[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v40y2003i8p1487-1516.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

UK Commercial Property Lease Structures: Landlord and Tenant Mismatch

Author

Listed:
  • Neil Crosby

    (Department of Real Estate and Planning, University of Reading, PO Box 219, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK, fre.crosby@reading.ac.uk)

  • Virginia Gibson

    (Department of Real Estate and Planning, University of Reading, PO Box 219, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AW, UK, v.a.gibson@reading.ac.uk)

  • Sandi Murdoch

    (School of Law, University of Reading, PO Box 217, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 6AH, UK, s.e.murdoch@readireg.ac.uk)

Abstract
UK commercial property lease structures have come under considerable scrutiny during the past decade since the property crash of the early 1990s. In particular, tenants complained that the system was unfair and that it has blocked business change. Government is committed, through its 2001 election manifesto, to promote flexibility and choice in the commercial property lettings market and a new voluntary Commercial Leases Code of Practice was launched in April 2002. This paper investigates whether occupiers are being offered the leases they require or whether there is a mismatch between occupier requirements and actual leases in the market. It draws together the substantial data now available on the actual terms of leases in the UK and surveys of corporate occupiers' attitude to their occupation requirements. Although the data indicated that UK leases have become shorter and more diverse since 1990, this is still not sufficient to meet the current requirements of many corporate occupiers. It is clear that the inability to manage entry and exit strategies is a major concern to occupiers. Lease length is the primary concern of tenants and a number of respondents comment on the mismatch between lease length in the UK and business planning horizons. The right to break and other problems with alienation clauses also pose serious difficulties for occupiers, thus reinforcing the mismatch. Other issues include repairing and insuring clauses and the type of review clause. There are differences in opinion between types of occupier. In particular, international corporate occupiers are significantly more concerned about the length of lease and the incidence of break clauses than national occupiers and private-sector tenants are significantly more concerned about leasing in general than public-sector occupiers. Proposed solutions by tenants are predictable and include shorter leases, more frequent breaks and relaxation of restrictions concerning alienation and other clauses. A significant number specify that they would pay more for shorter leases and other improved terms. Short leases would make many of the other terms more acceptable and this is why they are the main concern of corporate occupiers. Overall, the evidence suggests that there continues to be a gap between occupiers' lease requirements and those currently offered by the market. There are underlying structural factors that act as an inertial force on landlords and inhibit the changes which occupiers appear to want. Nevertheless, the findings raise future research questions concerning whether UK lease structures are a constraining factor on UK competitiveness.

Suggested Citation

  • Neil Crosby & Virginia Gibson & Sandi Murdoch, 2003. "UK Commercial Property Lease Structures: Landlord and Tenant Mismatch," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(8), pages 1487-1516, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:40:y:2003:i:8:p:1487-1516
    DOI: 10.1080/0042098032000094405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/0042098032000094405
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0042098032000094405?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hendershott, Patric H & Ward, Charles W R, 2003. "Valuing and Pricing Retail Leases with Renewal and Overage Options," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 26(2-3), pages 223-240, March-May.
    2. Trigeorgis, Lenos, 1996. "Evaluating leases with complex operating options," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 315-329, June.
    3. Ambrose, Brent W & Hendershott, Patric H & Klosek, Malgorzata, 2002. "Pricing Upward-Only Adjusting Leases," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 33-49, July.
    4. Colin Lizieri & Andrew Baum & Peter Scott, 2000. "Ownership, Occupation and Risk: A View of the City of London Office Market," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 37(7), pages 1109-1129, June.
    5. Elaine M. Worzala & Alexandra Bernasek, 1996. "European Economic Integration and Commercial Real Estate Markets: An Analysis of Trends in Market Determinants," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 11(2), pages 159-182.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elias Einiö & Henry G. Overman, 2016. "The (Displacement) Effects of Spatially Targeted Enterprise Initiatives: Evidence from UK LEGI," SERC Discussion Papers 0191, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    2. Charles-Olivier Amédée-Manesme & Francois Des Rosiers & Philippe Grégoire, 2017. "Commercial leases, terms and options in the light of game theory," ERES eres2017_175, European Real Estate Society (ERES).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shaun Bond & Pavlos Loizou & Patrick McAllister, 2008. "Lease Maturity and Initial Rent: Is There a Term Structure for UK Commercial Property Leases?," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 451-469, May.
    2. Fan, Gang-Zhi & Pu, Ming & Deng, Xiaoying & Ong, Seow Eng, 2018. "Optimal portfolio choices and the determination of housing rents under housing market uncertainty," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 200-217.
    3. Richard Stanton & Nancy Wallace, 2009. "An Empirical Test of a Contingent Claims Lease Valuation Model," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 31(1), pages 1-26.
    4. Ahmed Al sharif & Ruwen Qin, 2015. "Double-sided price adjustment flexibility with a preemptive right to exercise," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 29-50, March.
    5. Patric H. Hendershott & Robert J. Hendershott & Charles R. W. Ward, 2003. "Corporate Equity and Commercial Property Market 'Bubbles'," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(5-6), pages 993-1009, May.
    6. Marton Lotz & Daniel Ruf & Johannes Strobel, 2023. "Uncertainty premia in REIT returns," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 51(2), pages 372-407, March.
    7. Mohammad Ismail & Abukar Warsame & Mats Wilhelmsson, 2022. "Who Owns the City, and Why Should We Care?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, March.
    8. Pat Wilson & Ralf Zurbruegg, 2003. "International Diversification of Real Estate Assets - Is it Worth It? Evidence from the Literature," Working Paper Series 126, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    9. Steven R. Grenadier, 2003. "An Equilibrium Analysis of Real Estate," NBER Working Papers 9475, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Fang Fang & Lu Ruichang, 2009. "Is There a Term Structure? Empirical Evidence from Shanghai Office Rental Market," International Real Estate Review, Global Social Science Institute, vol. 12(1), pages 23-38.
    11. Luigi De Cesare & Lucianna Cananà & Tiziana Ciano & Massimiliano Ferrara, 2024. "Modeling financial leasing by optimal stopping approach," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 47(1), pages 199-213, June.
    12. Jian Yang & James Kolari & Guozhong Zhu, 2005. "European public real estate market integration," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(13), pages 895-905.
    13. Anupam Nanda & Jia-Huey Yeh, 2016. "International Transmission Mechanisms and Contagion in Housing Markets," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(7), pages 1005-1024, July.
    14. Colin Lizieri, 2008. "International Financial Centres, Office Market Rents And Volatility," ERES eres2008_197, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    15. Brent Ambrose & Yildiray Yildirim, 2008. "Credit Risk and the Term Structure of Lease Rates: A Reduced Form Approach," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 281-298, October.
    16. Fuerst, Franz & McAllister, Patrick, 2008. "Green Noise or Green Value? Measuring the Price Effects of Environmental Certification in Commercial Buildings," MPRA Paper 11446, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised Sep 2008.
    17. Musil Robert & Reiner Christian, 2019. "Synchronität der Büromarktzyklen? Dynamiken europäischer Metropolen im Kontext der Finanz- und Wirtschaftskrise," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 23-46, March.
    18. Elaine Worzala & C.F. Sirmans, 2003. "Investing in International Real Estate Stocks: A Review of the Literature," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(5-6), pages 1115-1149, May.
    19. Chuang-Chang Chang & Hsiao-Wei Ho & Henry Hongren Huang & Yildiray Yildirim, 2024. "A reduced-form model for lease contract valuation with embedded options," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 841-864, February.
    20. Das, Prashant & Füss, Roland & Hanle, Benjamin & Russ, Isabel Nina, 2020. "The cross-over effect of irrational sentiments in housing, commercial property, and stock markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:40:y:2003:i:8:p:1487-1516. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.