Risk management and the corporate real estate portfolio

In a global business economy, firms have a broad range of corporate real estate needs. During the past decade, multiple strategies and tactics have emerged in the corporate real estate community for meeting those needs. We propose here a framework for analysing and prioritising the various types of risk inherent in corporate real estate decisions. From a business strategy perspective, corporate real estate must serve needs beyond the simple one of shelter for the workforce and production process. Certain uses are strategic in that they allow access to externalities, embody the business strategy, or provide entrée to new markets. Other uses may be tactical, in that they arise from business activities of relatively short duration or provide an opportunity to pre-empt competitors. Still other corporate real estate uses can be considered “core” to the existence of the business enterprise. These might be special use properties or may be generic buildings that have become embodiments of the organisation’s culture. We argue that a multi-dimensional matrix approach organised around three broad themes and nine sub-categories allow the decision-maker to organise and evaluate choices with an acceptable degree of rigor and thoroughness. The three broad themes are Use (divided into Core, Cyclical or Casual) – Asset Type (which can be Strategic, Specialty or Generic) and Market Environment (which ranges from Mature Domestic to Emerging Economy). Proper understanding of each of these groupings brings critical variables to the fore and allows for efficient resource allocation and enhanced risk management.

Internal rents and corporate property management: a study into the use of internal rents in UK corporate organisations

Research in the late 1980s showed that in many corporate real estates users were not fully aware of the full extent of their property holdings. In many cases, not only was the value of the holdings unknown, but there was uncertainty over the actual extent of ownership within the portfolio. This resulted in a large number of corporate occupiers reviewing their property holdings during the 1990s, initially to create a definitive asset register, but also to benefit from an more efficient use of space. Good management of corporately owned property assets is of equal importance as the management of other principal resources within the company. A comprehensive asset register can be seen as the first step towards a rational property audit. For the effective, efficient and economic delivery of services, it is vital that all property holdings are utilised to the best advantage. This requires that the property provider and the property user are both fully conversant with the value of the property holding and that an asset/internal rent/charge is made accordingly. The advantages of internal rent charging are twofold. Firstly, it requires the occupying department to “contribute” an amount to the business equivalent to the open market rental value of the space that it occupies. This prevents the treating of space as a free good and, as individual profit centres, each department will then rationalise its holdings to minimise its costs. The second advantage is from a strategic viewpoint. By charging an asset rent, the holding department can identify the performance of its real estate holdings. This can then be compared to an internal or external benchmark to help determine whether the company has adopted the most efficient tenure pattern for its properties. This paper investigates the use of internal rents by UK-based corporate businesses and explains internal rents as a form of transfer pricing in the context of management and responsibility accounting. The research finds that the majority of charging organisations introduced internal rents primarily to help calculate true profits at the business unit level. However, less than 10% of the charging organisations introduced internal rents primarily to capture the return on assets within the business. There was also a sizeable element of the market who had no plans to introduce internal rents. Here, it appears that, despite academic and professional views that internal rents are beneficial in improving the efficient use of property, opinion at the business and operational level has not universally accepted this proposition.