See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257140320

Transparency in Malaysian Property Companies

Article  in  Property Management · April 2012

DOI: 10.1108/02637471211273383

CITATIONS READS

13 648

1 author:

Muhammad Najib Razali

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
127 PUBLICATIONS   322 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Socially Responsible Islamic Property Index (SRIPI) for Malaysian Property Portfolio Investment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Muhammad Najib Razali on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


PM
30,5
398
Received November 2011
Revised March 2012
Accepted April 2012
Property Management
Vol. 30 No. 5, 2012
pp. 398-415
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-7472
DOI 10.1108/02637471211273383
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-7472.htm
Transparency in Malaysian
property companies
Muhammad Najib Razali
Department of Real Estate Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor, Malaysia, and
Yasmin Mohd Adnan
Department of Estate Management, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – This purpose of this paper is to investigate the current level of transparency based on the
customised transparency matrix (TM) amongst the top listed property companies in Malaysia, based
on capital market value. Furthermore, this paper discusses the concept of transparency from the
perspective of Malaysian property markets.
Design/methodology/approach – Data for this research were collected from the top 30 property
companies in Malaysia through their annual reports and corporate websites. The indicator of
transparency was developed based on various literature surveys and other research findings. Using
the developed indicators, the study analysed the transparency attributes from TM of the top 30 listed
property companies in Malaysia.
Findings – In terms of transparency levels and widely implemented transparency elements, the
findings revealed that Malaysian property companies were within a “good level” range.
Research limitations – The research is based on a study of the top 30 listed property companies in
Malaysia based on market capital values as at 30th June 2010.
Originality/value – This paper examines the transparency level of property companies in Malaysia
based on each company’s current annual report. The findings provide some insights and guidelines for
the industry as well as academics on the transparency level particularly in Malaysian property
business.
Keywords Malaysia, Property companies, Transparency, Property, Capital markets
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The transparency concept in Malaysia is not a relatively new concept though it is not
widely practiced in every company. In the real estate industry, it is believed that the
transparency concept can attract more professionals and investors in the property
market. With the onset of the globalisation process, the transparency concept has
become more significant in the property market due to the demand from international
investors. However, the term transparency is not an expression that is clearly defined
in real estate literature (Schulte et al., 2005).
Institutional investors have been increasing their interest in real estate and have
started using publicly listed real estate as a cost-efficient, more liquid alternative for
their direct real estate holdings (Brounen et al., 2007). From the perspective of economic
and key performance indicators, Malaysia has shown strong growth in 2010 though hit
by the global economic crisis (see Table I). Hence, it sees Malaysia as being on the radar
for property fund managers.
The significance of the property market in Malaysia can be seen from the listed
property securities market in Malaysia over the period 2008-2010 as evident in Table II.
Market capitalisation in Malaysia increased significantly from USD9 billion in 2009 to
 2010
Malaysian
property
GDP (billion) USD383 billion companies
GDP growth 7.2%
GDP-PPP (billion) 14,700
Population 28.7 million
GDPsectors 399
Agriculture 9.4%
Industry 40.9%
Services 49.7%
Labour force (million) 11.4
Unemployment 3.5%
Household income
Lowest 10 per cent 2.6%
Highest 10 per cent 28.5% of GDP
Investment (gross fixed) 20.1% of GDP
Inflation rate 2.2%
Property transaction volume (billion) 2.8
Business competitiveness index No. 24
Corruption perception index No. 56
World competitiveness index
Economic performance No. 42
Government efficiency No. 42
Business efficiency No. 25
Infrastructure No. 30
Overall No. 26
Real estate transparency index No. 25 Table I.
Financial stability No. 3 Economic and
financial profile
Sources: Authors’ compilation from WEF (2011), RCA (2011), Transparency International (2011), CIA of Malaysia in
(2011), JLL (2010), Worldbank (2011) and Bank Negara (2011) 2009/2010

Number of property companies Market capitalisation (USD billion)

2008 84 9 Table II.

2009 82 11 Significance of listed
2010 83 23 property securities
market in Malaysia:
Source: Author’s calculation from Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2009, 2010, 2011) 2008-2010

USD23 billion in 2010. Improvement in GDP growth and the stabilisation of the credit
markets shores up investors’ confidence. Market fundamentals were weak in 2008 and
2009, but it was a range of capital market factors that led the recovery. In this respect,
investors are currently looking for good corporate governance within companies in
specific markets in a particular country. Although company performance is a main
indicator in investment decisions, market and company information are also essential
for the decision-making strategy for investors.
Based on an earlier study of the market capitalisation of the Asian stock market, the
listed property companies made a significant contribution (Newell and Chau, 1996).
Moreover according to Bond et al. (2003), international diversification is shown to be
more effective in the Asian property markets rather than the European property
PM markets. There has been increasing interest in real estate by institutional investors
30,5 and they have started using publicly listed real estate as a cost-efficient, more liquid
alternative for their direct real estate holdings (Brounen et al, 2007).

Literature review
Very little study focuses on the property transparency market. For example Schulte
400 et al. (2005) examined transparency in the German market while Newell et al. (2005)
attempted to investigate the impact of information transparency in the Asian property
companies. Other researchers investigated transparency in property with attention
given to real estate investment (e.g. Eichholtz et al., 2009), REITs (e.g. Capozza and
Seguin, 1999), private equity funds (Linneman, 2002) and transparency in the
European non-listed real estate funds market (Brounen et al., 2007).
In general, these researches focused on transparency and market/companies
performance. As such, very limited studies had focused on the content and information
that is available on web sites and annual reports of companies. The internet is
a powerful tool for companies to demonstrate transparency levels within their
organisation. Malaysia is categorised as having a transparent real estate market
based on the report by Jones Lang LaSalle ( JLL) (2010). Consequently, when property
companies realised the importance of transparency, the real estate market became
more mature. This also reflects the market maturity of companies in Malaysia from
which Chin et al. (2006) has highlighted the principal characteristics on market
maturity. It then reflects the performance of a property market based on several factors
such as:
. accommodation of a full range of use and investment objectives;
. flexible market adjustment in both the short term and long term;
. existence of a sophisticated property profession with its associated institutions
and networks;
. extensive information flows and research activity;
. market openness in spatial, functional and sectoral terms; and
. standardisation of property rights and market practices.
The issue of transparency in the property market has caused differences of opinion
among property players. Analysts have been keen to emphasise the importance of
transparency in country’s property markets in which scale is a main indicator for
investors to invest. Transparency in the property market will represent corporate
focus, corporate management, stability, allocation efficiency and market performance.
Only transparent markets can create confidence and be attractive to professional
investors (Schulte et al., 2005).
Transparencies in Asian countries have shown some improvement over the past
years. Countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia were categorised under
the transparent market ( JLL, 2010). The Asia Pacific region has shown the most
broadly based improvements in terms of transparency over the past two years ( JLL,
2010). This is a reflection that property companies in Asia including Malaysia have
shown a good transparency level. Table III presents the global real estate transparency
index (RETI) by JLL.
The liberalisation of the capital markets in many countries has increased the
economic and political pressure to create financial instruments that are acceptable to
Highly transparent
Malaysian
Australia Canada UK property
New Zealand Sweden USA companies
Ireland France Netherlands
Germany Belgium Denmark
Transparent
Finland Spain Austria
Singapore Norway Hong Kong
401
Portugal Switzerland Italy
Poland South Africa Czech Republic
Malaysia Japan Hungary
Israel
Semi-transparent
Greece Slovakia Russia
Romania Taiwan Chile
Turkey Dubai Brazil
Thailand Bulgaria India
Low transparent
Oman Morocco Croatia
Egypt Saudi Arabia Qatar
China Lebanon Panama
Kuwait Uruguay Kazakhstan
Opaque
Syria Sudan Algeria Table III.
Global real estate
Source: JLL (2010) transparency index: 2010

foreign investors (Eichholtz et al., 2009). Investors always seek to find better
opportunities for their investment. The reason to invest in certain countries depends on
various factors. Transparency level is considered as one of the important factors.
Eichholtz et al. (2009) found that foreigners may be at a disadvantage particularly in
countries with an unfavourable political environment, an opaque real estate market
and a low level of economic integration.
The availability of real estate market reports has increased significantly over the
last ten years (Schulte et al., 2005). As such, property companies in particular are
legally required to publish annual reports, disclosing a range of facts and figures as a
regular requirement (Newell et al., 2005). In Malaysia, the number of listed property
companies which published annual reports has significantly increased due to the
requirement by the Malaysian Securities Commission to reveal their company’s
performance to the public. According to the Malaysian code of corporate governance
(Securities Commission, 2007), companies are required by the “listing requirements of
Bursa Malaysia” to include their narrative statements, and have applied the relevant
principles in their annual report. In addition, in order to comply with the regulations,
companies must state in the annual report their best practice of corporate governance.
In comparison with the early 1990s, only a few companies published their market
report, which coincided with the early stage of internet usage during that time. Today,
with the rapid development of the internet, many companies list their annual report
on their web sites and have a link to the Securities Commission web site for the public
to access.
In order to achieve a high transparency level such as the likes of Singapore, US, UK
and Australia, Malaysia must achieve high ratings for three attributes as indicators
PM under the element of transparency which constitutes world class companies, web site
30,5 transparency, and a healthy and good environment for a for business, investment
and dwelling. In terms of real estate, this can be related to the transparency concept.
The concept of transparency will lead to certain characteristics as follows:
. the rental market, e.g. average and top rents, lease rents, demand and supply
space;
402 . the investment market, e.g. property and rents and yield; purchase and selling
prices;
. the property and construction market, e.g. building costs; and
. the capital markets, e.g. lending constructions (Schulte et al., 2005).
The JLL transparency index is based on five major categories which are:
(1) performance measurement;
(2) market fundamentals;
(3) listed vehicles;
(4) regulatory and legal environment; and
(5) transaction process ( JLL, 2010).
The above methodology is highly dependent on a questionnaire disseminated among
senior JLL investment management personnel, working in each country in order to
construct composite transparency indexes. JLL has been constructing this index since
1999. JLL’s survey has not taken into account companies’ levels of transparency from
the physical evidence such as annual reports and corporate web sites. As such, this
research attempts to explore transparency levels from the property companies’ point of
view with a consideration of the Malaysian real estate market environment. Although
a similar theme of study of related topics have been carried out by JLL and other
researchers, this study is among the first to analyse companies’ physical evidence,
annual reports and corporate web sites as a function of information transparency
using desk research methods.
In terms of economic sciences, transparency refers to information equivalency
which means markets provide as much information as possible (Schulte et al., 2005). The
globalisation process in the world makes transparency become more essential as
investors seek to find international diversification. In addition, transparency will decrease
the volatility level of property markets by creating positive synergy in the industry.
Moreover, a transparent industry will accelerate cross-border investments from the
positive impact on the market as a result of high confidence among investors.
Transparency in real estate is difficult to achieve as the property market is highly
correlated with the local and global economic situation. As such, it is important to
assess the local market situation as it is critical to investors. With regards to the
implications of information available in the market and creating a transparent
environment in the Malaysian property market, specifically in listed property
companies, this research attempts to investigate current levels of transparency among
the top property companies in Malaysia. Easy access to property companies’
information reflects the maturity of the real estate market.
In addition, this information will provide a better overview to investors for their
decision-making process. The importance of this increased information transparency
by listed property companies is widely acknowledged (Brounen et al., 2011). The Malaysian
results of transparency levels will then be compared to the ranking of the top 30 property
property companies in Malaysia. Information transparency is important for larger
companies as investing in larger companies makes for a better strategy in investment companies
decision making.

Research methodology 403

This paper examines a unique sample using the content analysis approach of selected
listed property companies’ web sites taken from the Malaysian Stock Exchange (Bursa
Malaysia). Only the top 30 companies were selected for this survey based on market
value as of June 2010 (see Table III). It has been said that investing in public listed
shares of these real estate investment vehicles has recently become increasingly
popular (Boer et al., 2005). These public listed companies are required to publish their
own annual reports. Apart from annual reports, companies’ web sites can also be
a major tool for the transparency benchmark.
Using a similar research methodology by Brounen et al. (2007) and Newell et al.
(2005) on the European and Asian markets, respectively, the attributes used to assess
information transparency was modified by taking into account the local environment
of property business in Malaysia. The customised matrixes also exploit the RETI,
published by JLL, which is based on five key indices. The element of the indices was
then modified to suit the local market. The transparency matrixes (TM) reflect the
average transparency level for each local property companies.
Corporate web site transparency has 12 criteria covering the availability of an
English web site, accessibility, the clarity of the information contents, whether
it is updated regularly, and whether the site includes information such as annual
reports, property information, investment information, news, stock information
and product information. A 24-point criteria covering transparency within an annual
report covers items such as company management, financial reports, cash flow
statements, risk analysis, market segmentation, shareholders information, future
investment plans and dividend policies. Annual reports have been the traditional
means for a company to disclose comprehensive and detailed information regarding
the company’s current performance. However, how far a company will disclose their
information, based on the information symmetry attributes, is the basis of various
literature reviews.
It is noted that while varying levels of information is available, many property
companies currently provide significant information than what is minimally required.
This is made through the provision of an enhanced accessible investor relations service
to ensure investors are informed of their investment decisions, and their selected
property company’s operation is seen to be transparent and with the necessary
investors information available (Newell et al., 2005). As mentioned by Schulte et al.
(2005), transparent markets provide as much information as possible for all market
participants and therefore minimise the information advantages of other market
participants.
The study used the data collected based on visible information from the companies’
web sites and annual reports. In addition, a list of attributes pertaining to
transparency, referred to as transparency information matrix, was developed. Each
attribute was then reviewed and a score was given to develop an index. The approach
of this research is to investigate each and every selected company’s web site, a
method which constitutes a desk research. According to South Coast Information and
PM Library Services (SCILS), University Bournemouth (1995), desk research refers to the
30,5 identification and analysis of information that has already been compiled and
published in some form or another. In addition, this type of information is known as
“secondary” as it already exists. For this study, two matrixes were developed in order
to assess the transparency level among top listed property companies in Malaysia.
The first matrix takes into account the transparency characteristics from the
404 evidence of companies’ web sites. The second matrix is based on companies’ annual
reports. The details of the TM for this study are tabulated in Table V. The rank
correlation between the top 30 companies ranking and transparency index ranking
was analysed using “Spearman’s coefficient”. The following formula was used
to calculate the coefficient between these variables, rs ¼ 16Sd2/n(n21) where sd2
is the sum of the squared differences between the top 30 property companies in
Malaysia and the top 30 transparency property companies index, while n is
the number of these two variables. The rank correlation was used to identify
the relationship between the top 30 companies and the transparency index. This
relationship shows whether the top companies are ranked well in terms of
transparency (Table IV).

Company Market value (USD billion)

1 SP Setia 1.05
2 IJM Land 0.89
3 Glomac 0.87
4 Paramount 0.83
5 Hunza Properties 0.76
6 Guocoland (Malaysia) 0.70
7 Crescendo 0.66
8 Dijaya 0.64
9 Sunway City 0.48
10 Encorp Berhad 0.48
11 Hua Yang 0.42
12 KLCC Property Holdings 0.41
13 TAHPS Group 0.40
14 Sunrise 0.38
15 Damansara Realty 0.36
16 Mah Sing Group 0.33
17 Bandar Raya Developments 0.31
18 Oriental Interest 0.28
19 KSL Holdings 0.27
20 Bolton 0.27
21 Metro Kajang 0.26
22 Eastern & Oriental 0.26
23 Country Heights Holdings 0.17
24 Plenitude 0.25
25 IGB 0.23
26 Mutiara Goodyear Development 0.23
27 Selangor Properties 0.21
Table IV. 28 KRIS Assets Holdings 0.20
Top listed property 29 Daiman Development 0.19
companies in 30 SHL Consolidated 0.19
Malaysia (as of
June 2010) Source: Authors’ calculation from Datastream (2010)
Results and discussions Malaysian
A matrix table was used to assess the transparency level among top property property
companies in Malaysia (Table V). Tables VI and VII presents the score for each
company and the transparency attributes for the two matrixes. The results also companies
demonstrate the attributes score that revealed which common transparency attributes
are being practised among the property companies in Malaysia. Furthermore, each of
the attributes was also examined to provide a clear idea of the transparency index. 405
As mentioned above, these attributes provide an overview of factors that are believed
to be the transparency indicator for property companies in Malaysia. Obviously, there
will be some other elements which relate to transparency that needs considering but
these attributes are identified as pillars based on various literature reviews.
The horizontal line indicates the overall score for each company by each attribute.
In additional to the score, a vertical line shows the score for each attribute for each
company. The results indicate large property companies in Malaysia such as SP Setia,
Dijaya and Paramount, were among the highest level and achieved almost full
scores for both matrixes. Consequently, this signifies that these companies are the
most transparent property companies in Malaysia. It could be observed that some
companies obtained the same score and as such share the same rank. Out of 30
companies 26 were able to achieve a score of more than half of the attributes in terms of
corporate web sites. For annual reports, all companies managed to achieve more than
a half score of the attributes.
The average score for property companies in matrix 1 and matrix 2 is 10 and 14,
respectively. This indicates that the majority of the listed property companies in
Malaysia have almost all attributes in the TM. The results also indicate that there is
room for improvement in order to enhance transparency elements in the companies’
corporate web sites. Compared to annual reports, more transparency elements need to
be achieved. The results also correlate with the earlier transparency report by JLL that
has placed Malaysia under the transparency market level for property ( JLL, 2010).
Interestingly, three companies, namely: KRIS Asset Holdings, Mutiara Goodyear

Matrix 1: Corporate web site

Language Easy access Update Companies’ news
Documents Contact details Financial calendar Investment information
collection
Property Annual report Stock performance Corporate organisation
information information
Link to other Corporate social Customer value and Price and quality comparison
related web sites responsibility activities satisfaction section
Matrix 2: Annual reports
Year published Financial report Shareholder Income statement
information
Cash flow Mission statement Balance statement Dividend policy
statement
Competitors Risk analysis Future investment plan Ownership structure
Companies’ Companies’ investment Market segmentation Competitors
liabilities
Risk analysis Future investment plan Ownership structure Accounting policy Table V.
Audit committee Related party Shareholders by type Remuneration and Transparency
transactions and classes performance pay for directors matrixes (TM)
 PM
30,5

406

Table VI.
Transparency

web site) findings

matrix 1 (corporate
Companiesa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Total

1. Language | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 30
2. Easy access | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 30
3. Update | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 21
4. Companies’ news | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 24
5. Documents collection | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 25
6. Contact details | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 29
7. Financial calendar | | | | 4
8. Investment information | | | | 4
9. Property information | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 28
10. Annual report | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
11. Stock performance information | | | | | | | | | | | | 12
12. Corporate organisation | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 28
13. Link to other related web site | | | | | | | | 8
14. Corporate social responsibility section | | | | | | | | | | | | 12
15. Customer value and satisfaction section | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 16
16. Price and quality comparison 0
Total 13 10 7 10 6 11 8 12 8 10 10 13 10 6 10 12 6 10 9 12 12 10 12 8 13 11 9 11 9 10
a
Notes: Each number represents the company: 1. SP Setia; 2. KLCC Property Holdings; 3. Selangor Properties; 4. TAHPS Group; 5. KRIS Asset Holdings;
6. Sunway City; 7. Plenitude; 8. Paramount; 9. IGB; 10. Sunrise; 11. Damansara Realty; 12. IJM Land; 13. Mah Sing Group; 14. Daiman Development; 15. Bandar
Raya Development; 16. Hunza Properties; 17. SHL Consolidated; 18. Oriental Interest; 19. Metro Kajang; 20. Guocoland; 21. Crescendo; 22. KSL Holdings;
23. Dijaya; 24. Mutiara Development; 25. Glomac; 26. Encorp Berhad; 27. Eastern & Oriental; 28. Hua Yang; 29. Country Heights; 30. Bolton
Companiesa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

1. Year published | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
2. Financial report | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 26
3. Shareholder information | | 0
4. Income statement | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
5. Cash flow statement | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
6. Mission statement | | | | | | 6
7. Balance statement | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
8. Dividend policy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 26
9. Companies’ liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 25
10. Companies’ investment | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 26
11. Market segmentation | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 24
12. Competitors 0
13. Risk analysis | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
14. Future investment plan | 1
15. Ownership structure | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 21
16. Accounting policy | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
17. Audit committee | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 27
18. Related party transactions | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 26
19. Shareholders by type and classes 0
20. Remuneration and performance pay for directors | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 25
Total 15 0 0 14 11 16 15 16 15 16 14 15 15 12 15 15 15 15 14 13 15 15 16 0 14 15 15 14 15 16
Notes: aEach number represents the company: 1. SP Setia; 2. KLCC Property Holdings; 3. Selangor Properties; 4. TAHPS Group; 5. KRIS Asset Holdings;
6. Sunway City; 7. Plenitude; 8. Paramount; 9. IGB; 10. Sunrise; 11. Damansara Realty; 12. IJM Land; 13. Mah Sing Group; 14. Daiman Development; 15. Bandar
Raya Development; 16. Hunza Properties; 17. SHL Consolidated; 18. Oriental Interest; 19. Metro Kajang; 20. Guocoland; 21. Crescendo; 22. KSL Holdings;
23. Dijaya; 24. Mutiara Development; 25. Glomac; 26. Encorp Berhad; 27. Eastern & Oriental; 28. Hua Yang; 29. Country Heights; 30. Bolton

(annual report) findings

Malaysian

companies

Transparency matrix 2
407
property

Table VII.
PM Development and KLCC Property Holdings have no transparency elements for annual
30,5 reports. While Selangor Properties has minimal transparency attributes (below
average score).
By comparing matrix 1 and matrix 2, it appears that most of the companies
obtained the same score in matrix 2 which was assessed on annual reports. This
indicates that these companies share similar attributes of transparency elements in
408 annual reports. It can be concluded that the majority of the top property companies in
Malaysia have put their transparency indicator through the annual reports compared
to their corporate web sites. On average, property companies in Malaysia have
positioned themselves to number 12 (corporate web sites) and 7 (annual reports).
Transparency and accountability strategies among property companies can be
catalysts for sustainable development in Malaysia. Stronger corporate governance will
deliver higher shareholder returns (Chi, 2009). Beeks and Brown (2006) highlighted
that firms with more effective corporate governance make better information
disclosures. In addition, institutional investors have started using publicly listed real
estate and cost-efficient, more liquid alternatives for their direct real estate holdings
(Brounen et al., 2007). In this regard, property companies with better corporate
governance and high levels of transparency will help Malaysia to achieve sustainable
development in the long term. With USD23 billion worth of property transactions
in 2010, a securitised property market contributes significantly to the Malaysian
economic growth.
In many OECD countries including Malaysia, financial reports must be based on
New Public Management standards. This standard requires financial information that
is more comparable, relevant and useful for decision making. Annual reports have been
a traditional means for companies to communicate with investors and analysts; as
such it is very important to disclose comprehensive details regarding performance,
current values and companies’ plans and objectives. Therefore, the findings above
describe the current situation in terms of comparable, relevant and useful data
which relates to transparency elements. Moreover, transparency could improve the
intelligibility and comparability of companies’ financial statements. The findings show
that most of the property companies were able to achieve a good score in the annual
report matrix.
Consequently, it will enhance the success of the Malaysian Government’s
Economic Transformation Plan (ETP) which states that one of the objectives is to
be a transparent government. Furthermore, it is important to assess the impact of
property company management strategies on enhancing investment appeal and
creating shareholder value for the listed property companies (Newell et al., 2005). With
numerous scandals on reporting and auditing in corporate companies, transparency
and disclosure practices are important components and a leading indicator of quality
corporate governance (Aksu and Kosedag, 2006).
Some of the big companies such as SP Setia, IJM, Glomac, Dijaya and Paramount,
scored among the highest for transparency attributes. This reflects their effort to
promote integrity of their companies. Hence it will also promote the integrity of
the securities market. The Malaysia Government introduced several regulations
to continue the process of upgrading information disclosure and corporate governance
standards.
The development of the two matrixes of the transparency index took into account
earlier identified attributes which were modified by considering the local environment
of property business in Malaysia. As such, the attributes that have been identified were
also examined to provide an overview of factors that are critical for driving Malaysian
transparency in property companies in Malaysia. For matrix 1 (corporate web sites), property
attributes such as language and easy access indicated 100 per cent usage in terms of
transparency attributes. companies
On the other hand for matrix 2 (annual reports), none of the attributes acquired a
100 per cent score by top property companies in Malaysia. Other attributes such as
contact details, corporate organisation and property information were among the 409
popular attributes in matrix 1 used by property companies in Malaysia which indicates
a percentage above 90 per cent. While in matrix 2, income statements, cash flow
statements, year published and risk analysis were among the attributes that gathered
the highest percentage. Some unpopular transparency attributes such as price and
quality information (matrix 1), shareholder information, competitors and shareholder
by type and classes (matrix 2) received a score of zero. This indicates that property
companies in Malaysia were not yet ready to reveal all the required information.
Interestingly, some common transparency elements such as financial calendars and
investment information for matrix 1 obtained a low percentage (13.3 per cent) which
indicates only a few companies provided this information. Similarly in terms of annual
reports (matrix 2) elements such as mission statements also obtained a low percentage
(20 per cent). The average percentages for both matrixes are 62.1 and 65.8 per cent,
respectively. The percentages above 50 per cent specify that most of the transparency
attributes are being implemented whether in the form of corporate web sites or annual
reports.
Overall the results revealed that the annual report is still the most common
and widespread strategy for companies to disseminate and disclose information.
Attributes such as year published, income statements, cash flow statements, risk
analysis and related party transactions were among the popular elements. Corporate
web sites have the least attention in terms of transparency from Malaysian property
companies; whilst attributes such as web sites in English, easy access, annual reports
and links to other related web sites were among the popular elements.
Table VIII presents the full score and percentage of TM among the top property
companies surveyed. The full score is worked out from the score of both
matrixes (company web site and annual report) which examined the company’s
corporate web sites and annual reports. SP Setia is the most transparent company
in Malaysia with the highest score of TM. Three companies share the highest same
score and therefore share the same rank. Dijaya, Paramount and IJM Land had
78 per cent of the major attributes score for TM. Thus, these three companies are
ranked at second place in terms of the transparency index among top property
companies in Malaysia.
Another four companies, namely, Crescendo, Sunway City, Hunza Properties and
Glomac follow closely with 75 per cent of the transparency attributes score. Moreover,
three other property companies, namely, Encorp Berhad, Bolton and Sunrise also
obtained a close percentage score (72 per cent) with other top score property companies
in the TM.
This indicates that the top ten property companies in the transparency index have
almost all the transparency attributes. On average, property companies in Malaysia
obtained 64.4 per cent or a score of 23 out of a possible 37. Therefore, this indicates that
most of the companies managed to have more than half of the transparency attributes
index. Consequently it leaves the transparency level among the property companies in
Malaysia at an acceptable level. It is also noted that overall nine companies scored
PM Ranking Company Matrix 1 (/16) Matrix 2 (/20) Total (/36) Percentage
30,5
1 SP Setia 13 16 29 80.56
2 Dijaya 12 16 28 77.78
2 Paramount 12 16 28 77.78
2 IJM Land 13 15 28 77.78
410 5 Crescendo 12 15 27 75.00
5 Sunway City 11 16 27 75.00
5 Hunza Properties 12 15 27 75.00
5 Glomac 13 14 27 75.00
9 Encorp Berhad 11 15 26 72.22
9 Bolton 10 16 26 72.22
9 Sunrise 10 16 26 72.22
12 Guocoland 12 13 25 69.44
12 Mah Sing Group 10 15 25 69.44
12 TAHPS Group 10 15 25 69.44
12 Oriental Interest 10 15 25 69.44
12 Hua Yang 11 14 25 69.44
12 KSL Holdings 10 15 25 69.44
12 Bandar Raya Developments 10 15 25 69.44
19 Damansara Realty 10 14 24 66.67
19 Eastern & Oriental 9 15 24 66.67
19 Country Heights Holdings 9 15 24 66.67
22 Metro Kajang 9 14 23 63.89
22 IGB 8 15 23 63.89
22 Plenitude 8 15 23 63.89
25 SHL Consolidated 5 15 20 55.56
26 Daiman Development 6 12 18 50.00
Table VIII. 27 KRIS Assets Holdings 6 11 17 47.22
Property companies 28 KLCC Property Holdings 10 0 10 27.78
ranking of transparency 29 Mutiara Goodyear Development 8 0 8 22.22
matrixes 30 Selangor Properties 7 0 7 19.44

a below average ranking, ranging between 19.4 and 63.9 per cent. It indicates that these
companies have less transparency attributes compared to their rivals.
The increase in international real estate capital flows could foster increasing
demand for stronger institutions across global real estate markets (Eichholtz et al.,
2009). The transparency index surveyed by JLL revealed that real estate transparency
around the world continues to improve. Previous evidence by Eichholtz et al. (2001)
revealed that internationally diversified property companies underperform local
property companies. Hence its reduction of the information disadvantages could imply
that international property companies have improved their performance relative to
property companies locally. Based on this situation, it is crucial for Malaysian property
companies to increase their level of transparency. Property companies are able to
achieve a satisfactory level in terms of transparency levels. Hence, it indicates the
potential of diversification for Malaysian property companies.
Historically, Malaysia had a poor culture of transparency. Real estate makes up
almost two-thirds of the nation’s wealth. As such transparency plays a crucial role
affecting business and investments in real estate which will be the utmost important
driving force of the country’s competitiveness, both presently and continuously in the
future. Good corporation structures represent relationships within an organisation
effectively. Transparency creates ways and means to communicate, and provides
information in multiple formats to accommodate the diversified needs of investors and Malaysian
stakeholders. property
Figure 1 represent the relationship between the overall top 30 property companies’
index in Malaysia and the transparency index ranking based on the analysis companies
illustrated in the previous section. This test is to analyse whether top companies also
have a high level of transparency index. Using “Spearman’s coefficient” of rank
correlation between the two indexes, Rs ¼ 0.06 thus indicates that the transparency 411
index and top 30 property companies in Malaysia is not significantly correlated. The
fact that the top companies must have a high level of transparency is not necessarily
true. From the graph, it shows a weak relationship between the transparency indexes
and the top 30 property companies in Malaysia. This figure highlights an important
finding; highlighting the fact that although most of the companies in Malaysia have a
satisfied level in terms of transparency attributes, the top property companies (based
on market value) may not necessarily have a good transparency level.
The findings on the correlation above is supposed to provide a significant impact on
real estate activities, serving as “investor magnets” for Malaysia which would create
a “sustainable” investment climate and driver of injection of funds to boost and
strengthen its global position.
In comparison the top property company rankings and transparency indexes not
only differ in the companies’ investment strategies, but also in terms of management
decision strategies. By assessing these benchmarks, it will provide an overview of the
differences between the transparency benchmark and property companies
performances. This also highlights the importance of other factors in explaining the
ranking of the top 30 companies.

30
Glomac
Plenitude IJM Land
Hunza Properties

25
BandarRaya KSL Holdings
Developments

Sunway City Crescend

20
Transparency

Selangor Paramount Daiman Hua Yang

Properties Development
15
Eastern and Oriental
Oriental Damansara
TAHPS Groups KRIS Asset Holdings Interest Realty
10
SHL Consolidated Mutiara Encorp Berhad
Goodyear
IGB Guocoland Development
5
Mah Sing Group Metro Kajang

Figure 1.
KLCC Property Holdings
Country Heights
The transparency index
0 SP Setia Dijaya
and top 30 property
Holdings
companies rank
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 correlation
Top 30
PM According to the analysis, the matrix model empirically validated that the literature
30,5 suggested that a transparent market is able to attract professional investors locally as
well as globally. With a total amount of capital market of USD23 billion and being one
of the highest emerging markets, it is evident that Malaysia is able to attract investors,
both locally and internationally. Hence the analysis outcome supports this evidence.

412 Property implications

This paper has provided a comprehensive analysis on the current level of
transparencies based on the customised TM. Property companies in Malaysia were
assessed using these matrixes under two major elements – corporate web site and
annual report. The number of listed real estate companies in Malaysia has increased
due to a property boom in the early 1990s. Transparency in property companies will
help companies increase their awareness of the availability of market information.
Furthermore, it will create benchmarking tools for performance information for listed
property companies in the property industry. This will allow investors to compare
fund-level performances. Consequently, it will contribute to the maturity of the
Malaysian real estate market.
The implication of transparency by property companies via the annual report and
corporate web site will allow the property market to be measured, tracked and
assessed accurately for various purposes. The level of transparency in the Malaysian
property market is at a satisfactory level. Property markets in this region continue to
mature in countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia. As such, the local property market
needs to increase its level of transparency for benchmarking of property investment for
the next level of transparency which is performance indices. With data quality
improved and easy to assess, the future development is to develop the investment
performance index.
The importance of transparency in the property market in Malaysia has received
substantial attention from regulators, financial institutions, investors and the academic
community, as the information will affect companies’ performance and market
valuation. This is evident from the establishment of DanaHarta and Danamodal; two
agencies under the Ministry of Finance, created to regulate and act to acquire non-
performing loans through statutory vesting, and to appoint special administrators who
can take control and manage the assets of borrowers unable to pay their debts. Post
Asian financial crisis has also seen the establishment of the National Property
Information Centre to provide advice and supply all property data to the government in
property industry decision making. The establishment of these three agencies are to
acquire more knowledge and information on the market including the property market.
The information and disclosure from the market is crucial for the government in the
decision-making process, specifically for the property market which was severely hit
during the AFC. This has been proven during the Global financial crisis where
Malaysia was one of the countries in South-East Asian that was quick to recovery from
the crisis.
Transparency and information disclosure practices have been considered as a
comprehensive corporate governance mechanism, both to mitigate agency costs by
increasing the monitoring of management actions and limiting manager’s
opportunities, and to promote the integrity of the securities market (Ashbaugh et al.,
2004; Chi, 2009). This study found that overall property companies that were
positively associated with the TM indicated that better transparency set a stronger
corporate governance mechanism, leading to good corporate performance.
Stronger corporate governance will deliver higher shareholder returns (Chi, 2009). This Malaysian
is evident from previous research conducted by Brown and Caylor (2006), companies property
with better governance practices are more profitable, more valuable, less risky, less
volatile and pay more dividends. Weaker shareholders’ rights relate to lower profits companies
and lower sales growth (Gompers et al., 2003). In addition, La Porta et al. (2002), add
that better shareholder protection is empirically associated with a higher valuation of
corporate assets. The more transparent the Malaysian market, the more good 413
corporate governance will develop and more property market participants have the
opportunity to behave correctly.

Conclusion
This paper attempted to examine transparency levels by using property companies’
web sites and annual reports. The TM were designed based on several literature
surveys and similar previous research as tools to investigate the level of transparency.
Based on earlier studied attributes, an index was developed and analysed further
constituting attribute rankings and company rankings based on the score. This
transparency index was then compared among the top 30 property companies in
Malaysia based on the market value. Overall, it was found that the transparency level
among the property companies in Malaysia is at a good level and is poised to
experience rapid changes.
With the average of 64.4 per cent of transparency attributes, most of the property
companies in Malaysia have widely implemented transparency elements. The awareness
of transparency in the property market has changed dramatically from the way
companies operate their business in order to create confidence for more investment. The
biggest property companies in Malaysia such as SP Setia, IJM Land and Glomac, reflect
their image as big companies from the transparency index perspective. These companies
managed to obtain the highest score in terms of the transparency index in Malaysia.
This paper also attempted to demonstrate the definition of transparency in the
Malaysian context, particularly for listed property companies. As such, top property
company rankings based on the market value and top transparency index, were also
tested to analyse rank correlation between these two indexes. However, this study showed
that there is no correlation on the relationship between the top 30 property companies
and the transparency index. This indicates that the top property companies in Malaysia
do not necessarily have good quality corporate web sites or annual reports to signify
their transparency policy in their companies. In addition, the availability of the internet as
a medium to express the transparency attributes is not widely used.
According to Khadaroo (2005), the decision to establish a web site is influenced by
several factors such as company size and expected number of users. The larger sized
companies are more likely to engage good quality corporate web sites as well as annual
reports. Interestingly some of the companies in the low-ranking groups in terms of
market value have scored a high-transparency attribute. It can be said that it is crucial
for the Malaysian property companies to have a good transparency level to attract fund
managers who have viewed emerging markets such as Malaysia to invest. As such,
transparency level will play its role towards the contribution of the property market
capitalisation in international property portfolios. More importantly, transparency has
been shown to become more significantly important in the Malaysian property
markets. The introduction of the recent government policies such as the ETP and
New Economic Model will provide greater opportunities for these companies to
demonstrate more transparency practices within their companies.
PM References
30,5 Aksu, M. and Kosedag, A. (2006), “Transparency and disclosure scores and their determinants in
the Istanbul stock exchange”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 277-96.
Ashbaugh, H., Collins, D.W. and LaFind, R. (2004), “Corporate governance and the cost of equity
capital”, working paper, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
414 Bank Negara (2011), “Various information”, available at: www.bnm.gov.my (accessed 12
January 2011).
Beeks, W. and Brown, P. (2006), “Do better-governed Australian firms make more information
disclosure”, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 33 Nos 3-4, pp. 422-50.
Boer, D., Brounen, D. and Op’t Veld, H. (2005), “Corporate focus and stock performance
international evidence from listed property markets”, Journal of Real Estate Finance and
Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 263-81.
Bond, S., Karolyi, A. and Sanders, A. (2003), “International real estate returns: a multifactor,
multicounty approach”, Real Estate Economics, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 481-500.
Brounen, D., Op’t Veld, H. and Raitio, V. (2007), “Transparency in the European non-listed
real estate funds market”, Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 107-17.
Brounen, D., Kok, N. and Quigley, J.M. (2011), “Residential energy use and conservation:
economics and demographics”, European Economic Review, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 931-45.
Brown, L.D. and Caylor, M.L. (2006), “Corporate governance and firm performance”, Journal of
Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 409-34.
Capozza, D.R. and Seguin, P.J. (1999), “Focus, transparency and value: the REIT evidence”, Real
Estate Economics, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 587-619.
Chi, L.-C. (2009), “Do transparency and disclosure predict firm performance: evidence from the
Taiwan market”, Expert System with Application, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 11198-203.
CIA (2011), World Fact Book, CIA, Washington, DC.
Datastream (2010), “Various information”, available at: www.online.thomsonreuters.com/
datastream (accessed 20 January 2011).
Eichholtz, P., Gugler, N. and Nils, K. (2009), “Transparency, integration and the cost of
international real estate investment”, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract¼1346409
(accessed 21 January 2010).
Eichholtz, P.M.A., Huisman, R., Koedijk, K. and Schuin, L. (2001), “Continental factors and the
costs of international diversification”, Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 349-66.
Gompers, P.A., Ishii, J.L. and Metrick, A. (2003), “Corporate governance and equity prices”,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 107-55.
Jones Lang LaSalle ( JLL) (2010), Mapping the World of Transparency, Jones Lang LaSalle,
Sydney.
Khadaroo, M.I. (2005), “Business reporting on the internet in Malaysia and Singapore”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 58-68.
La Porta, R., Lopez-De-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (2002), “Investor protection and
corporate valuation”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 1147-70.
Linneman, P. (2002), “Toward greater transparency in real estate private equity funds”, available
at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid¼596 (accessed 10 January
2011).
Newell, G. and Chau, K.W. (1996), “Linkages between direct and indirect property performance in
Hong Kong”, Journal of Property Finance, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 9-29.
 Newell, G., Hiang, L.K., Ooi, J. and Haihong, Z. (2005), “The impact of information transparency Malaysian
and market capitalisation on out-performed in Asian property companies”, Pacific Rim
Property Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 393-411. property
Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2009), Global Capital Trends, RCA, London. companies
Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2010), Global Capital Trends, RCA, London.
Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2011), Global Capital Trends, RCA, London.
Schulte, K.W., Rottke, N. and Pitschke, C. (2005), “Transparency in the German real estate 415
market”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 90-108.
Securities Commission (2007), Malaysian Code of Corporate Governance, SC, Kuala Lumpur.
South Coast Information and Library Services (SCILS), University Bournemouth (1995),
“Marketing desk research”, available at: www.zmfht.hu/dl_sp.php?id¼6&f¼
MarkDeskResearch.pdf (accessed 15 December 2010).
Transparency International (2011), Corruption Perception Index 2010, TI, Berlin.
Worldbank (2011), “Various information”, available at: www.worldbank.org
World Economic Forum (2011), Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, New York.

Further reading
CIA (2009), World Fact Book, CIA, Washington, DC.
CIA (2010), World Fact Book, CIA, Washington, DC.
Lee, C.L. and Ting, K.H. (2009), “The role of Malaysian securitised real estate in a mixed-asset
portfolio”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 208-30.
Liow, K.H. (2001), “The long term investment performance of Singapore real estate and property
stocks”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 156-74.
Liow, K.H. (2000), “The dynamics of Singapore commercial property market”, Journal of Property
Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 279-91.
Md. Saad, N., Abd Majid, M.S., Kassim, S., Hamid, Z. and Mohd. Yusof, R. (2010), “A comparative
analysis of the performance of conventional and Islamic unit trust companies in
Malaysia”, International Journal of Managerial Finance, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 24-47.
Real Capital Analytics (RCA) (2008), Global Capital Trends, RCA, London.
Ting, K.H. and Tan, Y.K. (2008), “The role of residential property in personal investment
portfolio: the case of Malaysia”, Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 466-86.
Ting, K.H., Zhou, S.Z. and Bao, H.X.H. (2007), “Regional variations of residential real estate returns in
Malaysia”, paper presented at Asian Real Estate Society Conference, Macau, 9-12 July.
Transparency International (2009), Corruption Perception Index 2008, TI, Berlin.
Transparency International (2010), Corruption Perception Index 2008, TI, Berlin.
World Economic Forum (2009), Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009, World Economic
Forum, New York, NY.
World Economic Forum (2010), Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, World Economic
Forum, New York, NY.

Corresponding author
Muhammad Najib Razali can be contacted at: mnajibmr@utm.my

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats