Corporate Real Estate Risks: A Critical Review and Analysis

This report critically reviews a journal article on corporate real estate risks, focusing on risk perception among practitioners. The study identifies various risk categories, including sponsor, property management, and market risks, and examines how these risks influence corporate real estate value and shareholder value. The analysis highlights that risk perception varies based on industry sector and location, but not association size. The research employs quantitative methods, literature reviews, and surveys to identify and categorize risks. The report emphasizes the clarity of the research process, the use of tables to present data, and the lack of bias in the findings. The conclusion categorizes risks into six categories: advancement dangers, economic policy risk, operational and business strategy risk, location dangers, appearance hazard and external and directional dangers. The report concludes that the research is well-organized and easy to understand for all readers.

Running Head: CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
Corporate Real Estate
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
Introduction
The corporate real estate has variegated risk factors within the functioning of its sphere.
The risk factor is discussed on the onset of an investment opportunity, but very often this factor
goes neglected. Nonetheless, the fact must be noted that risk is an integral part of business and
real estate is not exceptional with respect to this aspect. The following are certain predictable,
micro level risks, associated with real estate investment: sponsor risk, property management risk,
asset management risk, over leverage risk, debt risk, tenant risk, cap rate risk, entitlement risk,
leasing risk, construction risk, geographic risk and market risk (Bartelink et al. 2015). The
present article aims at executing a critical review on the journal named “Corporate real estate
risks: a survey on risk perception amongst corporate real estate practitioners”.
Discussion
As an aftermath of the analysis of the above-mentioned article, it has been noted that the
principle objective of the writers of this particular article has been investigating and identifying
various types of risks in the sector of corporate real estate; owing to the fact that these risks or
threats are likely to exercise some sort of influence on the additional value of corporate real
estate and furthermore on the value of the shareholders in associations (Jensen and Voordt 2017).
One more primary aspect of this article is to ensure whether variegated perceptions can be
located in the above-mentioned risk factors, with the change of occupations and organizations of
the respondents (Jones, Hillier and Comfort 2016). The results of the investigation attests to the
fact that the corporate real estate risks can be classified amongst six categories and they are
forty-three in number (Cashman, Harrison and Seiler 2016). Moreover, it is further likely to be
ascertained that the differences in perception of risk is majorly based on the sector of the industry

2CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
or topographical locations. Nevertheless, the size of the associations fail to exercise any sort of
influence over the risks of the corporate real estate. The landmark conclusions which can be
drawn from the investigation, attests to the fact that the writers of this respective article has been
highly successful in accomplishing the aim of research. The readers are likely to gather profound
knowledge about the management of risk, conducted by the administrators of the corporate real
estate, after going through this research article. In addition to the afore-mentioned facet, the
readers are expected to compare regarding the topic of various risk perceptions with researchers,
after perusing this particular article. Throughout the length of the article every step the research
have been flawlessly recorded and they hardly leave out any space for further problematization.
Certain specific approaches have been adopted over time, for the comprehension of this
particular research paper. The writers of the given article had adopted and utilized specific
quantitative methods for the purpose of conducting the research (Jensen and Voordt 2017).
Moreover, several pieces of literature have been scrutinized by the authors, for the purpose of
identification of the risks of the corporate real estate. Moreover, the creators have likewise
directed meetings with corporate real estate experts to perceive the threats or dangers
(Trendowski and Rustambekov 2017). Likewise, the writers of the above-mentioned journal,
have led a survey with 70 end-clients, 16 corporate real estate specialists and 2 corporate real
estate scholars, so as to accumulate the stock of proper risk or hazard observation. The authors
have additionally introduced several tests in order to examine the distinctions; the name of the
tests are as follows: ‘t-tests’, ‘Mann-Whitney U tests’ and ‘Kruskal-Wallis test’ (Akinsomi et al.
2015) . The scientists have agreed to all the vital polices while directing the examination and the
consequences of this exploration has provided a catalog of probable corporate real estate risks. It
may be inferred that there exists not a single biasness in the research results of this exploration.

3CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
The fact is also evident that in the above-mentioned journal the specialists or authors have made
use of different tables for exhibiting the threats or dangers identified with corporate real estate.
From the examination of the exploration procedure, it can be noticed that the article does
not contain a particular problem statement or theory (Wu Chen and Olson 2014). In any case, the
principle objective of this examination is the derivation of recognizable proof of several dangers
or threats posed in the domain of corporate real estates. In light of the consequences of the
exploration procedure, the authors have guaranteed that there exists 43 risks, which can be
classified under six broad headings. Moreover, geological areas are in charge of risk
classification in the corporate real estates and the associations' size does not have any effect on
the risks of the corporate real estates (Luo et al. 2015). The adopted technique maintains the
uniformity of the aggregate contention, since the authors have depended on and analyzed
genuine and essential primary information (Trendowski and Rustambekov 2017). The presence
of real life and genuine primary data from survey and interview, makes the confirmations
variable (Wu Chen and Olson 2014). According to the conclusion, the six risk category
classifications are as follows: advancement dangers, economic policy risk, operational and
business strategy risk, location dangers, appearance hazard and external and directional dangers.
The consequences of scrutiny, survey, interviews and study of literature supports the conclusion
and it adds legitimate justification to the conclusion.
Conclusion
Therefore, it might be concluded from the above discourses that by considering the
perusers of all class such as skilled, non-skilled or scholarly, the writers have maintained the
composition style as straightforward with the goal that the article can be comprehended by all

4CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
readers. In addition to this, the entire research article has been produced in a flawlessly sorted out
manner with the goal that it turns out to be simple for the perusers to appreciate. Information and
data have been introduced in the tabular framework for making them effectively reasonable for
the perusers. Moreover, it can be further stated that in this way, the writers have left no scope for
finding flaws inside the very mentioned research article.

5CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
References
Akinsomi, O., Pahad, R., Nape, L. and Margolis, J., 2015. Geographic Diversification Issues in
Real Estate Markets in Africa. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 23(2), pp.259-295.
Bartelink, R., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., van den Berg, P. and Gehner, E., 2015. Corporate real
estate risks: a survey on risk perception amongst corporate real estate practitioners. Journal of
Corporate Real Estate, 17(4), pp.301-322.
Cashman, G.D., Harrison, D.M. and Seiler, M.J., 2016. Capital structure and political risk in
Asia-Pacific real estate markets. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 53(2),
pp.115-140.
Jensen, P.A. and van der Voordt, T., 2017. Facilities management and Corporate Real Estate
Management as value drivers. Oxon: Routledge.
Jones, P., Hillier, D. and Comfort, D., 2016. Materiality and external assurance in corporate
sustainability reporting: An exploratory study of Europe’s leading commercial property
companies. Journal of European Real Estate Research, 9(2), pp.147-170.
Luo, L.Z., Mao, C., Shen, L.Y. and Li, Z.D., 2015. Risk factors affecting practitioners’ attitudes
toward the implementation of an industrialized building system: A case study from
China. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 22(6), pp.622-643.
Trendowski, J. and Rustambekov, E., 2017. Risk Taking and Bank Failure Before and After the
Onset of the Financial Crisis-A Decade in Review. The Journal of Applied Business and
Economics, 19(8), pp.79-93.

6CORPORATE REAL ESTATE
Wu, D.D., Chen, S.H. and Olson, D.L., 2014. Business intelligence in risk management: Some
recent progresses. Information Sciences, 256, pp.1-7.