ASSESSING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS AND PROPERTY

ASSESSING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS AND PROPERTY MARKET TRANSPARENCY PROFESSOR GRAEME NEWELL University of Western Sydney (g. newell@uws. edu. au) JUNE 2009

INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT CONTEXT n n Global listed property: $1. 0 trillion Global REITs: $361 billion - US: 51. 1% - Australia: 10. 2% - Europe: 21. 8% - Asia: 12. 4%

INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT ACTIVITY n n n 2007: $1. 072 trillion - domestic @68% - cross-border @32% 2008: $517 billion - domestic @69% - cross-border @31% 2008 cross-border investment - US: 9% - Australia: 17% - Europe: 47% - UK: 38% - Germany: 58% - France: 48% - Netherlands: 23% - Italy: 36% - Asia: 27% - China: 25% - Japan: 23% - Singapore: 50%

2007 GLOBAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS Source: Real Capital Analytics

2008 GLOBAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS Source: Real Capital Analytics

INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT REQUIREMENTS n n n n Accurate market and financial information Reliable performance benchmarks Enforceable contracts and property rights Clarity regarding taxation and regulation of property Fair treatment in transaction process Ethical standards amongst professionals hired to transact business Overall: property market transparency is key issue

PREVIOUS INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RESEARCH n Portfolio diversification benefits of international property - Bond n n n - Ling Regional diversification benefits; eg: Asia - Bond - Eichholtz Property market convergence/integration; eg: Europe - Mc. Allister - Lizieri - Bardham Property market maturity/transparency - Chin n - Hoesli - Brounen - Newell Emerging property markets; eg: Eastern Europe, Africa, South America, Asia - Adair - Lim

PREVIOUS INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY RESEARCH n Determinants of international property performance - eg: returns, rents - De Wit - Hamelink n Next step: link property market maturity/transparency with determinants n Newell (2008): 54 countries @ 2006 - regions - mature/emerging - linkages

PURPOSE OF PAPER n Assess linkages between property market transparency/maturity and various economic, social, institutional and technology competitiveness indicators over 71 countries n Identify key linkages/factors: 2008 n Compare linkages across regions and for mature/emerging markets n Expanded # countries @ 2008

METHODOLOGY n n n Property market transparency: JLL Economic, social, institutional, technology, competitiveness indicators: WEF, TI Linkages 71 countries overall Data: largely opinion-based surveys - JLL - WEF - TI

JLL REAL ESTATE TRANSPARENCY INDEX n 82 countries • China, India, Russia @ Tier 1, 2, 3 Real estate transparency index: 1 to 5 n Criteria (5); 15 elements assessed • • • n availability of investment performance indices availability of market fundamentals data listed vehicle financial disclosure and governance regulatory and legal factors professional and ethical standards Transparency index @ 1999, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008

JLL REAL ESTATE TRANSPARENCY INDEX n 5 categories re: real estate transparency • highly transparent: 1. 00 to 1. 49 (10 countries) • transparent: 1. 50 to 2. 49 (16 countries) • semi-transparent: 2. 50 to 3. 49 (25 countries) • low transparency: 3. 50 to 4. 24 (26 countries) • opaque: 4. 25 to 5. 00 (5 countries) n Development of real estate transparency index

JLL REAL ESTATE TRANSPARENCY INDEX n 2008 improvements • Countries: 56 → 82 • Tiers 1, 2, 3 @ China, India, Russia • Middle East coverage: 3 → 11 • Eastern Europe, North Africa coverage • Regional sub-indices: 5 per region • Composite index Vs classic index

Table 1: JLL global real estate transparency index: 2008 Highly transparent: Australia, US, New Zealand, Canada, UK, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Sweden, France, Singapore Transparent: Finland, Germany, South Africa, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Switzerland, Norway, Italy, Malaysia, Japan, Portugal, Czech Republic, Poland Semi-transparent: Hungary, Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, Slovakia, Chile, Greece, Russia (Tier 1, 2, 3), Philippines, Brazil, Thailand, India (Tier 1, 2), China (Tier 1), Dubai, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania Low transparency: China (Tier 1, 2, 3), India (Tier 3), UAE, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Turkey, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Saudi Arabia, Panama, Vietnam, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Kazakhstan, Oman Opaque: Belarus, Sudan, Syria, Algeria, Cambodia Source: JLL (2008)

REAL ESTATE TRANSPARENCY CLASSIC SCORE ANALYSIS

WEF GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT n 134 countries re: global competitiveness: 2008 -09 n 1 to 7 score; 120 criteria assessed n Indicators: categories/sub-categories -global competitiveness - infrastructure -health and primary educ. - market efficiency - business sophistication - environment -institutions -macroeconomy - higher education and training - technology - innovation -basic indicators

WEF GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS REPORT n # respondents = 12, 297 @ various institutions - Australia: 83 - Japan: 148 n - US: 200 - UK: 63 - Germany: 71 - France: 105 Global competitiveness rating #1: US #2: Switzerland #4: Sweden #7: Germany #16: France #18: Australia #50: India #51: Russia #68: Romania #3: Denmark #12: UK #30: China #62: Hungary

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX n n n 180 countries re: corruption @ 2008 1 to 10 score ADB, Af. DB, EIU, World Bank etc. 3 – 10 surveys per country #1: Denmark, Sweden, NZ #4: Singapore #9: Australia #12: Hong Kong #14: Germany #16: UK #18: Japan, US #23: France

ANALYSIS n n 71 countries @ 2008; omissions Property market transparency @ JLL Linkage to 16 economic, social, institutional, technology competitiveness indicators ▪ 15 @ WEF ▪ 1 @ TI Global competitiveness Infrastructure Higher ed. and training Technology readiness Innovation Foreign ownership Local stock market regulation GDP per capita Institutions Macroeconomy Labor market efficiency Business sophistication Fin. markets sophis. Soundness of banks Property rights Corruption

LINKAGE ANALYSES n n n n Global (# countries = 71) Regional - Asia (13) - Europe (31) - Americas (13) - Asia Pacific (17) - Eastern Europe (9) - Middle East (9) Maturity/transparency - transparent (26) - less transparent (45) Europe - mature (17) - emerging (14) Asia - mature (4) - emerging (9) Asia-Pacific - mature (8) - emerging (9) Correlations; step-wise regression re: identify key factors

Table 2: Correlation analysis Model Smallest correlation Largest correlation # correlations # significant > 0. 50 correlations Global (71) 0. 32 . 85 (technology) 94% (15/16) 100% (16/16) Asia (13) 0. 54 . 90 (financial market sophist. ) 100% (16/16) Europe (31) 0. 26 . 83 (global competit. , business sophist. ) 81% (13/16) 94% (15/16) Americas (13) 0. 19 . 95 (technology) 88% (14/16) Asia-Pacific (17) 0. 43 . 92 (corruption) 94% (15/16) Eastern Europe (9) 0. 01 . 61 (macroeconomy) 6% (1/16) Middle East (9) 0. 01 . 79 (securities market regulations) 38% (6/16) 19% (3/16)

Table 2: Correlation analysis Model Smallest correlation Largest correlation # correlations # significant > 0. 50 correlations Transparent (26) 0. 29 . 70 (financial market sophist. ) 56% (9/16) 75% (12/16) Less transparent (45) 0. 19 . 71 (higher education & training) 25% (4/16) 75% (12/16) Europe: mature (17) 0. 18 . 71 (financial market sophist. , technology) 88% (14/16) Europe: emerging (14) 0. 23 . 59 (higher education & training) 19% (3/16) Asia-Pacific: mature (8) 0. 04 . 86 (banks) 56% (9/16) 44% (7/16) Asia: mature (4) 0. 37 . 99 (foreign ownership) 75% (12/16) 50% (8/16) Asia: emerging (9) 0. 05 . 87 (business sophist. ) 88% (14/16) 75% (12/16)

Table 2: Correlation analysis Model Smallest correlation Largest correlation # correlations # significant > 0. 50 correlations Americas: emerging (11) 0. 21 . 69 (global competit. ) 50% (8/16) 44% (7/16) JLL: highly transparent (10) 0. 02 . 70 (foreign ownership) 6% (1/16) JLL: transparent (16) 0. 03 . 73 (banks) 63% (10/16) 75% (12/16) JLL: semi-transparent (21) 0. 02 . 40 (GDP per capita) 0% (0/16) JLL: low transparency/opaque (24) 0. 12 . 74 (securities market regulations) 44% (7/16) 63% (10/16)

Table 3: Step-wise regression analysis: key factors Model Variables included Adj. R² Global (71) Financial sophistication, higher education & training, macroeconomy 0. 77 Asia (13) Financial sophistication, corruption 0. 87 Europe (31) Technology 0. 69 Americas (13) Technology 0. 90 Asia-Pacific (17) Eastern Europe (9) Global competitiveness, banks, corruption 0. 93 Macroeconomy 0. 28 Middle East (9) Securities market regulation 0. 57

Table 3: Step-wise regression analysis: key factors Model Variables included Adj. R² Transparent (26) Financial sophistication 0. 47 Less transparent (45) Higher education & training, banks, institutions 0. 59 Europe: mature (17) Financial sophistication, market efficiency, technology 0. 79 Europe: emerging (14) Higher education & training 0. 29 Asia-Pacific: mature (8) Banks, GDP per capita 0. 88 Asia: mature (4) Foreign ownership Asia: emerging (9) Business sophistication 0. 97 0. 72

Table 3: Step-wise regression analysis: key factors Model Variables included Adj. R² Americas: emerging (11) Global competitiveness, institutions 0. 65 JLL: highly transparent (10) Financial sophistication, foreign ownership 0. 67 JLL: transparent (16) Banks 0. 50 JLL: semi-transparent (21) Business sophistication, banks, innovation, foreign ownership 0. 73 JLL: low transparency/opaque (24) Securities market regulation 0. 52

INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT IMPLICATIONS n n n Environment of international property investment re: global financial crisis impact Focus on property market maturity/transparency Linkages to economic, social, institutional and technology factors Regional differences Mature Vs. emerging market differences Consistency of linkage indicators?

INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY INVESTMENT IMPLICATIONS n n Future developments re: importance Eg: EPRA emerging markets index @ 2008 - # countries = 22 - # property companies = 124 @ $81 billion - Thailand, China, Malaysia, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia, India included - Asia Pacific @ 52%, Americas @ 19%, EMEA @29% n n Eg: IPD global property index Eg: IPD country/regional indices • broader coverage