The growth of private property vehicles in the UK: causes and conditions

The UK private indirect real estate market has seen a rapid growth in the last seven years. The gross asset value (GAV) of the private property vehicle (PPV) market has about tripled from a GAV of £22.6bn in 1998 to a GAV of £67.1 billion at the end of 2005 (OPC, 2006). Although this trend of growing syndication of real estate is not only a UK phenomenon, the rate of growth has been significantly faster in the UK. For example the German open-ended funds have grown over the same period from €50.4bn to €85.1bn (BVI, 2006). In the US the market capitalization of equity real estate investment trusts (REIT) has grown 155% since 1999 to US$ 301bn (NAREIT, 2006). Each jurisdiction is offering different formats to invest indirectly into real estate but at the core all these vehicles are the same in that they provide a different route for investors to access real estate. In the UK, although the range of ‘products’ is now quite diverse, all structures have in common the ‘wrapping’ of property assets into a multi-investor vehicle. This paper examines the nature, pattern and process of market growth in PPVs and constructs a series of associations between causes and effects to explain this market shift.

Causal evidence for frontal involvement in memory target maintenance by posterior brain areas during distracter interference of visual working memory

Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) is recruited during visual working memory (WM) when relevant information must be maintained in the presence of distracting information. The mechanism by which DLPFC might ensure successful maintenance of the contents of WM is, however, unclear; it might enhance neural maintenance of memory targets or suppress processing of distracters. To adjudicate between these possibilities, we applied time-locked transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during functional MRI, an approach that permits causal assessment of a stimulated brain region's influence on connected brain regions, and evaluated how this influence may change under different task conditions. Participants performed a visual WM task requiring retention of visual stimuli (faces or houses) across a delay during which visual distracters could be present or absent. When distracters were present, they were always from the opposite stimulus category, so that targets and distracters were represented in distinct posterior cortical areas. We then measured whether DLPFC-TMS, administered in the delay at the time point when distracters could appear, would modulate posterior regions representing memory targets or distracters. We found that DLPFC-TMS influenced posterior areas only when distracters were present and, critically, that this influence consisted of increased activity in regions representing the current memory targets. DLPFC-TMS did not affect regions representing current distracters. These results provide a new line of causal evidence for a top-down DLPFC-based control mechanism that promotes successful maintenance of relevant information in WM in the presence of distraction.