Suchergebnisse

One form of property development incentive is the provision of tax shelters by way of tax depreciation allowances for buildings and parts of buildings. Since a tax depreciation allowance can only be claimed against income from the subject property, or from another source, in order to assess the effect of the allowance, some form of after tax analysis is required. After tax analysis for both capitalisation and cash flow techniques is described and illustrated. Furthermore, slices of equated yield attributable to the main components of return from real property are demonstrated.

This paper synthesises the mortgage‐equity capitalisation technique, often used in property investment analysis and valuation practice in the United States of America, and the equated yield technique used in the United Kingdom. The mortgate‐equity technique considers two components of value, namely, debt and equity. It is usually applied to the nett income receivable in the first year, (conventional income capitalisation). Equated yield is a form of cash flow analysis which allows for the assessment of rental income projections. The combination of the two techniques, where debt capital is treated as an actual series of cash flows, leads to a discounted cash flow rate of return being available for equity capital. This measure should be of interest to property companies and occupying investors. The approach is demonstrated using a simple example, and some sample tables of equated yield on equity are appended.

Discounted cash flow (DCF), whether by capitalisation or by cash flow analysis, has many detractors because of a number of apparent problems such as the reinvestment assumption and the possibility of multiple rates of return. The capital recovery cum reinvestment aspects of Years' Purchase (YP) factors and DCF are discussed and it is demonstrated that Years' Purchase single rate principle is akin to Internal Rate of Return (IRR) and that Years' Purchase dual rate principle also has a DCF image known as the Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR). The difference between the YP models and the DCF models is to do with the level cash flows assumed in the former and the variability of the cash flows measured in the latter. MIRR was developed as an answer to the above problems and it is demonstrated in a case study in which the fallacy of the apparent problems is also demonstrated. MIRR has a place in the analysis of investment strategy, but IRR (equated yield) is shown to be satisfactory in the financial analysis and comparison of individual projects.

This paper studies the microeconomic impacts of the political crisis and civil con‡flict that immediately followed the December 2007 Presidential Election in Kenya. Income, expenditures, and consumption dramatically declined for a broad segment of the rural population for the duration of the con‡flict. To make up for the income shortfall, women who supply transactional sex engaged in higher risk sex both during and after the crisis. While this particular crisis was likely too short for these behavioral responses to seriously increase the risk of HIV or other STIs for these women, such responses could have long-term repercussions for health in countries with longer or more frequent crises. Overall, our results suggest that social unrest can be an important channel through which political instability can affect long-term outcomes such as health.

PurposeThis paper aims to identify and examine the determinants of downside systematic risk in Australian listed property trusts (LPTs).Design/methodology/approachCapital asset pricing model (CAPM) and lower partial moment‐CAPM (LPM‐CAPM) are employed to compute both systematic risk and downside systematic risk. The methodology of Patel and Olsen and Chaudhry et al. is adopted to examine the determinants of systematic risk and downside systematic risk.FindingsThe results confirm that systematic risk and downside systematic risk can be individually identified. There is little evidence to support the existence of linkages between systematic risk in Australian LPTs and financial/management structure determinants. On the other hand, downside systematic risk is directly related to the leverage/management structure of a LPT. The results are also robust after controlling for the LPTs' investment characteristics and varying target rates of return.Practical implicationsInvestors and real estate analysts should conscious with the higher returns from high leverage and internally managed LPTs. Although there is no evidence that these higher returns are related to higher systematic risk, there could be the compensation for higher downside systematic risk.Originality/valueThis study provides invaluable insights into the management of real estate risk in Australian LPTs with implications for REITs in other countries. Unlike previous studies of systematic risk in REITs or LPTs, this is the first study to assess downside systematic risk and explore the determinants of downside systematic risk in LPTs.