工程管理专业外文翻译--金都花园房地产开发项目可行性研究

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

Determinants of US investment in real estate abroad

Fariborz Moshirian *, Toan

Pham School of Banking & Finance, The Uni6ersity of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

Received 22 January 1998; accepted 22 April 1999

Abstract：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 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. 76,1127–1130, who showed that US FDI abroad is a substitute for US financial assets. Furthermore, the empirical results indicate 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 estate. ? 2000Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Real estate; Foreign direct investment; Stock market

1. Introduction

Since the early 1980s, according to the World Investment Report (United Nations, 1997), world-wide flows of foreign direct investment (FDI) have grown at unprecedented 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 abroad 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 1985–1997. There are five major countries in which the US has invested in real estate. These are Canada, the 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 agenda as Webb (1984) found in a comprehensive survey of US institutional investors‘ attitudes in the1970s 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 many 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 1985–1995. The unpublished quarterly data on US FDI in real estate, manufacturing and 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 relevant 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 remarks.

2. Literature review

There 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 estate2. 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 have 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 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. Furthermore, 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 studies, 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 banking.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 significant 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 abroad

In this section, hypotheses based mainly on the eclectic theory will be used to estimate FDI in real estate. The first step 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 financial 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 factors pertinent to FDI in general. The remaining part of this section will discuss the above factors.

3.1. Financial wealth

Existing 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 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 Japan‘s 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 investment, 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 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 the US stock market

Another 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 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 investors 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 et 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 Poor‘s 500 Index is used as a proxy to measure returns from the US stock market.

3.3. US FDI in manufacturing and banking abroad

A positive re lationship has generally been found between a bank‘s foreign expansion and FDI from other industries, particularly manufacturing. The rationale for this, according 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). Supporting 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 investors 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 that 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. 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 liabilities

As Russekh and Ruffin (1986) argued, given that the United States is seen as one of the leading bankers in the world, they are able 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 financial 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 foreign 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 such 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 trade

A proposed determinant of foreign direct investment in real estate is the amount of bilateral 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 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 incorporated 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 with a given trading partner is given by that country‘s share of US FDI i n 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 growth

According to various publications 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) 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 between 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 bank‘s foreign expansion, Nigh et al. (1986) used the growth of 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. A positive relationship is expected if an increase in relative economic growth promotes increases in FDI in real estate abroad, that are greater than the investment in domestic real estate. Alternatively, a negative relationship is expected if domestic property market conditions dictate that an increase in relative economic growth makes investment in domestic real estate more likely than FDI in real estate abroad.

4. A model for US FDI in real estate abroad

Based on the previous discussions, the proposed model for US FDI in real estate abroad is as follows:

B=f(W, S, M, A, T, G) (1)

where B is the stock of US FDI in real estate abroad; W is US financial wealth; S is the returns from the US stock market; M is the stock of US FDI in manufacturing and banking abroad; A is US foreign financial liabilities; T is US bilateral trade with her major trading partners in which the US has FDI in real estate; G is the relative economic growth between the US and those countries in which the US has FDI in real estate. The weight given to each foreign country is based on the share of US FDI in real estate in that country. The period covered is from 1985:I to 1995:IV. All variables are expressed in current US dollars. In summary, the model for US FDI in real estate can be expressed as:

B_a0_a1W_a2S_a3M_a4A_a5T_a6G (2)

with the following expected signs: a1\0, a2B0, a3\0, a4\0, a5\0, a6\0 or a6B0.

5. Data and methodology

The model employed uses time-series data. The most important sets of data, i.e. quarterly capital outflows in real estate, banking and manufacturing were obtained for the purposes of this

study from the International Division of the US Department of Commerce.In this study, similar to the study by Moshirian (1997), US FDI in real estate, banking and manufacturing abroad are converted from a historical-cost basis to current values. This ensures that both dependent and independent variables are compatible with each other. For instance, the US FDI in real estate abroad for 1985:I is constructed on the basis of the book value of FDI in real estate in 1984 which has been corrected for the exchange rate variations and inflation of 1985:I. The result is then added to the quarterly capital outflows in real estate for that quarter. Data relating to the independent variables are obtained from various issues of the Sur6ey of Current Business and International Financial Statistics published by the IMF. The Standard and Poor‘s 500 Index has been obtained from the Centre for Research in Security Prices .Standard Ordinary Least Squares were used to estimate the parameters of Eq. (2). It was suspected that the US FDI in manufacturing and banking variables may be endogenous (in other words, this variable and US FDI in real estate abroad may have been inter-related), and so the instrumental variable (IV) procedure was then applied to account for any simultaneity bias problems. Various diagnostic tests for hetero skedasticity were conducted, including White‘s general hetero skedasticity test, and a test for Autoregressive Conditional Hetero skedasticity of order 1-ARCH(1). With regard to serial correlation, the standard Durbin–Watson test was used to test for first-order serial correlation. Higher order serial correlation was tested by the Breusch–Godfrey Lagrange Multiplier test for general autocorrelation (whether autoregressive or moving average). Lastly, the Jacque–Bera statistic was used to test for normality in the residuals. Eq. (2) was then estimated by the Generalized Method of Moments (GMM). The GMM was intended to correct for any simultaneity bias problem associated with the use of endogenous variables as independent variables. In addition, if applied correctly, it accounts for general forms of hetero skedasticity and serial correlation as well as measurement errors in the explanatory variables. The GMM does not correct for non-normal residuals. White‘s hetero skedastic-consistent covariance matrix is used to correct the residuals for general (and unspecified) forms of hetero skedasticity. Use of the GMM was therefore not only based on possible simultaneity bias, but to correct for hetero skedasticity and serial correlation—this being dependent upon these problems being evident in the data. The optimal set of GMM estimates were then found by minimizing the J-statistic. The optimal results for the GMM procedure are reported in Table 1. The high value

for the adjusted R2 and the low value of the J-statistics indicated that the model is well specified. Therefore, the following interpretation of the results is justified.

6. Empirical results for US FDI in real estate

The US financial wealth variable (W) is statistically significant with a positive sign. This result is consistent with the expectation that financial wealth is a contributor to the US investors‘ decisions to invest in real estate abroad. This result is also consistent with the study by Russekh and Ruffin (1986) who showed that US financial wealth contributes to the expansion of FDI abroad.

Returns from the US stock market (S) is statistically significant with a negative sign. This result indicates that US investors respond to falls in returns from the US stock market by investing in real estate abroad. Indeed, data on US FDI in real estate indicate that after the share market crash of 1987, the capital outflows in the form of real estate in the first quarter of 1988 for the US were the highest over the sample period of this study.

US FDI in real estate is found to be positi6ely correlated with US FDI in manufacturing and banking (M). The positive sign of the M variable implies that expansion of US investment in the form of manufacturing and banking contributes to her investment in real estate abroad. This result also extends the findings of previous studies such as Goldberg and Johnson (1990) who found that FDI in banking and manufacturing are complementary.

US foreign financial liabilities (A) are statistically significant with a positive sign. This result indicates that for the US, capital outflows and capital inflows are positively related to each other. As US foreign financial liabilities increase, there is an accompanying increase in her FDI in real estate. Therefore, an increase in US foreign financial liabilities can be interpreted as a greater capacity for the US to engage in foreign investment activities. This result is consistent with the study by Russekh and Ruffin (1986) who showed that US FDI abroad is a substitute for US financial assets. The bilateral trade variable (T) is statistically significant with a positive sign indicating that trade activities between the US and her trading partners contribute to the expansion of US FDI in real estate in these counties. This result is also consistent with studies of FDI in manufacturing and banking where the trade variable was shown to be an important

determinant of foreign investment. The relative economic growth variable is not statistically significant at the 5% level, indicating that the bilateral trade and the FDI in manufacturing and banking variables are more influential in determining the amount of FDI in real estate.

7. Conclusion

Real estate investment has long been confined to markets that investors are familiar with. US institutional investors did not appear interested in international diversification in the 1970s and early 1980s. During this time they only diversified with different property types and region within their own country. However, since 1985 FDI in real estate made by US investors has increased fourfold. The purpose of this paper was to analyse and discuss those factors which contributed to the expansion of US FDI in real estate over the period 1985–1995.

A model for US FDI in real estate has been proposed which is comprised of certain explanatory variables peculiar to FDI in real estate, as compared to FDI in general and: or FDI in manufacturing or banking. A number of hypotheses were made about the major factors contributing to the expansion of US FDI in real estate. The empirical results of this study‘s model of FDI in real estate show that US financial wealth, US FDI in manufacturing and banking, US bilateral trade, foreign current account balance and US foreign financial liabilities contribute positively to the expansion of US FDI in real estate. Furthermore, the empirical results indicate that as returns from the US stock market decline, there are more incentives for US investors to invest in foreign real estate. Given some of the above factors which can be generalised as those factors that the US private investors consider as universally important factors in determining their amount of FDI in real estate, one would expect that, with better foreign market access and ?right of establishment‘ for investment in the ?Post Uruguay Era‘, US private investors (corporations and individuals) may increase and further diversify their investment in real estate over and above the current five major recipient countries of real estate investment from the US (i.e. the UK, Canada, Mexico, France and Italy).

References

Agarwal, J.P., 1980. Determinants of foreign direct investment: A survey. Weltwirtschaftliches Arch.116, 739–773. Branson, W., Hill, R., 1970. Capital movements among major OECD countries: some preliminaryresults. J. Finance 26, 269–286.

Culem, C.G., 1988. The locational determinants of direct investments among industrialized countries.Eur. Econ. Rev. 32, 885–904.

Cushman, D.O., 1987. The effects of real wages and labor productivity on foreign direct investment.Southern Econ. J. 54, 171–185.

Goldberg, L., Johnson, D., 1990. The determinants of US banking activity abroad. J. Int. MoneyFinance 9, 123–137. Gross, R., Goldberg, L.C., 1991. Foreign bank activity in the United States: An analysis by country oforigin. J. Banking Finance 15, 1093–1112.

Grubel, H.G., 1977. A theory of multinational banking. Banco Nazional del Lavoro, Quarterly Review December, pp. 349–363.

Jain, A.K., 1986. International lending patterns of US commercial banks, J. Int. Bus. Stud., Fall, pp.73–88.

Lee, C.M.C., Shleifer, A., Thaler, R., 1991. Investor sentiment and the closed-end fund puzzle. J.Finance 46 (1),

75–109.

Lizondo, S.J., 1990. Foreign direct investment. International Monetary Fund Working Paper:

WP:90:63,International Monetary Fund.

Moshirian, F., 1997. Foreign direct investment in insurance services in the United States. J. Multinatl.Financial Manage. 7, 159–173.

Nigh, D., 1986. Political events and the foreign direct investment decision: An empirical examination .Manage. Decision Econ. 7, 99–106.

Nigh, D., Cho, R., Krishnan, S., 1986. The role of location-related factors in US banking investment abroad: An empirical Examination. J. Int. Bus. Stud., Fall, pp. 59–72.

Russekh, F., Ruffin, R., 1986. The role of foreign direct investment in US capital flows. Am. Econ. Rev.76,

1127–1130.

Schneider, F., Frey, B.S., 1985. Economic determinants of foreign direct investment. World Dev. 13,161–175. Ueda, K., 1990. Japanese capital outflows. J. Banking Finance 14, 1079–1101.

United Nations, 1997. World investment report: Transnational as the engine of growth. United Nations,New York. Warther, V.A., 1985. Aggregate mutual fund flows and security returns. J. Financial Econ. 39, 209–235.

Webb, J.R., 1984. Real estate investment acquisition rules for life insurance companies and pension funds: A survey. J. Am. Real Estate Urban Econ. Assoc. 12, 495–520.

Williams, B., 1997. Positive theories of multinational banking: Eclectic theory versus Internationalt heory. J. Econ. Surv. 11, 71–100.

我们决定投资国外房地产

Fariborz Moshirian *,Toan

药物分析学校的银行理财,Uni6ersity新南威尔士、新南威尔士,澳大利亚悉尼

1998年1月接受收到22;1999年4月22日

摘要：本文的目的是分析和讨论这些因素导致了我们的扩张外商直接投资房地产。该模型的实

证结果发现外商直接投资的房地产表明当外国金融负债增加,我们有一个相应的增加其外国直

接投资房地产。这个结果和何启华的研究是一致的。1986年, 外国直接投资在流动资本的角色

鲁芬是经济的。76年,1127-1130,研究表明,FDI国外替金融资产的人一样。此外,实证结果表明,

作为将在美国的股票市场下跌,会有更多的刺激美国投资者投资国外房地产。实证结果也表明

我们的财富,我们制造业和银行业和外资在双边贸易的扩张贡献积极吸引外商直接投资房地

产。

关键词:房地产、外商直接投资、股票市场

1 介绍

从1980年代初开始,根据世界投资报告(联合国,1997),全世界流动的外国直接投资(FDI)以前所未有的增长速度,达到外流到4200亿年的1996美元。年平均增长率33%的外国直接投资已经在1987年和1996年之间,这远远超过了出口的商品(12%)和名义GDP(12%)。

外国直接投资海外的行业分成几个。其中的一个类别的FDI国外FDI在房地产、而不是FDI在制造、银行等。当我们观察表明,FDI在房地产小,已增加了四倍1985-1997期间。目前有五种主要的国家在美国投资房地产。这是加拿大、英国、墨西哥、法国和意大利。在1997年,几乎39%的美国外国直接投资在国外房地产在英国,21%,12%在墨西哥,加拿大是3%,法国和意大利的是3%。

房地产投资具有长期局限于市场和投资者都很熟悉。国际业务的多样化是没有日程和韦伯(1984年)发现在一个全面的调查机构投资者的态度我们在上个世纪1970年代和1980

年代早期。他们似乎只类型多样化和地区的不同特性,在他们的家乡。然而,在1980年代的货币数量增长被投资海外在许多行业,包括房地产。这是第一次研究FDI在房地产,其试图提供一个分析和解释我们为的因素,房地产投资国外1985-1995期间。我们每季度的数据发表FDI在房地产、制造和银行做出这样的研究成为可能。根据一项非正式定义的美国商务部外商直接投资房地产,包括私人投资者投资房地产我们包括住所、商业building1。

本文结构如下:第二部分的一些相关文献的回顾;第三节提出的外国直接投资的种种因素,我们可以确定FDI在房地产;第四节我们FDI在房地产模型;第五部分描述了来源的资料和方法论应用于本文报告;第六节所得到的结果,使得一些第七节作为结束语。

2 文献评论

已经有大量的研究表明利用外商直接投资的一般而言,在制造业,银行和保险。然而,没有一项研究FDI在房地产。本部分,本文调查一些最相关的外国直接投资相关的研究在现实estate2外国直接投资。

威廉姆斯(1997)最近调查了FDI在各种理论背景下的跨国银行。在这个调查中讨论主要外国直接投资的理论如国际投资理论,这些理论和产业组织的假设,然而,大多数研究FDI是基于这些理论作为一种手段,最重要的因素测量FDI。一些研究FDI突出了一个或两个为主要因素的FDI国外。例如,研究Cushman(1987年)、Froot缘(1991)确定汇率变化对FDI的影响为主要决定性因素对外国直接投资海外。研究近等(1986)认为,市场规模的大小在当地最明显的因素是国外直接投资。施耐德和弗雷(1985)被认为是国际收支平衡中最重要的决定因素是外国直接投资海外。此外,一些研究发现多个因素为FDI国外主要决定因素。如Culem研究(1988年)发现:主机市场规模,市场成长率、单位劳动成本,贸易流动,以及规模经济的主要决定因素的FDI国外。

除了上述研究,一些具体研究如歌德堡和约翰逊(1990)和毛重和歌德堡(1991)是在该地区的外资银行的活动就是一个多种假说如资本成本、市场规模、汇率、经济增长和贸易的主要决定因素被发现FDI在银行业。可以看出,从上述研究的多数研究FDI选择了某些因素作为最相关的贡献者FDI国外。这是符合综合理论的FDI。在这项研究中,如同上述多种因素的研究,似乎是最重要的贡献者扩大我们FDI在房地产作为反对外商直接投资的将军

或制造业将被确认。

3 FDI在国外房地产的因素

在本节中,假设主要基于这些理论将被用来估计FDI在房地产。第一步是要选择那些因素似乎是我们的主要因素;外商直接投资房地产在国外文献的基础上对我们最近FDI在一般、制造、银行和保险国外。下列因素被选为我们FDI在房地产:(1)我们国外金融财富,(2)将在美国股市,(3)我们制造和银行FDI在国外,(4)美国对外金融负债,(5)我们双边贸易和(6)相关的经济增长。第一个四个因素具体到FDI在房地产,而最后三因素相关的一般因素FDI在将军。本节其余部分将讨论上述因素的影响。

3.1 金融财富

现有的收入与财富的两个重要因素是一个国家的可能性进一步积累国外和国内的资产。一个研究人员的数量,包括布兰森山(1970),Russekh和鲁芬(1986)和(1990)上使用的一个来源的财富分配金融资产之间的国内和国外资产。Russekh(1986)使用,鲁芬财富为一体的因素决定我们的数量的外国资产国外。此外,上(1990)显示日本财富的主要原因,扩大对外金融资产的人一样。在这项研究中,我们也认为财富分配之间的国内和国外资产。因此,我们预计FDI在房地产国外的一个组成部分,作为美国对外直接投资必须关系到我们的

财富。股票的金融财富分配之间的国内和外国资产的各种因素的基础上,包括国内外率预期的回报。因此,研究了Russekh和鲁芬(1986)之间的关系一般外国直接投资(FDI)和她的财富我们,该结果上的(1990)在一个紧密联系的财富的积累,外汇资产的形貌观察,第一个测试假说是否影响美国金融财富的扩张FDI在房地产我们国外。

3.2 在股票市场

另一个假说考验我们之间的关系是FDI在房地产和股票市场将在我们。预计,美国的外国直接投资在房地产国外同期显著负相关,将在美国的股票市场。这是出于找到Warther(1985)总共同基金流入股票和债券的收益呈正相关关系显著负相关,同时,他们过去的回报。然而,Warther(1985)发现共同基金投资者引起永久性,而不是短暂的价格变化表明基金投资者盲目运动不仅仅创造安全的价格。他们似乎贸易信息,或者至少贸易方向是一致的是那些拥有相关的信息。因此,投资者情绪就不那么单纯,相反结果在相关工作由李吴昱。(1991)。在这项研究中,认为作为美国股市将在秋天,有更多的鼓励海外投资房地产。因此,假设测试是否我们国外FDI在房地产呈负相关美国股市的回报率。标准和贫困的500指数作为代理来衡量将在美国的股票市场。

3.3 在国外制造业和银行业的FDI

一个积极的关系之间通常会被发现银行的海外扩张和FDI与其他行业,尤其是制造业。之所以会这样是因为,据一项研究人员的数量,是跨国银行将跟随他们的跨国公司的国外客户,以便他们能提供服务给其客户的外交行动。这个理论根据的假设follow-the-client 适用于银行是由Grubel(1977)。支持这个假说的证据是报道,在其他的人,通过歌德堡和约翰逊(1990)。在案件的FDI在房地产、假设美国公司投资,在某些国家,贸易和投资活动有关的机会我们可以提供私人投资者和公司的投资房地产的国家美国制造商和银行家们工作。此外,一个人也可以认为美国制造商和外国银行投资于房地产不一定舒服了更高的回报率,他们希望得到高于美国,而是因为能够投资的必要性,在制造业还是银行在国外。因此,一个可以假定为美国制造商和银行家扩大经营国外,他们的要求为房地产投资在新兴市场国家将会增加。因此,一个的假设,并以经验加以引证是否FDI在房地产正相关,FDI 在制造业和金融业。

3.4 美国对外的金融负债

作为Russekh和鲁芬(1986)认为,鉴于美国被视为一个主要的银行家在世界、他们都能交换短期债务长期资产。他们的研究结果支持这样一个概念,即资本外流(在形式的FDI)和资本流入是相互依存的。此外,统计报告显示Sur6ey现有业务的外国金融负债的密切关系的美国(期间已经翻了两番多期从1985年至1995年),美国外国资产(翻了一倍还多,在同一