Journal of Financial Management of Property and Constructionuir.ulster.ac.uk/37346/1/McGreal Stanley Investor... · 2017-07-14 · Journal of Financial Management of Property and

Journal of Financial Managem

ent of Property and Construction

Investor perspectives on property crowdfunding: evidence

from Australia

Journal: Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction

Manuscript ID JFMPC-12-2016-0055.R3

Manuscript Type: Research Paper

Keywords: Crowdfunding, property investment, investor behaviour, investment decision-making

Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction



Investor perspectives on property crowdfunding: evidence from Australia

1. INTRODUCTION

Countries in Asia-Pacific have experienced an exponential growth in the alternative finance market. Evidence

presented in the 2016 report Harnessing Potential (Zhang et al., 2016) shows a massive 313% increase in

transaction volume from $272m in 2014 to $1.12bn in 2015 across the region (excluding China). Most of this

growth is attributed to alternative investment platforms in developed countries substantially increasing their scale

of activities, with Australia showing the second highest rate of growth following Japan. While these figures are still

small in terms of the overall investment universe, the rapid growth of alternative investment platforms means that

their role and impact within investment decisions requires analysis and in the context of the built environment, the

positioning of real estate crowdfunding platforms as a sub-set of the alternative finance model is significant.

Indeed, this sector has been to the forefront with real estate crowdfunding platforms in the Asia-Pacific region

(again excluding China) exceeding all other alternative investment platforms in terms of the amount raised

($855,182) in 2015 (Zhang et al., 2016), although the report recognises that Australia has been a late adopter of

equity-based real estate crowdfunding regulation. Hence research into the Australian real estate crowdfunding

market is timely in particular exploring crowdfunding investor behaviour and rationale.

The principle of crowdfunding is not new and has been applied, in concept, for centuries. Hemer (2011) states

that both Mozart and Beethoven funded projects in the eighteenth century with contributions from interested

parties. Furthermore, one of the world’s most famous sites, the Statue of Liberty in New York, had its pedestal

funded by more than 125,000 contributors, some of whom donated less than USD 1 to the project (Moreno,

2004). However, the term “crowdfunding” has only recently been developed. In August 2006, Michael Sullivan

coined the term “crowdfunding” when creating Fundalog, a US internet based crowdfunding financing platform

(Gass, 2011). Yang and Zhang (2016) observe that China entered the crowdfunding industry as recently as 2014,

while in Europe, crowdfunding is developing rapidly with Austria, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Italy,

Germany and Portugal all having bespoke regimes for investment-based crowdfunding (European Commission,

2016). Indeed, the UK government’s Green Paper on Building our Industrial Strategy (HM Government, 2017)

has identified the potential of crowdfunding as a means of accessing capital for growing companies.

Whilst the concept of crowdfunding is expanding at a rapid pace, the property/real estate investment literature on

crowdfunding is to a large extent silent. The term ‘real estate crowdfunding’ has not been defined in academic

literature to date and empirical research is scarce. Cohen (2016) states that the future for real estate

crowdfunding holds the opportunity for significant growth, but also includes powerful risks. Moreover, the

uncertainty gap between possible benefits and pitfalls is widened due to a lack of knowledge with the possibility

Page 1 of 26 Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



that crowdfunding, and in particular crowdfunding as property investment vehicle, could be the next best

investment phenomenon or alternatively present a uniformed gamble.

This study contributes to investment decision-making by exploring crowdfunding platforms, from an investor

perspective. The key factors that are essential to understanding investment decisions are the same as those

using more established investment vehicles namely risk, return, liquidity, investment time horizons and

information availability. The originality of this study stems from being amongst the first to investigate property

crowdfunding from an investor perspective and indeed the first in an Australian context. Investment fundraising

through digitalised platforms, the growing means thereof, and its application to real estate is particularly novel

from an investor perspective and understanding the reasons why individual investors are seemingly attracted to

such an investment medium. Hence, given the phenomenal growth of alternate investment platforms and their

current upward trajectories in capturing investment funds, this paper, in seeking to improve the knowledge base

on property crowdfunding, is thus innovative and makes a significant contribution to the literature in terms of

focussing on individual investor behaviour, decisions and profile. The specific aim of this study is to investigate

the perceptions of property investors of the risks and rewards of crowdfunding as an investment vehicle in

Australia. More specifically, the study seeks to answer the following questions:

• What are property investors’ expectations of property crowdfunding in relation to their gender, age and

investor type?

• How do property investors perceive risk in property crowdfunding in relation to their gender, age and

investor type?

• What level of financial knowledge do crowdfunding property investors show regarding investment

decision-making in relation to their gender, age and investor type within the context of their investment

history?

In seeking to address the aim of the study and specific research questions, Section two of the paper provides a

review of recent literature on crowdfunding, specifically in relation to property, followed in Section three by a

focus on the Australian perspective. Section four of the paper develops the research method, including the

application of survey-based techniques. The empirical section of the study, Section five, provides an analysis of

the results based on a survey of crowdfunding investors exploring themes based around investment history and

expectations, risk and investment. Conclusions, in Section six, focus on demographics and gender impacts on

investment decisions, return expectations and risk tolerances, and the level of financial knowledge/expertise in

influencing investment behaviour.

Page 2 of 26Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



2. CHARACTERISTICS OF CROWDFUNDING: LITERATURE EVIDENCE

Crowdfunding has been defined by a number of scholars. Sigar (2012) defines crowdfunding as “a fundraising

strategy that pools capital, typically in small amounts, from a large group of people”, whilst Ramsey (2012) states

that crowdfunding is “the process of raising money to help turn promising ideas into business realities by

connecting investees with potential supporters.” Equity crowdfunding is defined by Ahlers et al. (2015) as “a

method of financing, whereby an entrepreneur sells a specified amount of equity or bond-like shares in a

company to a group of (small) investors through an open call for funding on Internet-based platforms.”

Valanciene and Jegeleviciute (2013) argue that, in order to gain an understanding of the factors influencing

crowdfunding investor decision-making, it is important to explore the main drivers of risk and return (as well as

opportunities and weaknesses) for crowdfunded investments. These risks include weaker protection of the

investor, the possibility of fraud, as well as a lack of financial advice as funds are invested online. On the other

hand, the benefits and opportunities to investors may include the ability to invest in assets (particularly property in

the case of this study) which the investor previously would not be able to afford in their personal capacity.

The basic structure of a real estate investment through equity crowdfunding involves a special purpose vehicle

(SPV) that allows individual investors to pool their investments. The SPV obtains ownership of the investment

and shares are issued to individual investors on a pro rata basis. Investors are rewarded through distribution of

dividends as well as potential capital growth of the investment. The SPV is managed by the crowdfunding

platform. The crowdfunding platform is also responsible for finding the sponsor (or real estate asset), performing

the necessary due diligence and the listing of the property (O’Roarty et al., 2016).

In equity-based crowdfunding the probability of success of such an investment is increased by retention of equity,

but also by ensuring that sufficient information is available with regards to the risk of the investment. Significantly,

factors that motivate investment in real estate crowdfunding include low entry levels, greater investment

discretion as well as lower fee structures and attractive returns. It is however important to understand what drives

the investor’s decisions to invest, as it will be the determining factor that will drive change (O’Roarty et al., 2016).

According to Ahlers et al. (2015) information asymmetries between the crowd funder and the investor can make

the equity-based crowdfunding investment process more challenging as individual investors have limited

information on the companies they invest in. Hervé et al. (2017) state that investment based crowdfunding, which

includes equity crowdfunding and real estate crowdfunding, will differ from other forms of crowdfunding as the

incentives and compensation is different for the investor.

The difference in regulation and specific structuring of equity-based crowdfunding investments between countries

can increase the perceived risk. Belleflamme et al. (2014), for example, state that equity offerings in Europe are


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



limited to public listed entities with stringent regulation, however, profit sharing can be structured as the sharing of

gains on a predetermined basis. Furthermore, Agrawal et al. (2015) consider that another possible challenge

could be the geographical distance between the location of the investor and the crowdfunded project. Risk may

also increase due to the lack of knowledge as to what happens post investment, reducing the transparency of

such a crowdfunding vehicle. Indeed, Macht and Weatherstone (2015) point out that literature on the post-

investment phase of equity-based crowdfunding investment is scarce. Furthermore, Borello et al. (2015) point

out that the main limitation relating to empirical literature on crowdfunding is the fact that the availability of public

data on projects seeking funds is limited. In contrast mainstream investor behaviour in property investment

decision-making has received considerable attention in the literature. For example Case and Shiller (1988)

investigate buyer behaviour in boom and post-boom residential property markets. Levy and Lee (2004) and Levy

et al. (2008) qualitatively investigate family decisions and emotions in making home purchasing decisions.

MacCowan and Orr (2008) studies the behavioural decision-making process by property fund managers in

disposing of assets where Lowies et al.(2016) examines heuristic-driven bias present in the decisions of listed

property fund managers.

In relation to property crowdfunding investors, a study by Pearson et al. (2016) on equity-based crowdfunding

identified significant differences between investor motivation by age, gender and investor experience. Barber and

Odean (2001), in an earlier study, found that whilst both men and women are overconfident as far as investing is

concerned, this is more pronounced in the case of male expectations that investments will yield positive results.

In a similar vein, Hervé et al. (2016) found that the clear majority of equity crowd funders are male, with the

largest proportion of investors being below the age of 55. Furthermore, Cholakova and Clarysse (2015) consider

that a record of having invested in equity crowdfunding investments is a positive indicator for continued

investment, reiterating the importance of equity crowdfunding as a form of financial motivation to invest in this

vehicle. This finding is in accordance with Nicolosi et al. (2009) who found that individuals learn from their

investment history and base future decisions on the past performance of stocks in order to achieve higher returns

as they gain experience.

Regarding risk and risk tolerance, Hallahan et al. (2004) argue that intuitively investors should become more risk

averse as they become older. Therefore, their investment horizon may be shorter, their earning capacity might

decrease as they reach retirement age and they might not want to take undue risks with their savings. Wang and

Hanna (1997), however, found that risk aversion decreases as people age, with older investors having a higher

risk tolerance than younger investors. These findings are also in line with those of Grable (2000) who concluded

that older investors are more risk tolerant than younger investors, and with Hervé et al. (2016) who found that

men present more risky investment behaviour in equity-based crowdfunding. Concerning the financial knowledge

of investors in equity-based crowdfunding, Volpe et al. (2002) observed that older investors (above the age of 50)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



were more knowledgeable than younger investors. In particular, these authors argued that older investors have

built up financial knowledge throughout the years and therefore feel more confident about their investment

decisions. Volpe et al. (2002) also found that the levels of investment knowledge is lower for women as opposed

to that of men.

Although gender, age and investor type studies have been undertaken in the broad equity-based crowdfunding

area, to date property crowdfunding as an equity-based investment vehicle with a focus on the investor has not

been investigated. Furthermore, the literature suggests conflicting findings on return expectations, risk tolerance

and financial knowledge, in a broad equity-based approach which is further accentuated for equity-based

property crowdfunding.

3. CROWDFUNDING IN AUSTRALIA

The total volume of crowdfunding on a global base has increased from USD 2.7 billion in 2012 to USD 34.40

billion in 2015. Although Oceania (which includes both Australia and New Zealand) takes only 0.2% of the global

market share (Figure I), annual growth in Oceania for 2015 was 59% providing an indicator of strong future

prospects. In contrast, in the United States (US) (Figure II) both real estate investment crowdfunding and real

estate development crowdfunding were amongst the top 10 industries in committed capital for private

crowdfunding offerings. These two industries contributed 24% of the total amount of capital commitments in

private offerings for the period September 2013 – September 2015 in the US, highlighting the potential of

property crowdfunded investments for countries such as Australia.

<Figure I>

<Total global crowdfunding market share and annual growth prediction (2015) >

<Figure II>

<Top 10 US crowdfunding industries (2013 – 2015)>

The Australian Tax Office (2016) indicates that in Australia there are three parties involved in a crowdfunding

arrangement; the promotor, the intermediary and the contributor. The promotor is the initiator of the project and is

the party who is in need of capital contributions in order to fund a specific project. Intermediaries act as a platform

to link promoters and contributors. Contributors can be either individuals or entities that will commit to contribute

to the project. For contributors any return earned from the crowdfunding investment may form part of their

assessable income for tax purposes.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Four crowdfunding models exist in Australia. In donation based crowdfunding the contributor will not receive any

benefit or reward in return for their contribution, whereas in reward-based crowdfunding the contributor will be

rewarded in some way. Debt based crowdfunding is basically the same as a loan that needs to be repaid

(including capital as well as interest repayments). In an equity-based crowdfunding transaction, contributors

receive shares or equity in the business that act as the promotor. The Australian Government has not finalised

legislation in equity crowdfunding for both public as well as proprietary companies, hence crowdfunding is

currently available in limited circumstances (Australian Tax Office, 2016).

Property crowdfunding is one of the limited equity-based crowdfunding options available in Australia and has not

had the same traction as other property investment vehicles such as Australian Real Estate Investment Trusts

(A-REITs). This is mainly because of the infancy of property crowdfunding as an investment vehicle in Australia.

By way of contrast, Newell (2013) has discussed how A-REITs attract both sophisticated individual and

institutional investors that have access to high quality commercial property assets. In property crowdfunding,

investors invest individually and mainly in smaller residential assets. The magnitude of property crowdfunding

investments are also much smaller than that of average A-REIT investments due to a possible lack of

sophisticated institutional investors. As such, property crowdfunding as an investment vehicle is currently used on

a much smaller scale than other indirect property investment vehicles. However, Raskin (2013) observes that a

property crowdfunded investment allows the investor the opportunity to be more in control, and more aware, of

the risks associated with property crowdfunding.

4. RESEARCH METHOD

The study followed a survey-based design and data were collected by means of an online questionnaire. The

survey was targeted at investors that have invested funds in property through a crowdfunding platform based in

Australia. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine the perceptions of this target group regarding

property crowdfunding as an investment vehicle. Specifically, information was gathered on the following aspects:

• demographics, in particular gender, age and investor type;

• investment history as well as return expectations of property crowdfunding as an investment vehicle;

• risk perceptions and financial risk tolerance concerning a property crowdfunded investment; and

• financial knowledge of the specific target group and how it influences their investment decision-making

process.

An online questionnaire was chosen as the research tool as it is time-effective, convenient and minimises cost

(Evans and Mathur, 2005; Wright, 2005). A preliminary questionnaire was designed to obtain sufficient

information to draw conclusions in respect of investor perceptions, using property crowdfunding as an investment


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



vehicle. A pilot study was conducted to pre-test the effectiveness of the questionnaire and to enhance its

robustness.

The first section of the questionnaire required respondents to supply demographic information to be used in the

final analysis. It included closed-ended questions on the gender, age, household income per annum, and highest

academic qualification. This demographic information is needed to measure investor perspectives.

The second section of the questionnaire requested respondents to provide information regarding their current

investment portfolio and investment history, as well as return and ownership expectations. The third section

considered the availability of information to property crowdfunding investors, whilst the fourth section examined

the respondents’ attitudes towards financial risk. In the fifth and final section respondents’ degree of financial

knowledge and their investment time horizon were established.

Sections 2 to 5 of the questionnaire are central to the measurement of the perceptions of property crowdfunding

investors on this alternative investment vehicle. Hence, specific questions were designed based on the review of

the related literature to ensure validity within the context of this study and associated research questions.

According to Burns and Bush (2010), the collection of primary data for academic purposes is achieved through

experiments, observations and surveys. Unlike experiments or observations where the characteristics under

observation are known in advance, a survey focusses on the unknown characteristics of a particular population.

Saunders et al. (2007) explain that the use of questionnaires in descriptive research that investigates attitudes,

opinions and the decisions that humans make, enables researchers to identify and describe important variations

in decision making.

In the property investment paradigm, authors such as French (2001), Gallimore and Gray (2002) and MacCowan

and Orr (2008) have conducted studies using survey-based techniques as a basis for obtaining the necessary

data to explore decision-making processes and behaviour. Important deductions concerning property investment

decision-making have been made in these studies using questionnaires as instruments to gather data.

The target cohort is focussed on property crowdfunding as the specific investment vehicle, thereby adding to the

reliability of the sample. To further ensure robustness of the questionnaire it was initially send to experts at the

crowdfunding platform for validation and comments. Thereafter a pre-test was conducted to further strengthen

the questionnaire.

This study uses statistical analysis through the Chi-square test and independent sample t-test. The Chi-squared

test, through cross-tabulation, is used in instances where the data presented is in nominal or ordinal format whilst

the independent sample t-test is used for categorical and ratio data and to determine significant differences in


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



means between two independent groups. Studies by McLachlan and Gardener (2004) and Barber et al. (2003)

have successfully applied t-tests as an analytical method to test for various investor differences in investment

decision-making.

Currently there are two significant property crowdfunding platforms in Australia of which only one has a property

only crowdfunding focus. To limit the possibility of including respondents other than actual property crowdfunding

investors, the questionnaire was distributed by the property only crowdfunding platform, to their investor

database. At the time of conducting the survey the crowdfunding platform had 780 registered persons, and whilst

detailed information on the numbers who had actually invested is not available the platform estimates that there

is a high rate of involvement (90%) resulting in a population of circa 700 eligible investors. In determining a

statistically valid sample size survey methodologies recommend using either some known information or the

results of a pilot study that map to an important issue in the survey. For this investigation the former is used

drawing upon information from the Harnessing Potential Report (Zhang et al., 2016) concerning the percentage

of female participation1 (33%) in real estate crowdfunding platforms in the Asia Pacific region. Utilising the

binomial formula for sample size determination2, a 0.05 probability level and allowing a 10% error margin on

female participation, a desired sample size of 76 respondents is derived.

In conducting the survey, the initial distribution of the questionnaire was followed up by one reminder resulting in

in 89 responses, or 12%, which is in line with adequate response rates for online surveys (Nulty, 2008; Sax et al.,

2003) and exceeds the theoretical desired sample size of 76. However, through the data cleansing process, a

number of incomplete surveys were eliminated bringing the useable sample to 62 responses. The small sample

size does render the statistical measures applied less powerful, and caution was therefore applied in interpreting

some of the results. To eliminate response bias, every respondent was approached in the same manner and

presented with the same set of questions. The response was therefore considered to be acceptable and

statistically representative of the platform population. Also, in context of this study it is not the goal to generalise

conclusions to the greater crowdfunding population, as the focus is specifically on property crowdfunding

investors within Australia, their attitudes to risk, and expectations of return levels.

5. ANALYSIS

1 The first question of the platform survey addressed gender participation.

2 �� (��)

�� where z=1.96, p=67% and M the error margin of 10%

� �

�

��(�/�)

finite population correction where n0 is the final sample size and N the population


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



The analysis establishes core characteristics of the data and the nature of the statistical distributions of key

variables supported by a range of significance tests to explore differences by respondent sub-groups, in

particular gender, age and investor type3. As articulated in this paper, there is little information on crowdfunding in

the research literature, particularly in the case of property crowdfunding. Hence establishing patterns in the

underpinning data set forms a core part of the study.

5.1 Demographic characteristics

The analysis shows a strong gender bias in the investor cohort with 72.6% of the respondents being male, raising

questions concerning information asymmetry, IT capabilities/exposure, and different levels of potential risk

appetite. The majority of respondents in the survey are aged above 45 years with the largest cohort (32.3%)

between the ages of 55 to 64 years, suggesting that it is the older age groups in society - potentially those with

more disposable income or higher levels of wealth - who are most willing to invest in a crowdfunding platform.

This is partly supported by the income profile with respondents indicating that they mostly earn a combined

household income of AUD200,000 or less, with 45.2% of respondents earning AUD100,000 or less and 42% of

respondents earning between AUD100,000 and AUD200,000. The data also shows that 27.4% of respondents

holds a diploma or certificate (non-university), 25.8% secondary school education, another 25.8% a postgraduate

qualification, and 21% an undergraduate university qualification.

5.2 Respondent investment history and expectations

Analysis of the respondents’ investment history considers the amount of funds, and the percentage of the

respondents’ total investment portfolio, invested in property through crowdfunding platforms. It also includes the

percentage of the portfolio invested in different asset classes, respondents’ return expectations, as well as

investment time horizon, for property crowdfunding as an investment vehicle.

The majority of respondents (80.6%) indicated that their investment in property through a crowdfunding platform

was not their first financial investment. This suggests they are looking for alternative investment opportunities,

possibly due to low interest rates making other, more traditional investment routes, less attractive. In exploring

investor characteristics it is apparent that, for an appreciable percentage (circa 20% of respondents),

crowdfunding was their first financial investment. This infers that this vehicle has the ability to attract a range of

investors, including individuals with no investment history. Reflecting on this potential range of investor type, it is

of particular interest that three quarters (75.8%) of respondents invested an amount of less than AUD10,000

through a crowdfunding platform. In relation to other investment asset classes, stocks (35.1%) were the main

3 All statistical testing is within the statistical band and it can be prone to Type I and II errors when the wrong

decisions are made.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



investment product within respondent portfolios’ with 33% held in other assets, 29% in cash and only 3% in

bonds. Importantly, 74.2% of respondents found that the ease of access to a property crowdfunding platform

assisted positively in making their investment decision.

The return expectations of the respondents were fairly evenly split between the “less than 5%” and the “6% -

10%” options (41.9% and 48.4% respectively) suggesting that a moderate or realistic level of return was sought

rather than higher return rates associated with asset classes such as private equity. An interesting exposure to

rural property rather than other property types in realising this return was apparent though, as respondents were

sampled from one crowdfunding platform only, this outcome may present bias to the property types selected by

this crowdfunding platform. Other sectors that respondents indicated they invest in were commercial property

(27.4%), residential property (25.8%), industrial property (12.9%), and mixed-use property (12.9%).

The analysis infers that respondents take a long term view with 77.4% expecting future ownership and returns

based on capital growth as well as rental income, rather than capital growth or rental yield only, and divesting

after the completion of construction or short term speculation. This long term view is further substantiated by the

finding that 72.6% of respondents expect a long term investment time horizon of longer than 5 years.

5.2.1 Analysis by gender, age and investor type

Analysis by gender (Table I) indicates that female respondents, on average, invest more than male respondents,

as reflected in the higher mean for funds invested through property crowdfunding platforms (AUD16,323.53

against AUD13,485.18). However, while an interesting and somewhat surprising statistic, the difference in means

is not statistically significant (p>0.05).

<Table I>

<Statistics on funds invested and percentage of portfolio invested through property crowdfunding platforms>

Regarding age (Table I), those respondents less than 55 years of age (dominated by those aged between 45 and

54) invested, on average, more funds in the property crowdfunding platforms than those aged 55 or older

(AUD15,210.13 against AUD13,705.13). The latter, though, holds a higher percentage invested in property

through crowdfunding platforms (24.5% against 14.9%). In the case of investor groups, unlike the age and

gender cohorts, the difference of the means for funds invested through property crowdfunding platforms by

investor type is statistically significant (p<0.05; equal variances not assumed). Furthermore, the difference in

means for the percentage of funds invested through property crowdfunding platforms is statistically significant at


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



the 90% confidence level (equal variances not assumed). Drilling down further into the data, new investors

(property crowdfunding as first ever financial investment) seemingly invest much smaller amounts on average

(AUD5,986.08) than existing investors (AUD16,250). This could possibly be because of the uncertainty attached

to a new investment vehicle, but are more likely caused by uncertainty and a lack of knowledge in making

investments. Although new investors invest a higher percentage of their funds in property through property

crowdfunding (42.4% as per Table I), their portfolio is smaller relative to existing investors, with the latter only

investing 15.8% of their portfolio in property through property crowdfunding platforms.

Concerning exposure to other asset classes, the analysis shows some behavioural differences by gender group

(Table II), with female respondents (45.7%) holding a higher percentage of their portfolios in cash than males

(22.7%), whereas male respondents have a higher percentage of their portfolios in stocks (43.1%) than females

(13.8%). In this context, the higher exposure of females to property crowdfunding as an investment vehicle

(although not statistically significant) might be related to their higher level of cash liquidity and hence the

opportunity to invest in alternative vehicles, whereas male respondents follow a more traditional investment

approach by investing significantly higher percentages into stocks.

A study by Hervé et al. (2017) in France produced similar results with women making larger investments than

men, but in less risky projects (such as real estate). According to these authors, the results are based on risk

aversion rather than overconfidence as such. However, investments decisions are influenced to a larger extent

by risk preferences and the return expectations, and not by gender.

<Table II>

<Statistics on percentage of portfolio invested in asset classes>

The analysis indicates that older respondents (55 years and older) hold more cash (34.7%) in their portfolios

relative to those respondents less than 55 years of age (19.3%). They also invest seemingly a lower percentage

(26.7%) in other asset classes than those aged below 55 (43.7%). Given their later stage in life, it is possible that

older respondents invest in cash and cash equivalents for liquidity purposes but also for the conservative nature

of this type of investment. Similarly, the older respondents may invest less in risky investment alternatives

whereas the “less than 55 year” respondents possibly have a higher proportion of their portfolios in higher risk

and alternative investment vehicles.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Concerning return characteristics, the analysis (Table III) indicates that low and moderate expectations are

apparent across the gender, age and investor groups, with little evidence of any major differences by sub-group.

However, at the 0.1% significance level some differences between respondents’ age and their return

expectations are apparent. Here, 94.7% of respondents in the “55 years and above” age group, and 78.3% in the

“less than 55 years” age group, expects low to moderate returns ranging from 0% to 10% per year. Overall it may

be deducted that respondents, especially by age group, do not perceive property crowdfunding as an

exceptionally high earning investment vehicle. Rather, they consider it as a low to moderate earner over a longer

time period.

<Table III>

<Property crowdfunding return expectations (%) and investment time horizon on an annual basis in relation to respondents’ gender, age and investor type>

5.3 Risk

The survey sought to test respondents’ attitude to financial risk tolerance as well as their perception of the risk

attached to investing in property through a crowdfunding platform. For the former, a risk tolerance scale

developed by Grable and Schumm (2007) was used to test risk appetite. Similarly, respondents’ perceptions of

the level of financial risk attached to the property crowdfunding vehicle in relation to gender, age, and investor

type is tested.

With regard to risk, 58.1% of respondents showed a willingness to take “average” financial risks, thereby

expecting “average” returns in making investments as measured on the risk tolerance scale. However, almost

30% of respondents are willing to take “above average” risk, expecting “above average returns”, indicating a

spread of risk appetite amongst respondents. Similarly, the majority of respondents (64.5%) view the level of risk

associated with a property crowdfunded investment as average, whereas 22.6% of the respondents are of the

view that the level of risk associated with a property crowdfunded investment is high. Overall the level of risk

associated with a property crowdfunded investment appears to be in line with rational return expectations and, in

this respect, does not show any difference in risk attitude from that expected for more conventional investment

vehicles.



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Sub-group analysis (Table IV) suggests that statistically significant relationships exists between respondents’ risk

appetite and both age and investor type (p<0.05). More specifically, respondents seem to be more risk averse in

relation to their age and their investor type (67.7% for both variables). Regarding age it is clear that the “55 years

and above” group are more cautious in tolerating financial risk, with 79.5% of this age group indicating that they

are risk averse. For the “less than 55 years” age group the spread in risk appetite is more even between risk

taking and risk averse (52.2% against 47.8% respectively). Respondents in this age group seems willing to take

on risky alternative investments. In contrast, the older, more mature investor group allocate less money to risky

alternative assets and hold more funds in cash and cash equivalent investments.

<Table IV>

<Respondents’ risk appetite in relation to their gender, age and investor type>

According to Mohammadi and Shafi (2016) differences in investment behaviour between men and women are

due to risk preferences. The authors consider that investments in equity crowdfunding have two distinct

characteristics, being: decision making under high risk circumstances, and uncertainty which is increased due to

limited investor expertise. Examining attitudes somewhat deeper suggests that existing investors generally tend

to be risk averse (62%), though an appreciable number (38%) are willing to tolerate higher risk levels. In contrast,

91.7% of new investors are risk averse with a very small percentage willing to take higher risk opportunities.

These lower levels of risk tolerance presented by new investors may also explain their propensity to hold less

money in stocks, and although not significant, more money in cash.

5.4 Investment decision-making and financial knowledge

An investment decision confidence scale developed by Li et al. (2002) was used to measure respondents’

confidence levels in making investment decisions. The findings indicate that respondents are sure (41.9%) about

the investment decisions they make, that they are comfortable (37.1%) with the concept of risk, and are confident

(46.8%) in making investment decisions. However, 33.9% of respondents “agree” or “mostly agree” that they are

uncomfortable with the concept of risk in making investment decisions. Furthermore, over a third of respondents

are “neutral” in terms of their confidence in making investment decisions.

Regarding financial knowledge, using a scale developed by Flynn and Goldsmith (1999), the analysis indicates

that respondents have a reasonable degree of knowledge (Table V) across key financial concepts such as

interest rates, finance charges, credit terms, credit ratings, credit files and managing finances, and investing

money. However, when it comes to information in their credit report, as indicated by the lower mean score and


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



higher value of standard deviation, respondents are less confident and hence may have been attracted to

crowdfunding given the seemingly greater simplicity with its investment style.

<Table V>

<Respondents’ mean scores on financial knowledge variables>


Exploring this further by sub-group analysis suggests no significant difference by gender, although age does

seem to influence respondents’ level of confidence in investment decision-making (p<0.05). The analysis

indicates that, overall, 61.3% of respondents agree that they are confident in making investment decisions.

However, the “less than 55 years” age group do so to a much lesser extent. The differing attitude by age group

captures the greater uncertainty felt by new investors, 66.7% of whom feel uncomfortable with the risks

associated with investment decision-making. In this respect it seems that respondents in the “new investor”

category lack financial knowledge, with the analysis indicating that respondents in this category have a limited

knowledge of financial concepts, relative to the “existing investor” category who indicate that they are

“knowledgeable” in each of the financial concepts listed. Overall new investors feel that they have a limited

financial knowledge (which explains why they feel uncomfortable with the risks associated to investment

decisions-making), they are risk averse in tolerating financial risk, invest less in stocks as an asset class, and

invests significantly lower amounts in property through crowdfunding platforms, than existing investors.

Although no significant difference by gender is apparent in the level of confidence in investment decision making,

a high percentage of female respondents feel that they have limited knowledge (58.8%) on investing money. This

perhaps, explains the greater tendency by females to hold a significantly higher percentage of money in cash

than male respondents, and significantly lower percentages in stocks relative to male respondents. It is also in

line with Hervé et al. (2017) who found that women invest least in risky investments, but more in safer ones.

Based on a study by Mohammadi and Shafi (2016) female investors are more risk averse than men, based on

the fact that they are less likely to invest in young firms, high-technology firms as well as firms offering a high

percentage of equity. It is therefore probable that, although females might feel confident in making investment

decisions, this level of confidence may be in more conservative investments such as cash and cash equivalents.

6. CONCLUSION

The aim of this study is to investigate the perceptions of property investors of the risks and awards of property

crowdfunding as an investment vehicle in Australia. More specifically it focusses on property investors’


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



investment history, return expectations, risk perceptions and tolerance, and the level of financial knowledge in

making investment decisions. In this respect, the study is innovative and breaks new ground in assessing

individual investor motivations and appetite in relation to the growing concept of crowdfunding and its potential as

an alternative investment means of entering the real estate investment market.

The study shows that Australian investors perceive property crowdfunding as a relatively low to medium risk

investment that yields low to medium return over a medium to long-term investment horizon. Significantly, the

analysis shows that property crowdfunding attracts a mix of investor types, rather than a highly specialised

cohort, with the main appeal to this spread of investors being the ease of entry and the ability to invest small

amounts of money. The study shows that Australian investors have a reasonable degree of financial knowledge

but are more neutral about their confidence in relation to making investment-decisions.

An important finding of the analysis is gender differences towards investments in general and property

crowdfunding in particular. The results show that female respondents invest more funds through and have a

higher exposure to property crowdfunding than male respondents although, as discussed, not significantly

different within the margins of statistical error. Female respondents are shown to hold higher percentages of cash

in their portfolios while male respondents invest higher percentages in stocks. This variation in respondent

behaviour is of importance and suggests that female investors have more liquid cash assets looking for a

relatively un-complex and easy investment vehicle with property crowdfunding presenting one such possibility.

The analysis also shows some important differences by age. In this context, younger investors hold more funds in

property crowdfunding than older investors. In contrast, older respondents have a greater propensity to hold

significantly higher percentages of their portfolios in cash and given their life stage, invest more conservatively

through cash and cash equivalents, and in more liquid investment vehicles.

The findings by investor type indicate that new investors tend to expose smaller amounts than existing investors,

possibly because of uncertainty and a lack of knowledge in making investment decisions. This observation is

substantiated by the fact that existing investors, arising from a higher level of confidence, invest significantly more

funds through traditional investment vehicles such as stocks.

Similar to the findings of Hallahan et al. (2004) the present study shows that investors become more risk averse

as they become older whereas younger investors present a willingness to take more risk. Furthermore, both

existing and new investors tend to be more risk averse with low to moderate return expectations. It also seems

that investors perceive property crowdfunding as a long-term investment. However, in line with the results of

Volpe et al. (2002) the present study shows that younger respondents are less confident in making investment

decisions than older, more experienced respondents. Furthermore, new investors display less financial


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



knowledge than the existing investor cohort, suggesting that they are uncomfortable with making investment

decisions relative to their existing investor counterparts.

The results of the study show, to an extent, similarities to general equity-based crowdfunding studies. However,

the uniqueness of property as crowdfunding vehicle may explain why these results did, in certain cases, become

insignificant when related to other studies. Overall, the study shows that the property crowdfunding investor

seems to present cautious behaviour with a conservative perception of investment in property through

crowdfunding platforms. Limited financial knowledge as well as uncertainty towards making investment decisions

may present barriers to younger, newer investors.

The knowledge gained from this study on investors implies that the acceptance of digitalised investment

platforms may be lagging behind the rapid pace at which technology is changing the investment decision-making

environment. This is an important finding with consequences for the pace of development of financial vehicles

and public acceptance. There is also an inference concerning the need for a greater understanding of the

possibilities that changes in technology brings and, ultimately, how it influences investment decisions. In this

regard, property crowdfunding platforms may need to provide prospective investors with more information on how

property crowdfunding as an investment vehicle functions, given that transparency is central to most investment

decisions. Associated with this is the degree of regulation within the crowdfunding sector and enhancing the

understanding of alternative investment vehicles to close the gap between advancement and acceptance.

Although this study is focused on Australian investors, many of the findings regarding how investors perceive

change, adapt to technologies and embrace new investment vehicles with caution4 does have resonance to

other countries.

7. REFERENCES

Agrawal, A., Catalini, C. and Goldfarb, A. (2015), ‘Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of

investment decisions’, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 253 – 274.

Ahlers, G.K.C, Cumming, C., Günther, C. and Schweizer, D. (2015), ‘Signalling in Equity Crowdfunding’,

Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, July 2015, pp. 955 – 980.

Australian Tax Office (2016), “Crowdfunding”, available at: https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Income-and-

deductions/Income-you-must-declare/Crowdfunding/ (accessed 21 September 2016).

4 To obtain a copy of the questionnaire sent to investors please contact the lead author.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Barber, B.M. and Odean, T. (2001), “Boys Will be Boys: Gender, Overconfidence, and Common Stock

Investment”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 261 - 292.

Barber, B.M., Heath, C. and Odean, T. (2003), “Good Reasons to Sell: Reason-Based Choice Among Group and

Individual Investors in the Stock Market”, Management Science, Vol. 49, No. 12, pp. 1636-1652.

Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. and Schwienbacher, A. (2014), ‘Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd’, Journal of

Business Venturing, Vol. 29, pp. 585 – 609.

Borello, G., De Crescenzo, V. and Pichler, F. (2015). “The funding gap and the role of financial return

crowdfunding: Some evidence from European platforms”, The Journal of Internet Banking and

Commerce, 2015.

Burns, A.C. and Bush, R.F. (2010), “Marketing research”, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Case, K.E. and Shiller, R.J. (1988), “The behaviour of home buyers in boom and post-boom markets”, New

England Economic Review, November/December, pp. 29 – 46.

Cholakova, M. and Clarysse, B. (2015), “Does the Possibility to Make Equity Investments in Crowdfunding

Projects Crowd Out Reward-Based Investments?,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January

2015, pp. 145 – 172.

Cohen, J. (2016), “A Study on the History and Functionality of Real Estate Crowdfunding”, Joseph Wharton

Research Scholars. Available at http://repository.upenn.edu/joseph_whraton_scholars/19

Crowdexpert (2015), “Crowdfunding Industry Statistics 2015”, available at: http://crowdexpert.com/crowdfunding-

industry-statistics/ (accessed 26 September 2016).

European Commission (2016), “Crowdfunding in the EU Capital Markets Union”, Commission staff working

document, European Commission, Brussels, 3 May.

Evans, J.R. and Mathur, A. (2005), “The value of online sur6veys”, Internet Research, Vol.15, Issue 2, pp. 195 -

219.

Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, R.E. (1999), “A short reliable measure of subjective knowledge”, Journal of Business

Research, Vol 46, September 1999, pp. 57 - 66.

French, N. (2001), “Decision theory and real estate investment: an analysis of the decision-making processes of

real estate investment fund managers”, Managerial and Decision Economics, Vol. 22, pp. 399 - 410.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Gallimore, P. and Gray, A. (2002), “The role of investor sentiment in property investment decisions”. Journal of

Property Research, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 111 - 120.

Gass, D. (2011), Crowd Funding: How to Raise Money with the Online Crowd, Jump Profit, Inc., Las Vegas, NV.

Grable, J.E. (2000), “Financial risk tolerance and additional factors that affect risk taking in everyday money

matters”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol.14, No. 4, pp. 625 - 630.

Grable, J.E. and Schumm, W. (2010), "An estimate of the reliability of the survey of consumer finances risk-

tolerance question”, Journal of Personal Finance, Vol. 9, pp. 117 - 131.

Hallahan, T.A., Faff, R.W. and McKenzie, M.D. (2004), "An empirical investigation of personal financial risk

tolerance", Financial Services Review, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 57 - 78.

Hemer, J. (2011), ‘A snapshot on crowdfunding’, Working Paper Firms and Regin Nr R2/2011, Fraunhofer.

Hervé, F., Manthé, E., Sannajust, A. and Schwienbacher, A. (2017), “Determinants of Individual Investment

Decisions in Investment-Based Crowdfunding”, available at: https://papers-ssrn-

com.access.library.unisa.edu.au/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2746398_code301672.pdf?...1

Hervé, F., Manthé, E., Sannajust, A. and Schwienbacher, A. (2016), “Investor Motivations in Investment-Based

Crowdfunding”, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn-com.access.library.unisa.edu.au/abstract=2746398

HM Government (2017) Building our Industrial Strategy, HM Government, pp132.

Levy, D.S. and Lee, C.K.C. (2004), “The influence of family members on housing purchase decisions”, Journal of

Property Investment and Finance, Vol 22, pp. 320 – 338.

Levy, D., Murphy, L. and Lee, C.K.C. (2008), “Influences and Emotions: Exploring Family Decision-making

Processes when Buying a House”, Housing Studies, Vol 23, No. 2, pp. 271 – 289.

Lowies, G.A., Hall, J.H. and Cloete, C.E. (2016), “Heuristic-driven bias in property investment decision-making in

South Africa”, Journal of Property Investment and Finance, Vol 34, No. 1, pp. 51 – 67.

Li, Y.M., Lee, J. and Cude, B.J. (2002), “Intention to adopt online trading: identifying the future online traders”.

Financial Counselling and Planning, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 49 - 64.

Macht, S.A. and Weatherson, J. (2015), “Academic Research on Crowdfunders: What’s Been Done and What’s

To Come?”, Strategic Change, Vol 24, No. 2, pp. 191 - 205.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



MacCowan, J.R. and Orr, A.M. (2008), “A behavioural study of the decision processes underpinning disposals by

property fund managers”, Journal of Property Investment & Finance, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 342 - 361.

McLachlan, J. and Gardner, J. (2004). “A Comparison of Socially Responsible and Conventional Investors”,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol 52, No.1, pp. 11 - 25.

Mohammadi, A. and Shafi, k. (2016), “Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding

investors”, available at: papers.ssrn.com

Moreno, B. (2004), The Statue of Liberty, Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC.

Newell, G. (2013), “REITs in Australia: moving forward from the GFC”, in Sotelo, R. and McGreal, S. (Eds), Real

Estate Investment Trusts in Europe: Evolution, Regulation, and Opportunities for Growth, Springer, pp.

69 – 76.

Nicolosi, G., Peng, L. and Zhu, N. (2009), “Do individual investors learn from their trading experience?”, Journal

of Financial Markets, Vol. 12, pp. 317 - 336.

Nulty, D.D, (2008), “The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?”,

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 33, No.3, pp. 301 – 314.

O’ Roarty, B., McMahon, S., Martin, R., Marx, S. and Craddock, P. (2016), “Real Estate Crowdfunding: Gimmick

or Game Changer?”, Investment Property Forum, pp 27.

Pearson, A., Johdet, J. and Näselius, M. (2016), “Understanding The Crowd – A quantitative study on investor

motivation in equity crowdfunding”, Bachelor degree thesis, Jönköping University, Sweden.

Ramsey, Y.A., (2012), “What the heck is crowdfunding?” Business people, November, pp. 54.

Raskin, M., (2013), “Crowdfunding for Real Estate: Buy a Slice of a Skyscraper”, available at:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-24/crowdfunding-for-real-estate-buy-a-slice-of-a-

skyscraper (accessed 26 September 2016).

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2007), “Research methods for business students”, 4th ed. Harlow, UK:

Prentice Hall.

Sax, L.J., Gilmartin, S.K. and Bryant, A.N. (2003), “Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and

paper surveys”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 409 – 432.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Sigar, K. (2012), “Fret no more: inapplicability of crowdfunding concerns in the internet age and the JOBS Act’s

safeguards”, Administrative Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 2, pp. 473 - 506.

Valanciene, L. and Jegeleviciute, S. (2013), “Valuations of crowdfunding: benefits and drawback”, Economics

and Management, Vol. 18, No.1, pp.39 – 48.

Volpe, R.P., Kotel, J.E. and Chen, H. (2002), "A Survey Of Investment Literacy Among Online Investors", Journal

of Financial Counselling and Planning, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1 - 9, 11 - 15.

Wang, H. and Hanna, S.D. (1997), “Does Risk Tolerance Decrease with Age?”, Financial Counselling and

Planning, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 27 - 31.

Wright, K.B. (2005) “Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online Survey

Research, Online questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services”, Journal of

Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 10, Issue 3.

Zhang, B., Deer, L., Wardrop, R., Grant, A., Garve, K., Thorp, S., Ziegler, T., Ying, K., Xinwei, Z., Huang, E.,

Burton, J., Chen, H., Lui, A. and Gray, Y. (2016), “Harnessing potential The Asia-Pacific alternative

finance benchmarking report”, Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, Cambridge.

Yang, D. and Zhang, X. (2016), “Review of the Domestic Crowdfunding Industry Development”, Journal of

Service Science and Management, Vol. 9, pp. 45 - 49.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Figure I: Total global crowdfunding market share and annual growth prediction (2015)

Source: Crowdexpert (2015)

Figure II: Top 10 USA crowdfunding industries (2013 – 2015)

Source: Crowdexpert (2015)


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Table I: Statistics on funds invested and percentage of portfolio invested through property crowdfunding platforms

N Mean Std. Deviation t-statistic

Gender

Funds invested (AUD) Female 17 16323.53 19270.234 .482

Male 45 13485.18 21159.804

Percentage invested

(%)

Female 17 32.62 41.051 1.489

Male 45 16.49 28.609

Age

Funds invested (AUD) Less than 55 years 23 15210.13 18632.434 .277

55 years and above 39 13705.13 21807.084

Percentage invested

(%)

Less than 55 years 23 14.85 22.583 1.262

55 years and above 39 24.49 37.565

Investor type

Funds invested (AUD) New investor 12 5986.08 4992.672 2.956***

Existing investor 50 16250.00 22336.766

Percentage invested

(%)

New investor 12 42.42 44.673 1.979*


*** sign at 0.01, ** sign at 0.05, * sign at 0.1


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Table II: Statistics on percentage of portfolio invested in asset classes

N Mean Std. Deviation t-statistic

Gender

Cash (%) Female 17 45.71 38.451 2.258**

Male 45 22.67 27.764

Bonds (%) Female 17 4.12 11.757 .612

Male 45 2.58 7.503

Stocks (%) Female 17 13.76 16.858 4.534***

Male 45 43.09 33.613

Other (%) Female 17 36.41 37.279 .486

Male 45 31.67 33.175

Age

Cash (%) Less than 55 years 23 19.30 23.879 2.033**

55 years and above 39 34.69 35.597

Bonds (%) Less than 55 years 23 3.48 10.202 .326

55 years and above 39 2.72 7.980

Stocks (%) Less than 55 years 23 33.65 29.101 .257

55 years and above 39 35.87 34.856

Other (%) Less than 55 years 23 43.57 35.284 1.920*

55 years and above 39 26.72 32.218

Investor type

Cash (%) New investor 12 47.67 44.106 1.739


Bonds (%) New investor 12 2.08 7.217 .399


Stocks (%) New investor 12 17.25 37.657 2.168**


Other (%) New investor 12 33.00 40.238 .004




123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Table III: Property crowdfunding return expectations (%) and investment time horizon on an annual basis in relation to respondents’ gender, age and investor type

What is your gender? Female Male Total % Pearson

Chi-Square

Return expectations .880

0% - 5% 8 18 41.94

6% - 10% 8 22 48.39

11% - 15% 1 4 8.06

21% and above 0 1 1.61

Total N = 62 17 45 100

Investment time horizon .829

Less than 5 years 5 12 27.42

5 years and above 12 33 72.58

Total N = 62 17 45 100

What is your age? Less than 55

years

55 years and

above

Total %

Return expectations .099*

0% - 5% 8 18 41.94

6% - 10% 10 20 48.39

11% - 15% 4 1 8.06

21% and above 1 0 1.61

Total N = 62 23 39 100




Total N = 62 23 39 100

Is your investment in property crowdfunding the

first financial investment you have ever made?

New investor Existing

investor

Total %

Return expectations .252

0% - 5% 8 18 41.94

6% - 10% 3 27 48.39

11% - 15% 1 4 8.06

21% and above 0 1 1.61

Total N = 62 12 50 100




Total N = 62 12 50 100



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



Table IV: Respondents’ risk appetite in relation to their gender, age and investor type

What is your gender? Female Male Total % Pearson

Chi-Square

Risk appetite .13

Risk taking 3 17 32.26

Risk adverse 14 28 67.74

Total N = 62 17 45 100

What is your age? Less than

55 years

55 years

and above

Total %

Risk appetite .01***



Total N = 62 23 39 100

Is your investment in property crowdfunding the first financial

investment you have ever made?

New

investor

Existing

investor

Total %

Risk appetite .048**



Total N = 62 12 50 100


Table V: Respondents’ mean scores on financial knowledge variables

Interest rates,

finance charges

and credit terms

Credit ratings and

credit files

Managing

finances

Investing

money

Information in

your credit

report

Mean 4.02 3.60 3.90 3.74 3.21

Standard

deviation

0.839 0.966 0.900 0.904 1.147

Likert Scale: 1=No knowledge; 2=Very little knowledge; 3=Limited knowledge; 4=A fair amount of knowledge; 5=A lot of knowledge


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960



JFMPC Response to Reviewers Form (Version 17-06-14)

Page 1 of 1

The Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction

Author(s’) Response to Reviewers Form

Manuscript ID: JFMPC-12-2016-0055.R2

Referee 1

I am now pleased to report that I am in a

position to accept your manuscript - subject to a

careful edit to pick up any minor drafting issues -

eg lagging rather than lacking at one point!

Given the 'right first time' approach adopted by

the publisher it would be good to have this

carefully scrutinised prior to acceptance.

The paper has been carefully read and edited as per

journal guidelines.


123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

Documents

Journal of Financial Management of Property and Constructionuir.ulster.ac.uk/37346/1/McGreal Stanley Investor... · 2017-07-14 · Journal of Financial Management of Property and