Expectation for Commercial Property Growth
27/November/2014/
Unlike residential property, the factors that determine prospects for commercial property growth are much more dependent upon specific tenant demand, rather than demand and supply generally. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter issue 30 - click here
Is most commercial property ex-growth?
25/September/2014/
Successful investment in commercial property is all about art and timing. The art, which might be described as judicious choice, is the skill needed to discern whether the particular property is likely to continually head in the same direction as the market. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Conflict of Interest
01/September/1985/
In a period of 'retailing revolution,' one wonders how advisers to pension funds can be so confident that the rate of growth essential to justify low initial yields on purchase price will materialise at the review date.
Many funds are already becoming increasingly disillusioned with their agents' failure to achieve the anticipated rental value. When the same agencies also act for multiple retailers, how do they reconcile their objective for the lowest rental when they may also be acting for the landlord of adjoining property with a brief to get the highest rental?
This conflict exists for all valuers, likely to receive instructions to advise landlords and tenants in the same area, but it surmountable when there is no vested inyerest in the progress of the investment.
Detailed knowledge of a multiple retailers' property affairs must be very useful when advising a fund on investment purchase (not to mention on the company's take-over potential) and the solution appears to aim for a balance, tilted in favour of the landlord, whereby 'comparable evidence,' to back a recommendation to settle, is presented in such a form as to convince the tenant that the conclusion is indeed the right figure, in line with 'the market.'
I cannot understand the business philosophy of major multiple retailers who appear unconcerned that their retained advisers actively market a positive involvement in the investment market. Surely it is better to use a selection of different valuers or, at worst, to deal with negotiations internally.
Many funds are already becoming increasingly disillusioned with their agents' failure to achieve the anticipated rental value. When the same agencies also act for multiple retailers, how do they reconcile their objective for the lowest rental when they may also be acting for the landlord of adjoining property with a brief to get the highest rental?
This conflict exists for all valuers, likely to receive instructions to advise landlords and tenants in the same area, but it surmountable when there is no vested inyerest in the progress of the investment.
Detailed knowledge of a multiple retailers' property affairs must be very useful when advising a fund on investment purchase (not to mention on the company's take-over potential) and the solution appears to aim for a balance, tilted in favour of the landlord, whereby 'comparable evidence,' to back a recommendation to settle, is presented in such a form as to convince the tenant that the conclusion is indeed the right figure, in line with 'the market.'
I cannot understand the business philosophy of major multiple retailers who appear unconcerned that their retained advisers actively market a positive involvement in the investment market. Surely it is better to use a selection of different valuers or, at worst, to deal with negotiations internally.