《外文翻译(陈佳锋).doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《外文翻译(陈佳锋).doc（18页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、毕业设计（论文）外文翻译题 目金都花园房地产开发项目可行性研究 学 院建筑与土木工程学院专 业工程管理班级08工程管理本学 号学生姓名陈佳锋指导教师马悠怡 温州大学教务处制Determinants of US investment in real estate abroadFariborz Moshirian *, Toan Pham School of Banking & Finance, The Uni6ersity of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, AustraliaReceived 22 January 1998; accepted 22 Ap
2、ril 1999Abstract：The purpose of this paper is to analyse and discuss those factors which are contributing to the expansion of US FDI in real estate. The empirical results of this model of FDI in real estate show that as US foreign financial liabilities increase, there is an accompanying increase in
3、its FDI in real estate. This result is consistent with the study by Russekh, F., Ruffin, R.,1986. The role of foreign direct investment in US capital flows. Am. Econ. Rev. 76,11271130, who showed that US FDI abroad is a substitute for US financial assets. Furthermore, the empirical results indicate
4、that as returns from the US stock market decline, there are more incentives for US investors to invest in foreign real estate. The empirical results also show that US financial wealth, US FDI in manufacturing and banking and US bilateral trade contribute positively to the expansion of US FDI in real
5、 estate. 2000Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.Keywords: Real estate; Foreign direct investment; Stock market1. IntroductionSince the early 1980s, according to the World Investment Report (United Nations, 1997), world-wide flows of foreign direct investment (FDI) have grown at unprecedented
6、rates, to reach a total outflow of about $420 billion in 1996. The annual average growth rate of FDI has been 33% between 1987 and 1996 which far exceeded that of merchandise exports (12%) and nominal GDP (12%).US FDI abroad is categorised into several industries. One of the categories of US FDI abr
7、oad is FDI in real estate, as opposed to FDI in manufacturing, banking, etc. While it is observed that US FDI in real estate is small, it has increased by more than four times over the period 19851997. There are five major countries in which the US has invested in real estate. These are Canada, the
8、UK, Mexico, France and Italy. In 1997, almost 39% of the US FDI abroad in real estate was in the UK, 21% in Canada, 12% in Mexico, 3% in France and 3% in Italy.Real estate investment has long been confined to markets with which investors are familiar. International diversification was not on the age
9、nda as Webb (1984) found in a comprehensive survey of US institutional investors attitudes in the 1970s and early 1980s. They appeared to diversify only over different property types and regions within their home country. However, in the 1980s growing amounts of money were being invested abroad in m
10、any industries, including real estate. This is the first study of FDI in real estate which attempts to provide an analysis and an explanation for the determinants of US investment in real estate abroad over the period 19851995. The unpublished quarterly data on US FDI in real estate, manufacturing a
11、nd banking make such a study possible. According to an unofficial definition of the US Department of Commerce, FDI in real estate covers investment by US private investors in real estate including domicile, commercial building1.The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews some of the releva
12、nt literature in FDI; Section 3 proposes various factors which could determine US FDI in real estate; Section 4 models US FDI in real estate; Section 5 describes the sources of data and the methodology used in this paper; Section 6 reports the empirical findings; and Section 7 makes some concluding
13、remarks.2. Literature reviewThere have been a number of studies on FDI in general, in manufacturing, banking and insurance. However, there has not been a study of FDI in real estate. This section of paper intends to survey some of the most relevant FDI studies which are relevant to FDI in real estat
14、e2.Williams (1997) recently surveyed various established theories of FDI in the context of multinational banking. In this survey he discussed major FDI theories such as the international investment theory, the eclectic theory and the industrial organisation hypothesis; however, most studies of FDI h
15、ave been based on the eclectic theory as a means of measuring the most significant determinants of FDI. Some studies of FDI have highlighted one or two as the main determinants of FDI abroad. For instance, studies by Cushman (1987), and Froot and Stein (1991) identified the effects of exchange rates
16、 on FDI as the main determinant factor for FDI abroad. Studies such as Nigh (1986) argued that the size of the market in the host country is the most significant factor for FDI abroad. Schneider and Frey (1985) considered the balance of payment as the most significant determinant of FDI abroad. Furt
17、hermore, some studies found more than one factor as the major determinants of FDI abroad. Studies such as Culem (1988) found that the host market size, the market growth rate, unit labor cost, trade flows and economies of scale are the major determinants of FDI abroad.In addition to the above studie
18、s, some specific studies such as Goldberg and Johnson (1990) and Gross and Goldberg (1991) were made in the area of foreign banks activities where a number of hypotheses such as cost of capital, market size, exchange rate, economic growth and trade were found as the major determinants of FDI in bank
19、ing.As can be seen from the above studies, most of the studies of FDI have selected certain factors as the most relevant contributors to the FDI abroad. This is consistent with the eclectic theory of FDI. In this study, as in the above studies, a number of factors which appear to be the most signifi
20、cant contributors to the expansion of US FDI in real estate as opposed to FDI in general or manufacturing will be identified.3. Factors contributing to US FDI in real estate abroadIn this section, hypotheses based mainly on the eclectic theory will be used to estimate FDI in real estate. The first s
21、tep is to select those factors which appear to be the main determinants of US FDI in real estate abroad on the basis of the recent literature about US FDI in general, manufacturing, banking and insurance abroad. The following factors have been selected for US FDI in real estate abroad: (1) US financ
22、ial wealth, (2) returns from the US stock market, (3) US FDI in manufacturing and banking abroad, (4) US foreign financial liabilities, (5) US bilateral trade and (6) relative economic growth. The first four factors are specific to FDI in real estate, whereas the last three factors are general facto
23、rs pertinent to FDI in general. The remaining part of this section will discuss the above factors.3.1. Financial wealthExisting income and wealth are the two major determinants of the likelihood of a country accumulating further foreign and domestic assets. A number of researchers including Branson
24、and Hill (1970), Russekh and Ruffin (1986) and Ueda (1990) used wealth as a source of allocating financial assets between domestic and foreign assets. Russekh and Ruffin (1986) used wealth as one of the factors determining the amount of US foreign assets abroad. Furthermore, Ueda (1990) showed that
25、Japans wealth has been one of the major causes of expansion of her foreign financial assets. In this study, it is also assumed that US financial wealth is allocated between domestic and foreign assets. Thus, it is expected that US FDI in real estate abroad, as a component of US foreign direct invest
26、ment, should be related to US financial wealth. The stock of financial wealth is allocated between domestic and foreign assets on the basis of various factors including expected domestic and foreign rate of returns. Thus, given the findings of Russekh and Ruffin (1986) about the relationship between
27、 US general FDI and her wealth, and the findings of Ueda (1990) in which a close link between financial wealth and the accumulation of foreign assets was observed, the first hypothesis to be tested is whether US financial wealth affects the expansion of US FDI in real estate abroad.3.2. Returns from
28、 the US stock marketAnother hypothesis to be tested is the relationship between US FDI in real estate and returns from the US stock market. It is expected that US FDI in real estate abroad is negatively related to contemporaneous returns from the US stock market. This is motivated by the finding of
29、Warther (1985) that aggregate mutual fund flows into stocks and bonds are positively related to their concurrent returns and negatively related to their past returns. However, Warther (1985) finds that mutual fund investors induce permanent rather than transitory price changes indicating that fund i
30、nvestors do not merely create haphazard movements in security prices. They appear to trade on information or, at least, trade in the same direction as those who possess relevant information. Thus, investor sentiments do not seem so unsophisticated, contrary to the findings in a related work by Lee e
31、t al. (1991). In this study, it is argued that as returns from the US stock market fall, there are more incentives to invest abroad in real estate. Thus, the hypothesis to be tested is whether US FDI in real estate abroad is negatively correlated to returns from the US stock market. The Standard and
32、 Poors 500 Index is used as a proxy to measure returns from the US stock market.3.3. US FDI in manufacturing and banking abroadA positive relationship has generally been found between a banks foreign expansion and FDI from other industries, particularly manufacturing. The rationale for this, accordi
33、ng to a number of researchers, is that multinational banks will follow their multinational customers abroad so that they can provide services for their customers foreign operations. The theoretical justification of the follow-the-client hypothesis applied to banks is provided by Grubel (1977). Suppo
34、rting evidence for this hypothesis is reported, amongst others, by Goldberg and Johnson (1990). In the case of FDI in real estate, one would assume that as US companies invest in certain countries, trade and investment associated with their activities may provide opportunities for private US investo
35、rs and companies to invest in real estate in the countries where the US manufacturers and bankers are operating. Furthermore, one could also argue that US manufacturers and banks invest in foreign real estate not necessarily for the higher rate of return that they expect to receive, compared with th
36、at from the US, but rather because of the necessity of being able to invest in manufacturing or banking in foreign countries. Thus, one can assume that as the US manufacturers and bankers expand their operations abroad, their demand for investment in real estate in the host countries will increase.
37、Thus, one of the hypotheses to be tested is whether FDI in real estate is positively correlated with FDI in manufacturing and banking.3.4. US foreign financial liabilitiesAs Russekh and Ruffin (1986) argued, given that the United States is seen as one of the leading bankers in the world, they are ab
38、le to exchange short-term liabilities for long-term assets. Their results support the notion that capital outflows (in the form of FDI) and capital inflows are mutually dependent. In addition, statistical data reported in the Sur6ey of Current Business indicate a close relationship between foreign f
39、inancial liabilities of the US (which have more than tripled during the period from 1985 to 1995), and US foreign assets (which have more than doubled during the same period).From a practical point of view, international investment is less risky and more likely if the investors can identify a foreig
40、n exchange cash flow tied to the foreign asset to be acquired. For this reason, the US foreign liabilities, to the extent that they are assets held by foreigners, act as collateral on foreign investment thereby reducing the perceived riskiness of foreign investment and increasing the likelihood of s
41、uch investments. Therefore, another empirical question to be addressed is whether US foreign financial liabilities are an important factor in contributing to US FDI in real estate abroad.3.5. US bilateral tradeA proposed determinant of foreign direct investment in real estate is the amount of bilate
42、ral trade between the US and her most important partners in real estate. By measuring the strength of economic ties, bilateral trade may be a proxy for home country investment abroad. Empirical tests on FDI data in manufacturing for the US, Germany, Great Britain, and Japan support the premise that
43、FDI and foreign trade are correlated. Jain (1986) found that in a sample of 46 countries the US share of total trade had a high degree of explanatory power with regard to its share of banking assets in these countries.The importance of trade in determining the amount of FDI in real estate is incorpo
44、rated in the current model through a measure of bilateral trade for the US. The relevant variable is constructed as the weighted average of bilateral exports and imports between the US and her major partners in which the US has FDI in real estate. The weight given to the sum of exports and imports w
45、ith a given trading partner is given by that countrys share of US FDI in real estate. Given past empirical research on the effects of international trade on FDI in general, a positive coefficient is expected for the bilateral trade variable.3.6. Relati6e economic growthAccording to various publicati
46、ons of the Sur6ey of Current Business on US FDI abroad, US investors invest more abroad during an economic slump in the US and they invest less abroad during an economic boom in the US. These observations are consistent with a number of researchers such as Schneider and Frey (1985), and Culem (1988)
47、 who argued that relative economic growth in the host countries encourages foreign investment in those countries. Thus, one would expect investors from the US to invest more in foreign countries real estate during an economic slump in the US. Therefore, one would expect relative economic growth betw
48、een the US and her major partners in real estate to have some effects on the level of US FDI in real estate.In order to account for an increasingly global financial economy as well as the importance of economic growth as a determinant of banks foreign expansion, Nigh et al. (1986) used the growth of
49、 US GNP relative to the growth of OECD countries. They found that higher relative economic growth encourages foreign banking investment. In agreement with their method this study will implement a relative economic growth variable which will be calculated as a ratio of the growth in GDP of the US over the weighted average growth of GDP in those countries in which the US has real estate.