deposits are paid at the height of the market when their bargaining strength is stronger. The deposit should be sufficient to cover the probability of income loss in the down phase of the cycle. Based on market evidence in 2009, the amount of the deposit should be equal to at least 15 months rent.

The stability of the income return is one of the key features of real estate both as an investment and as security. The use of rental deposits is a practical and straightforward way of hedging the risk. The paper estimates the amount of deposit required and provides guidance on the key heads of terms, which should be included in a deposit agreement.

The estimation of rental deposits has very little coverage in the literature. At a time when income return is under pressure landlords need to be fully aware of the benefits of the deposit system and the key factors that need to be considered when estimating the amount of deposit necessary to offset tenant default risk.

From time to time, clients ask counsel and brokers about the pros and cons of using an assignment versus a sublease to effect a transfer of possession and a transfer of obligations with respect to leased premises. With about equal frequency, questions come up regarding the differences between assignments and subleases, and ‘whether those differences really make a difference’ after all is said and done. While assignments and subleases are both means to achieve substantially similar ends, they do yield different legal and business results. The purpose of this paper is to explain and discuss some of the similarities and some of the distinctions between assignments and subleases, both from a legal perspective and from business and practical perspectives, and to discuss some of the reasons that the different parties involved in such transactions may prefer, or wish to select one of these transaction forms over the other.

The main objective of investment in real estate is to derive adequate returns from its management; selection of suitable tenants is one of the challenges to attaining this in Nigeria. Many prospective tenants of residential properties usually appear good at the recruitment stage but often become belligerent with grave challenge to the property managers. The paper aims to examine the criteria set by property managers in selecting residential tenants in Nigeria with a view to establishing a proper process for identification of potentially bad tenants at the recruitment stage.

The paper opted for an exploratory study with questionnaires administered to estate surveyors (professional property managers in Nigeria). Respondents were randomly selected based on Bartlett et al.'s model with margin of error set at 0.05, p=0.5, and t‐value=1.96. Relative importance index analysis of the data was carried out to determine the ranking of the criteria.

The paper provides insight into tenant selection through proper process using a weighted scorecard. It suggests that an application of a scorecard will reduce the incidence of bad tenancy and enable investors to derive value from investment in real estate.

The framework of tenant selection process adopted was based on criteria set by the respondents; researchers are therefore encouraged to test the applicability of the suggested weighted scorecard.

There are implications for development of computer software using the weighted scorecard to further ease the process of tenant selection and make it an inter‐disciplinary study.

This paper identified the need for proper tenant selection to enable investors in residential property to harness adequate and remunerative return.

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 8‐18; 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 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

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 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.