Product details

This case provides real estate market data for the analysis of an office lease or buy decision. The case demonstrates what is known as the ''leasing puzzle'' - the answer simply being that the two forms of financing are not cost equivalent in the presence of capital market imperfections, despite both being credit forms. It explores asset-specificity arguments to support the view that generally, firms should not own offices unless this is dictated by their core business. This case presents two opposing anecdotes: one about a trading company that bought its office and profited hugely from this decision as the market and capital values moved upwards, but then faced huge losses as the market declined; and another from a comparable trading company leasing office space, and applying its capital to grow the trading business without diversion. The example illustrates why trading companies should not take the opportunity to capitalise on a buoyant real estate market. The argument is that shareholders do not need trading companies to invest in properties for them, since they can do this through their own investment portfolio activities. The case also explores issues such as shareholders'' rights, and accounting and tax implications. In principle, there is no simple answer, but the analysis provides ample materials for debate. It is possible for illustration purposes to do a least-cost calculation of the buy-versus-lease decision, but the answer will be entirely determined by assumptions about interest rates and rental market dynamics.