IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/jpifpp/jpif-03-2022-0022.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feasibility practices of types of property developers

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Moorhead
  • Lynne Armitage
  • Martin Skitmore

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to analyse the current relationships between developer characteristics in terms of dominant property type (residential, commercial, retail, industrial, tourism, “other”), ownership (publicly listed, publicly unlisted, private, government), organisational structure (speculative-trader, investor developers, development managers) and size (small, medium, large) in the frequency of use and required minimum value of hurdle rate metrics. Design/methodology/approach - A questionnaire survey of 225 Australian and New Zealand trader developers, development managers, investors, valuers, fund managers and government/charities/other relating to the feasibility practices of different types of Australia/New Zealand property development companies. Findings - (1) Residential dominant developers are more likely to use margin on development cost (MDC) required to have a higher minimum internal rate of return (IRR) percentage; (2) investor developers are more likely to use the payback period as a hurdle rate, and specific hurdle rates as a part of a go/no-go decision; (3) trader developers adopt a higher percentage of IRR and deviate further from accepted financial theory in hurdle rate selection; and (4) national property development organisations in multiple geographic regions use qualitative frameworks more as a decision-making process and use MDC less as a hurdle rate. Practical implications - The study is limited to a sample of property practitioners working in Australia/New Zealand at the time of data collection in 2016 and, further empirical research is needed spatially and temporally to determine the extent of the findings. Further research is also needed with small- to medium-sized development organisations' on the extent to which they should use different metrics in project selection and for an improved understanding of the technical and attitudinal difficulties facing their current adoption. Originality/value - First study to examine the feasibility practices of different types of Australia/New Zealand property developers.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Moorhead & Lynne Armitage & Martin Skitmore, 2022. "Feasibility practices of types of property developers," Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(1), pages 92-105, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:jpifpp:jpif-03-2022-0022
    DOI: 10.1108/JPIF-03-2022-0022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JPIF-03-2022-0022/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/JPIF-03-2022-0022/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/JPIF-03-2022-0022?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eme:jpifpp:jpif-03-2022-0022. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.