Author:
Roberts Claire,Henneberry John
Abstract
PurposeStudies of UK and US property investment markets have historically portrayed the decision‐making process as an exercise in rational analysis. This notion is fundamentally flawed as the concept of a perfect market has limited applicability to the real world context in which property investment decisions are taken. Investment decision‐making is neither clinical nor methodical but is undertaken by imperfect players in imperfect markets using imperfect information. The purpose of this paper is to explore the decision making processes of investors.Design/methodology/approachA normative‐behavioural framework incorporating heuristics is used, a technique whose application in property research has previously been limited to valuation. The empirical vehicle for the research was an exploration of the spatial dimension of office property investment in different European contexts.FindingsThe findings of in‐depth case studies of investment decision‐making in France, Germany and the UK indicate that the decision‐making process, as perceived by institutional investors, does not deviate significantly from normative models. However, investors tend to “collapse down” the decision‐making process, taking shortcuts to achieve (in some cases, predefined) investment outcomes. These short‐cuts potentially leave the decision‐making process open to the influence of bias, judgement and sentiment.Originality/valueThis study represents the first attempt to explore, empirically and in detail, the property investment decision‐making process.
Subject
General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,Finance,General Business, Management and Accounting,General Economics, Econometrics and Finance,Finance,General Business, Management and Accounting
Reference61 articles.
1. Adair, A., Berry, J. and McGreal, W. (1994), “Investment decision making: a behavioural perspective”, Journal of Property Finance, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 32‐42.
2. Ashton, A. and Ashton, R. (1988), “Sequential belief revision in auditing”, The Accounting Review, Vol. LXIII No. 4, pp. 623‐41.
3. Assere, S. (1992), “The auditors going concern decision: interaction of task variables and the sequential processing of evidence”, The Accounting Review, Vol. 87, p. 2.
4. Baker, M. (1998), “Fund managers' attitudes to risk and time horizons: the effect of performance benchmarking”, European Journal of Finance, Vol. 4, pp. 257‐78.
5. Ball, M. (1998), “Institutions in British property research”, Urban Studies, Vol. 35 No. 9, pp. 1501‐17.
Cited by
48 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献