The existing finance literature assumes the real operating cash flows from leasing or owning are invariant to the ownership of the asset and focuses on tax-related incentives for corporate leasing policy. Our analysis suggests that taxes are important in identifying potential lessees and lessors, but are less important in identifying the specific assets leased. We provide a unified analysis of the various incentives affecting the lease-versus-purchase decision. We then show how these incentives explain the use of contractual provisions such as maintenance clauses, deposits, options to purchase the asset, and metering.
The existing finance literature assumes the real operating cash flows from leasing or owning are invariant to the ownership of the asset and focuses on tax‐related incentives for corporate leasing policy. Our analysis suggests that taxes are important in identifying potential lessees and lessors, but are less important in identifying the specific assets leased. We provide a unified analysis of the various incentives affecting the lease‐versus‐purchase decision. We then show how these incentives explain the use of contractual provisions such as maintenance clauses, deposits, options to purchase the asset, and metering.
Recent developments in monetary economics stress the nature of monetary injections, emphasizing that they have implications for the relationship between money and prices. In contrast, traditional approaches posit stable money demand functions that are independent of how money is injected. The former approach implies that certain proportionality relations between money and prices need not obtain. This permits the two approaches to be empirically distinguished, but only if an appropriate "experiment" is conducted. The colonial period is one such experiment. Colonial evidence suggests that the nature of injections is crucial to the effect on prices of changes in the money supply.
In this paper, we consider two hypotheses for the recent performance of real estate returns. The first is the random event argument that real estate is positively correlated with unanticipated inflation but that structural change in expected returns due to a change in the perceived sensitivity of returns to unanticipated inflation has not taken place. The second is the hedge demand argument that formulates the structural shift hypothesis. The paucity of real estate and other expectations data as well as the general identification problem make it extremely difficult to distinguish between these hypothesis. Our tests consist of estimates of inflation betas for various asset categories overtime as well as estimates of the hedge vector, . Although some support for the hedge argument is found, the results are not strong enough to reject the random event argument and conclude that a decline in the required return on real estate due to a relative increase in inflation beta drove returns during the 1970's.
In this paper, we consider two hypotheses for the recent performance of real estate returns. The first is the random event argument that real estate is positively correlated with unanticipated inflation but that structural change in expected returns due to a change in the perceived sensitivity of returns to unanticipated inflation has not taken place. The second is the hedge demand argument that formulates the structural shift hypothesis. The paucity of real estate and other expectations data as well as the general identification problem make it extremely difficult to distinguish between these hypothesis. Our tests consist of estimates of inflation betas for various asset categories overtime as well as estimates of the hedge vector, S - 1 C . Although some support for the hedge argument is found, the results are not strong enough to reject the random event argument and conclude that a decline in the required return on real estate due to a relative increase in inflation beta drove returns during the 1970's.