Mansfield, J R (1997) Authorised property unit trusts: Opportunities and threats. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 2(1), pp. 35-44. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Two Authorised Property Unit Trusts (APUT) were launched in 1991 which sought to encourage the smaller or individual investor to participate in a passive, property-based opportunity. Both Trusts' managers consider the opportunity to before the medium or long term although the performance in the first five years has been modest. A number of the criticisms of the existing schemes suggest that the technical and fiscal adjustments to the regulatory system - to enable AP UT schemes to be traded on the Stock Exchange which were proposed in May 1996 - may not be sufficient to encourage a more active participation in the property market and attempt to alleviate the drift away from investment in direct property. There are a number of alternative opportunities emerging that may have an impact upon the nascent APUT market.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | financial services, housing investment trusts, investment funds, property unit trusts |
| Index terms: | manager, regulatory system, property market, housing, investor |
| Subjects: | political science, real estate economics, construction type, sociology, practitioner |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Construction Technology, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here