¿Cómo recobrar el patrimonio petrolero de todos los ecuatorianos? (Otros Temas)

Partiendo de lo que ha sido el manejo de los recursos petroleros en el Ecuador durante los últimos 30 años, el autor presenta una serie de elementos críticos acerca de la política petrolera nacional y señala algunos de los principales elementos que, a nivel de administración, han posibilitado que la mayoría de los beneficios obtenidos del petróleo se queden en manos de las empresas transnacionales en detrimento del Estado. El fortalecimiento de la empresa petrolera estatal, la renegociación de contra tos petroleros y la exigencia a las empresas petroleras para que paguen sus obligaciones, tributarias entre otras, son algunas de las decisiones que, a juicio del autor, las autoridades deben tomar de manera inmediata en aras de proteger el patrimonio petrolero del país.

El patrimonio cultural como derecho: el caso ecuatoriano (Tema Central)

When it comes to human rights, the first thoughts that come to mind are the rights to life, liberty or equality, among others, which possess the concept of being fundamental. Commonly, culture and heritage are not usually considered as rights; however, as well as there is the right to own legal identity, there is also the right to enjoy a cultural identity. This paper deals precisely with the study of culture and cultural heritage as a human right. Cultural heritage’s meaning concept is analyzed, its enclosure between fundamental rights and the way that it should be protected, essentially by the State. The Ecuadorian case is also analyzed around their legislation and cultural management, in order to assess the treatment that this right has been received in the country.

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.

ASSET: moving forward through feedback

Providing high quality and timely feedback to students is often a challenge for many staff in higher education as it can be both time-consuming and frustratingly repetitive. From the student perspective, feedback may sometimes be considered unhelpful, confusing and inconsistent and may not always be provided within a timeframe that is considered to be ‘useful’. The ASSET project, based at the University of Reading, addresses many of these inherent challenges by encouraging the provision of feedback that supports learning, i.e. feedback that contains elements of ‘feed-forward’, is of a high quality and is delivered in a timely manner. In particular, the project exploits the pedagogic benefits of video/audio media within a Web 2.0 context to provide a new, interactive resource, ‘ASSET’, to enhance the feedback experience for both students and staff. A preliminary analysis of both our quantitative and qualitative pedagogic data demonstrate that the ASSET project has instigated change in the ways in which both staff and students think about, deliver, and engage with feedback. For example, data from our online questionnaires and focus groups with staff and students indicate a positive response to the use of video as a medium for delivering feedback to students. In particular, the academic staff engaged in piloting the ASSET resource indicated that i) using video has made them think more, and in some cases differently, about the ways in which they deliver feedback to students and ii) they now see video as an effective means of making feedback more useful and engaging for students. Moreover, the majority of academic staff involved in the project have said they will continue to use video feedback. From the student perspective, 60% of those students whose lecturers used ASSET to provide video feedback said that “receiving video feedback encouraged me to take more notice of the feedback compared with normal methods” and 80% would like their lecturer to continue to use video as a method for providing feedback. An important aim of the project was for it to complement existing University-wide initiatives on feedback and for ASSET to become a ‘model’ resource for staff and students wishing to explore video as a medium for feedback provision. An institutional approach was therefore adopted and key members of Senior Management, academics, T&L support staff, IT support and Student Representatives were embedded within the project from the start. As with all initiatives of this kind, a major issue is the future sustainability of the ASSET resource and to have had both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ support for the project has been extremely beneficial. In association with the project team the University is currently exploring the creation of an open-source, two-tiered video supply solution and a ‘framework’ (that other HEIs can adopt and/or adapt) to support staff in using video for feedback provision. In this way students and staff will have new opportunities to explore video and to exploit the benefits of this medium for supporting learning.

Correlation shifts and real estate portfolio management

The success of any diversification strategy depends upon the quality of the estimated correlation between assets. It is well known, however, that there is a tendency for the average correlation among assets to increase when the market falls and vice-versa. Thus, assuming that the correlation between assets is a constant over time seems unrealistic. Nonetheless, these changes in the correlation structure as a consequence of changes in the market’s return suggests that correlation shifts can be modelled as a function of the market return. This is the idea behind the model of Spurgin et al (2000), which models the beta or systematic risk, of the asset as a function of the returns in the market. This is an approach that offers particular attractions to fund managers as it suggest ways by which they can adjust their portfolios to benefit from changes in overall market conditions. In this paper the Spurgin et al (2000) model is applied to 31 real estate market segments in the UK using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2000:12. The results show that a number of market segments display significant negative correlation shifts, while others show significantly positive correlation shifts. Using this information fund managers can make strategic and tactical portfolio allocation decisions based on expectations of market volatility alone and so help them achieve greater portfolio performance overall and especially during different phases of the real estate cycle.

Asset allocation, cross-class correlation and the structure of property returns

Practical applications of portfolio optimisation tend to proceed on a “top down” basis where funds are allocated first at asset class level (between, say, bonds, cash, equities and real estate) and then, progressively, at sub-class level (within property to sectors, office, retail, industrial for example). While there are organisational benefits from such an approach, it can potentially lead to sub-optimal allocations when compared to a “global” or “side-by-side” optimisation. This will occur where there are correlations between sub-classes across the asset divide that are masked in aggregation – between, for instance, City offices and the performance of financial services stocks. This paper explores such sub-class linkages using UK monthly stock and property data. Exploratory analysis using clustering procedures and factor analysis suggests that property performance and equity performance are distinctive: there is little persuasive evidence of contemporaneous or lagged sub-class linkages. Formal tests of the equivalence of optimised portfolios using top-down and global approaches failed to demonstrate significant differences, whether or not allocations were constrained. While the results may be a function of measurement of market returns, it is those returns that are used to assess fund performance. Accordingly, the treatment of real estate as a distinct asset class with diversification potential seems justified.

Is there a place for property in the multi-asset portfolio?

The case for property has typically rested on the application of modern portfolio theory (MPT), in that property has been shown to offer increased diversification benefits within a multi asset portfolio without hurting portfolio returns especially for lower risk portfolios. However this view is based upon the use of historic, usually appraisal based, data for property. Recent research suggests strongly that such data significantly underestimates the risk characteristics of property, because appraisals explicitly or implicitly smooth out much of the real volatility in property returns. This paper examines the portfolio diversification effects of including property in a multi-asset portfolio, using UK appraisal based (smoothed) data and several derived de-smoothed series. Having considered the effects of de-smoothing, we then consider the inclusion of a further low risk asset (cash) in order to investigate further whether property's place in a low risk portfolio is maintained. The conclusions of this study are that the previous supposed benefits of including property have been overstated. Although property may still have a place in a 'balanced' institutional portfolio, the case for property needs to be reassessed and not be based simplistically on the application of MPT.