Foreign Ownership

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
Debate around offshore investment in housing rose in May after data from the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) showed an apparent collapse in investment.  Despite this, ANZ Research believes foreign buyers still have a sizeable presence in the Australian property sector. Here’s why.
According to the FIRB, the number of approvals granted for foreign purchasers to buy residential property in Australia fell by 67% in 2016-17. But this has largely been driven by the introduction of application fees.
“Foreign buyers still have a sizeable presence in the Australian property sector.”
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/6/19/ANZ1.jpg" alt="">
Other data suggest a much smaller decline in foreign buying than the FIRB data. The ANZ-Property Council Survey shows a sustained but gradual fall in the presence of foreign buyers since the peak about two years ago.
Decline
Nationwide, just 11,000 approvals were granted by FIRB in 2016-17, down from 40,000 the previous year. The scale of decline was similar across each of the states, with approvals in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland all falling 65% to 70% year on year.
Victoria is still the most attractive market for foreign buyers on the basis of the FIRB data, recording 40% of all approvals, followed by New South Wales (30%) and Queensland (20%).
The FIRB believes “the most significant factor explaining this drop is the introduction of application fees in December 2015”. The fees mean from the end of 2015 onwards, it has been in the interest of potential foreign buyers to only apply for approval when they are likely to purchase.
Still, these data do not tell us how many approvals are converted into purchases of property. The headline FIRB data therefore do not tell us much about the actual activity of foreign buyers.
Scale
In order to assess movements in foreign-buyer activity, we refer to the quarterly ANZ-PCA survey.
Respondents report the share of property sales to foreign buyers has steadily declined from its peak around two years ago.
The June 2018 survey suggests nationwide 16% of property sales were to foreign buyers, down from 24% in September 2016.
New South Wales (16% down from 25%) and Victoria (21% down from 31%) report similar declines over the same period. 
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2018/6/19/ANZ2.jpg" alt="">
That the presence of foreign buyers is declining is not surprising. The past couple of years have seen significant policy changes, including:
<ul>
<li>tighter Chinese capital controls, such as limiting the outflow of foreign currency per person per year;</li>
<li>the introduction and subsequent raising of stamp duty surcharges on foreign purchasers across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia;</li>
<li>vacancy tax on foreign-owned properties that are unavailable for rental for at least six months a year; and</li>
<li>a 50% cap on foreign ownership in new developments.</li>
</ul>
These structural changes are likely to prevent foreign buyer activity rebounding to its previous peak.
Despite the fall in activity, foreign buyers continue to have an important presence in Australia, attracted by our solid economy and strong population growth.
When assessing these movements, ANZ Research places greater weight on the results of the ANZ-PCA Survey than the raw FIRB data.
Daniel Gradwell is a Senior Economist at ANZ
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

What the FIRB data really means: ANZ Research

<html><body>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
Melbourne apartment developer Jonathan Hallinan, a Financial Review Rich Lister, has called time.
"I am pulling out of the residential space," Jonathan Hallinan told the press this week. "Policy makers have repeatedly hit our industry with several regulatory changes, which are now compounding to result in what is likely to be a devastating effect on housing supply and affordability in the long term," he had previously blogged. "Over my 22-year career as a property developer, I have had to remain nimble enough to withstand changing market forces. "I have not tried to forecast economic swings or predict fluctuations in the housing economy, but rather create a formidable business model that can endure the inevitable peaks and troughs of the property cycle. "However, the last 12 months of successive government restrictions on the property industry have put insurmountable pressures on many developers that are far beyond most local developers’ ability to restructure their business models and adapt. "It would appear that our policy makers, who evidently believe that their actions are alleviating the pressures of an over-heated housing market, are, with great success, crippling the very industry that has the power to ease the housing affordability crisis." Hallinan lists the recent adverse changes:
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-media section">
1. Introduction of APRA regulations on banks and financial lenders which resulted in changes to investment lending, reducing the borrowing power of investors.
2. Removal of the stamp-duty concession from off-the-plan purchasers for investors
3. Introduction of plot ratios to the Melbourne planning scheme, hugely lessening the number of dwellings that could be built on a development site.
4. Implementation of apartment design guidelines, forcing developers to build fewer larger and more expensive apartments.
5. Limitations on foreign purchasers to not more than 50% ownership in a given apartment project
6. 7% foreign surcharge on all offshore purchasers
7. Enforcement of minimum $5,000 FIRB application fees
8. Increase of 5.5% stamp duty fees on foreign purchasers
9. Enforcement of absentee surcharges on purchasers with properties vacant for six months or more
10. Proposed introduction of a new tax on the four banks as part of the 2017 Budget.
"Since the [stamp duty] changes have been implemented, foreign sales have been almost non-existent," Hallinan told the Australian Financial Review. He reaffirmed that supply of new apartments would "fall off a cliff" as more developers followed suit.
"Supply is about to fall of the cliff, so my predictions are that rental occupancy will decrease when this happens.
"You will see price growth and yet another boom over and above the one we already are witnessing," he suggested in his blog post.
One of BPM's most recent acquisitions was a two-storey commercial King Street building in the centre of Melbourne for $12.35 million with a plans for a new hotel as part of a mixed-use development.
Jonathan Hallinan founded BPM in 1995 securing early success with luxury townhouses in Melbourne’s bayside areas.
In 2015 BPM was working on its first high-rise luxury development, Shadow Play, a $300 million project of 494 apartments which is shortly due for completion.
Designed by Ellenberg Fraser, with interior finishes from designers Hecker Guthrie, the project is at the corner of City Rd and Clarendon St, previously home to King Furniture.
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
<div>
There was a $10 million plus penthouse sale secured in 2015. By August 2016 there'd been a 75% sales success.
The marketing included a $350,000 bespoke promotional short film, which billed Shadow Play as “elegant hedonism”.
Hallinan suggested there was "a misconception in the media that foreign buyers are our enemy in this crisis, creating more competition for local buyers."
He advised his Shadow Play project of 500 apartments relied on the sale of 150 apartments being sold to international purchasers to get out of the ground.
"Without these 150 sales, the project would not have gone ahead, and certainly would not have been able to develop the additional 350 apartments, which were all sold to local buyers.
"And of the 150 foreign purchasers, the majority are investors providing further supply into the over-heated local rental market."
Only last year when the AFR asked Hallinan to describe his life philosophy he said: "Love the fight, not just the victory. The victory for me is developing buildings that contribute to the skyline of Australian cities. But in signing up for that dream more than 20 years ago, I also signed up for the costs and the pain. I made a conscious choice."
At its peak BPM had more than 2,600 apartments across 16 projects under development with a combined value in excess of $1.4 billion.
There was even speculation of $US300 million site acquisitions in Los Angeles as he signalled he did not want to be exposed to the ups and downs of just one country’s real estate market.
“I am not prepared to have a business that is in one property cycle,” he told The Australian in 2015.
</div>
<div>
Back home, last October Hallinan advised only two apartment settlements failed to proceed in two of his completed projects in the Melbourne and Brisbane apartment markets.
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
They were the 40-unit Black Fold project in Brisbane's West End and the 30-unit Light Edge project in Melbourne.
"We've settled 70 in the last two months," Hallinan told Fairfax Media.
"Over two projects, we've had two fall over. Those two were very quickly resold."
Black Fold was a collaboration between BPM, Noel Robinson Architects and Hecker Guthrie with one and two bedroom apartments.
The <a href="https://www.facebook.com/bpmdevelopment/photos/a.1599677896987160.1073741834.1586943561593927/1599677926987157/?type=3&amp;theater" target="_blank">27-29 Bank Street project</a> was a sellout after its 2015 marketing.
Black Fold is situated 1.5 kilometres south west of the CBD.
</div>
<div>
Jonathan Hallinan won The CEO Magazine’s Construction Executive of the year award in 2015.
His first property was in the south-east Melbourne suburb of Bentleigh at age 19, following the completion of my carpenter's apprenticeship.
He purchased the property for $90,000, with just $12,000 of his own equity. 
"Through managing the renovation and subdivision process, I turned a $12,000 investment into $220,000 in 18 months," he once advised.
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Jonathan Hallinan calls time saying foreign buyers are a necessity not "our enemy"

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Foreign national ownership of property is a growing concern for many countries, including New Zealand and Australia. From 2018, New Zealand is banning foreign ownership of residential property in an attempt to curb housing inflation and high vacancy rates.
What’s going on in New Zealand?
New Zealand residential property inflation reached 10.46% last year. Prices rose by 34% over the past three years.
As a consequence, New Zealanders are increasingly concerned that people on low and medium incomes are being locked out of the property market. Home ownership in New Zealand has reached its lowest level in 65 years – only a quarter of adults under 40 years own their own home compared to half in 1991.
Immigration to New Zealand grew by 19% in the last financial year. Strong immigration, low interest rates and limited housing supplies, particularly in areas affected by recent earthquakes, have fuelled the rise in house prices.
Jancinda Ardern’s new Labour government went to the election with a comprehensive housing platform that included a crackdown on speculative investors. Labour stated that 2015 tax changes applying to investor earnings were not having the desired effect of limiting price growth.
How does Australia compare?
When it comes to housing, New Zealand is both leading the way while behind Australia in other areas of housing policy. The incoming New Zealand legislative changes emphasise the banning of foreign ownership of residential property. Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) already applies a ban on foreign ownership for existing (as opposed to new) housing. Like Australia, the New Zealand legislation will continue to allow permanent residents to buy existing homes.
However, there are some significant differences. New Zealand’s law will also apply to foreign trusts and foreign corporations. Australian still allows some foreign trusts and corporations to buy existing homes where staff need to be accommodated. In Australia, overseas residential investment is largely channelled into building new homes.
Many in Australia consider that temporary residents such as students and those here for work should not be allowed to buy existing residential properties. The FIRB allows this. The proposed New Zealand legislation, in its current form, does not.
New Zealand anticipates that removing investor demand by excluding foreign nationals from the market will help stabilise house prices. However, there is little evidence that such measures have successfully slowed price inflation in Australia.
Increases in stamp duty rates for some foreign residential purchases are at odds with the FIRB’s long-standing need to encourage investment to offset foreign trade deficits. In the 2015/16 year, for example, approvals for foreign investment in real estate totalled A$72.4 billion.
However, the New South Wales and Victorian governments both increased stamp duty surcharges for foreign investors in residential real estate to make it less attractive to them. The difference here between the two countries is that in Australia the surcharge is being levied as a state initiative rather than a federal one.
Not all states apply a surcharge to foreign investments in real estate. For this reason, the impact is less likely to antagonise Australia’s major trading partners and investors such as China.
The New Zealand surcharges will be applied nationally. Therefore, the surcharge may be viewed as a protectionist measure.
Protectionism and the Productivity Commission
Concern is growing that a global increase in protectionism (favoured by the Trump administration) could lead to a worldwide recession and lower living standards, including in Australia.
However, although foreign ownership restrictions could hurt New Zealand’s reputation as an open economy, they are unlikely to do so. This is because 58.5% of the funds coming into New Zealand are from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. These are also the countries that New Zealand most heavily invests in. Where the surcharge remains reasonable, it is unlikely to impact upon investment or be seen as a protectionist measure.
New Zealand has been much slower than Australia to introduce rules on residential property ownership. Its proposed legislation closely mirrors Australia’s legislation in regard to who may buy existing homes. These measures have not significantly slowed housing price rises in Australia.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87089/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">However, New Zealand also plans to limit residential ownership of property by temporary residents and apply a surcharge nationally. These additional measures may have greater effect on limiting housing price rises than Australia’s restrictions have had so far.
Erika Altmann, Property and Housing Management Researcher, University of Tasmania.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/foreign-ownership-of-housing-how-do-australia-and-new-zealand-compare-87089" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

How Australia and New Zealand compare for foreign ownership of housing: Erika Altmann

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65155/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Katter's Australian Party federal MP Bob Katter said 30 percent of the Northern Territory's farmland and 22 percent of Tasmania's farmland is foreign-owned. Is that true?
Foreign ownership of Australian agricultural land is not new. Foreign cattle barons owned large areas of land in the Australian outback throughout much of the 20th century.
However, foreign investors' interest in large tracts of farmland, and the federal treasurer’s decision to block the sale of the S. Kidman and Co cattle properties to a Chinese buyer, have helped fuel public debate on the issue.
When the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) released a new Agricultural Land Register in early September, federal MP Bob Katter said that 30 percent of Northern Territory farmland and 22 percent of Tasmanian farmland is now foreign-owned.
Is that right?
Checking the source
The Conversation asked a spokesperson for Bob Katter for sources to support his assertion but did not hear back before deadline.
Nevertheless, it’s clear Katter was referring to the Australian Taxation Office’s new Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land.
The register lists investors who are legally required to report their interests in Australian agricultural land - whether that interest is freehold (meaning owned outright) or leasehold (meaning the land is rented).
Under rules announced in early 2015, investors must now notify the tax office within 30 days if they:
<ul>
<li>Are a foreign person starting to hold agricultural land</li>
<li>Are a foreign person ceasing to hold agricultural land</li>
<li>Become a foreign person while holding agricultural land</li>
<li>Cease to be a foreign person while holding agricultural land</li>
<li>Are a foreign person holding land that becomes agricultural land or</li>
<li>Are a foreign person holding land that ceases to be agricultural land</li>
</ul>
To build the register, the ATO collects investors' names, contact details, country of incorporation and Australian Business Number or equivalent identifier. For individual investors, the ATO recorded their nationality, and passport and visa details. It also collects the land title details.
The ATO report covers registrations made between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016.
What does the report show?
The report shows that the largest amount of foreign agricultural land is held by investors from the United Kingdom, in control of 27.5 million hectares. Investors from the the United States (7.7 million hectares) hold the second largest amount of land, followed by the Netherlands (3.0 million hectares). Chinese investors hold the fifth largest amount of land, with about 1.5 million hectares.
<a href="/images/2016/09/22/image-20160921-12468-1wprtdj.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/09/22/image-20160921-12468-1wprtdj.png" alt="">
<a class="source" href="https://firb.gov.au/about/publication/register-of-foreign-ownership-of-agricultural-land/">The Conversation/Foreign Investment Review Board</a>, <a class="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a>
<h2>Leasing vs owning</h2>
Bob Katter correctly quoted the percentages from the report, but his wording wasn’t quite accurate. He didn’t differentiate between foreign-owned and foreign-leased land.
To be fair, though, it’s not unusual for land to be leased for long periods of time – even as much as 99 years. So in practice, the difference between owning and leasing may be moot. The register doesn’t specify the length of the leases, saying only that:
"An interest in agricultural land includes a freehold interest or the right to occupy land under a lease (including a sublease or licence) where the term of the lease or licence (including any extension or renewal) is reasonably likely to exceed five years."
What we do know is that the register shows that 30.1 percent of agricultural land in the Northern Territory and 21.8 percent of agricultural land in Tasmania is held by foreign interests.
The register shows that almost all of the foreign-held agricultural land in the Northern Territory is leased (but the register doesn’t say exactly how long the leases are).
In Tasmania, the numbers are very different. The register shows that of the farmland there that is held by foreigners, about 88 percent of it is freehold – meaning it is owned by a foreign interest.
Much of the land identified in the report, particularly in the Northern Territory, is likely to be Crown leasehold. This means ultimate ownership rights remain with the Australian government, and lessees are required to manage the land in line with Australian property, agricultural and environmental laws.
<h2>How does this compare to the past?</h2>
We don’t know for sure, because the ATO register is the first of its kind.
The main previous source of official data on this issue was the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) Agricultural Land and Water Ownership Survey, run in 2010 and 2013.
The 2013 ABS survey found 12.4 percent of Australian agricultural land had some level of foreign ownership, saying that:
Of the 400 million hectares of agricultural land in Australia, nearly 50 million hectares had some level of foreign ownership; this is up by around 5 million hectares, an increase of 11 percent on the 2010 result.
The ABS reported 31.7 percent of Northern Territory farmland as foreign-owned in 2013. Unfortunately, the Tasmanian data from the 2013 survey was not published.
If we compare the ATO and ABS data, it appears that the percentage of foreign-held agricultural land in Australia increased slightly between 2013 and 2016. It also appears that the percentage of foreign-held farmland in the Northern Territory fell slightly.
But care must be taken when comparing the results from the ATO register and the ABS survey. The ABS survey presents estimates based on a sample of agricultural businesses listed in the ABS business register, and must be used with care because of potential sampling errors.
It’s likely that the ATO register reflects a more complete record of foreign ownership and leasing than the earlier ABS data.
<h2>What don’t we know about foreign control of agricultural land?</h2>
Not all the information collected by the ATO has been made public.
The publicly available report doesn’t show who owns the land – it doesn’t show what proportion of the foreign-held land is owned or leased by foreign governments or foreign government investors such as state-owned enterprises.
The register’s guiding legislation states that any publicly reported statistics must not identify investors, which limits what information the ATO can release for public perusal.
<h2>Verdict</h2>
Bob Katter got his figures right but his wording was not entirely accurate. It would have been more accurate for him to say that 30% of the Northern Territory’s farmland and about 22% percent of Tasmania’s farmland is now foreign-held – not foreign-“owned”.
In the Northern Territory, most of the foreign-held land is leased; in Tasmania most of that foreign-held land is owned outright by the foreign entity.
However, the register doesn’t include the length of land leases. For those tracts of land held under very long leases, the practical difference between owning and leasing may not be meaningful. – Erin Smith and Bill Pritchard.
<h2>Review</h2>
This is a sound FactCheck. I have independently confirmed all data and calculations used in the analysis. The authors are correct in confirming Katter’s claim, with the caveat that the term foreign “held” rather than “owned” should have been used.
Some further – and significant – qualifications of the ATO data can also be drawn out:
While Tasmania and NT have relatively similar overall levels, their sectoral patterns are qualitatively different. As the ATO data show, most foreign-owned land in NT is for livestock production, while in Tasmania nearly all is in the forestry sector.
The legal differences between ownership and leasing are very slight in terms of assessing control and legal compliance matters. While the authors claim that leaseholders are required to meet “all Australian property, agricultural and environmental laws”, this is equally true of freeholders as well.
The ATO report appears not to adjust for the share of a property held by a foreign interest. For example, it does not differentiate between a farm that is 20 percent foreign-owned and one that is 100% foreign-owned. It is possible that some or even much of the “foreign held” land is actually a minority share in a joint-venture with Australian partners.
Significantly, the report only identifies the “place of incorporation” of the investor, rather than the nationality of the ultimate owner. Much of the British and American interests may well be held by legal persons of third countries, who have incorporated businesses (or bought shares in property trusts) in these jurisdictions. The dominance of the US and UK might therefore reflect a practice of incorporating agribusinesses in these countries, rather than ultimate ownership residing there. – Jeffrey Wilson
Erin Smith is post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of the Sunshine Coast and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/erin-smith-94841" target="_blank">here</a>.
Bill Pritchard is professor in Human Geography, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/bill-pritchard-126" target="_blank">here</a>.
Jeffrey Wilson is fellow of the Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jeffrey-wilson-12717" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
 
</body></html>

Is 30 percent of Northern Territory farmland and 22 percent of Tasmanian farmland foreign-owned?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63757/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
China’s state-owned enterprises are becoming increasingly privatised, as government involvement shifts from full control to economic guidance.
This means these firms should be treated like any other foreign investor when it comes to buying Australian assets.
Treasurer Scott Morrison recently rejected the bids by both state-owned State Grid Corporation of China and private Hong Kong firm Cheung Kong Infrastructure for the lease of 50.4 percent of Ausgrid, the New South Wales electricity distribution network, on the grounds of national security.
Concerns about Chinese investment usually centre around the role of the Chinese government and its noncommercial objectives. China’s government does maintain extensive influence over its market economy, through both indirect policy measures as well as direct participation via state-owned enterprises.
However political economists argue the Chinese state is more developmental than predatory. This is because Chinese foreign investment policies have changed from a restricting and regulating approach, through strict approval mechanisms and foreign exchange allocation, towards a more facilitating approach.
The Chinese government provides general guidance, government services, and financial incentives to align commercial decisions of firms with the strategic planning of the country. One example of this is the one-belt-one-road strategy aimed at building economic cooperation and trade links with a number of countries, including Australia.
The vast majority of Chinese state-owned enterprises have upgraded their internal governance and senior management teams including appointing external independent directors or foreign senior managers. Many of these enterprises have taken steps to introduce mixed private ownership to improve managerial autonomy.
According to research, by 2013, more than 52 percent of central state-owned enterprises have transitioned into mixed-ownership enterprises. For example, China’s biggest oil producer, PetroChina Company Limited, is the the listed arm of state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), now publicly traded on Shanghai, Hong Kong, and New York Stock Exchanges.
The role of Chinese government in foreign investment alternates between that of a shareholder, who wants to invest in the safest and most profitable foreign assets to that of an economic coordinator, using investment as a channel of upgrading the country’s industry infrastructure.
<h2>China’s changing investment in Australia</h2>
China as an emerging economy has been a popular destination of foreign direct investment for decades since its “open-door” policy in the 1980s. Its participation in the global economy as an outward investor is a relatively recent phenomenon, with substantial growth only after China’s entry into the World Trade Organisation in 2001. The growth has however been trending upwards consistently in the recent years despite the global financial crisis.
The driving forces, motivations, and the resultant patterns of Chinese investment overseas have evolved over time. Starting in the early 1990s, Chinese investment was primarily concentrated in the natural resource sector, directly mandated by the state to compensate for the lack of raw material and energy supply domestically.
Chinese investment in manufacturing overseas picked up steam in the following years, partially in response to the rising labour costs and market competition at home that motivated producers to seek cost efficiency and market potentials in neighbouring emerging economies. It was also partly aiming to catch up with global market leaders by tapping into foreign markets for high-value brand assets, technological competencies, and other intangibles.
More recent years have seen Chinese foreign investment diversifying into the service sector, such as commercial services, mining services, logistics, and utility infrastructures, reflecting an effort by Chinese investors to move up the global value chain.
<h2>A level playing field in assessment</h2>
The notion that Western economies need to have foreign investment regulations (often China-specific) to ensure national security is disputed in academic research.
Existing regulations for foreign direct investment in advanced economies are already sufficient for safeguarding national interests. The sale of Ausgrid should have been evaluated based on the existing foreign investment regulations only rather than relying on the decision of the Treasurer, made on a case by case basis.
State-owned enterprises should disclosure the details of asset sales, not only financial details, but also the key contractual arrangements with regard to the ownership and operation of assets. Fair or unfair, Chinese state-owned enterprises are in a disadvantaged position in terms of their legitimacy perceived by host country stakeholders.
According to research, these sorts of enterprises should pursue shared ownership arrangements, such as a join venture structure, which can help these firms mitigate formal and informal institutional barriers in the host country.
Adhering to corporate governance practices and information disclosure norms of the host country can deliver greater transparency against sinophobia. Non-market strategies, such as networking with social and political leaders, as well as corporate social responsibility initiatives, can also help Chinese investors build local legitimacy in host countries.
Lin Cui is associate professor School of Management, Australian National University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lin-cui-291117" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Foreign Ownership

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.

Foreign Ownership

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

The latest real estate & off the plan properties & news, delivered to your inbox.