Holding periods and investment performance: analysing UK office returns 1983-2003

Drawing on a unique database of office properties constructed for Gerald Eve by IPD, this paper examines the holding periods of individual office properties sold between 1983 and 2003. It quantifies the holding periods of sold properties and examines the relationship between the holding period and investment performance. Across the range of holding periods, excess returns (performance relative to the market) are evenly distributed. There are as many winners as there are losers. The distribution of excess returns over different holding periods is widely spread with the risk of under-performance greater over short holding periods. Over the longer term, excess performance is confined to a narrow range and individual returns are more likely to perform in line with the market as a whole.

The marginal benefit of diversification in commercial real estate portfolios

The number of properties to hold to achieve a well-diversified real estate property portfolio presents a puzzle, as the estimated number is considerably higher than that seen in actual portfolios. However, Statman (1987) argues that investors should only increase the number of holdings as long as the marginal benefits of diversification exceed their costs. Using this idea we find that the marginal benefits of diversification in real estate portfolios are so small that investors are probably rational in holding small portfolios, at least as far as the reduction in standard deviation is concerned.

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.

Cooperative patronage: The National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi in Kasungu District

This paper estimates the determinants of farmers’ decisions to join a rural producer organisation, the National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi (NASFAM), in Kasungu District. Data for the study were collected in June and August 2003 using household-level questionnaires and stratified random sampling, where strata were membership status and gender. Probit analysis of 250 farmers shows that off-farm sources of income, distance of the farmer’s household from Kasungu District centre, age of the farmer, tobacco farming, education, household level land holding and gender determined the decision to join NASFAM. These results suggest that farmers should be informed of the potential benefits of participating in rural development efforts, and that rural communication and information infrastructure should be improved so as to reduce the costs of information access and transactions in general, if participation in organisations such as NASFAM is to be enhanced.

Commentary on an example of a tenancy agreement for an agricultural holding

This paper sets out an example of a standard agricultural tenancy, being one creating a tenancy from year to year and consequently covered by the agricultural holdings legislation. A facing-page commentary gives a clause-by-clause analysis of the agreement, the implications of each provision being discussed in the light of the law of contract, agricultural holdings legislation and, where appropriate, subsequent caselaw.

Europe’s biocidal products directive: benefits and costs in urban pest management

The European Commission’s Biocidal Products Directive (Council Directive 98/8 EC), known as the BPD, is the largest regulatory exercise ever to affect the urban pest control industry. Although focussed in the European Union its impact is global because any company selling pest control products in the EU must follow its principles. All active substances, belonging to 23 different biocidal product types, come within the Directive’s scope of regulatory control. This will eventually involve re-registration of all existing products, as well as affecting any new product that comes to the market. Some active substances, such as the rodenticides and insecticides, are already highly regulated in Europe but others, such as embalming fluids, masonry preservatives, disinfectants and repellents/attractants will come under intensive regulatory scrutiny for the first time. One of the purposes of the Directive is to offer enhanced protection for human health and the environment. The potential benefit for suppliers of pest control products is mutual recognition of regulatory product dossiers across 25 Member States of the European Union. This process, requiring harmonisation of all regulatory decision-making processes, should reduce duplicated effort and, potentially, allow manufacturers speedier access to European markets. However, the cost to industry is enormous, both in terms of the regulatory resources required to assemble BPD dossiers and the development budgets required to conduct studies to meet its new standards. The cost to regulatory authorities is also tremendous, in terms of the need to upgrade staff capabilities to meet new challenges and the volume of the work expected by the Commission when they are appointed the Rapporteur Member State (RMS) for an active substance. Users of pest control products will pay a price too. The increased regulatory costs of maintaining products in the European market are likely to be passed on, at least in part, to users. Furthermore, where the costs of meeting new regulatory requirements cannot be recouped from product sales, many well-known products may leave the market. For example, it seems that in future few rodenticides that are not anticoagulants will be available within the EU. An understanding of the BPD is essential to those who intend to place urban pest control products on the European market and may be useful to those considering the harmonisation of regulatory processes elsewhere. This paper reviews the operation of the first stages of the BPD for rodenticides, examines the potential benefits and costs of the legislation to the urban pest control industry and looks forward to the next stages of implementation involving all insecticides used in urban pest management.