An analysis of commercial real estate returns: is there a smoothing puzzle?

In this paper we investigate the commonly used autoregressive filter method of adjusting appraisal-based real estate returns to correct for the perceived biases induced in the appraisal process. Since the early work by Geltner (1989), many papers have been written on this topic but remarkably few have considered the relationship between smoothing at the individual property level and the amount of persistence in the aggregate appraised-based index. To investigate this issue in more detail we analyse a sample of individual property level appraisal data from the Investment Property Database (IPD). We find that commonly used unsmoothing estimates overstate the extent of smoothing that takes place at the individual property level. There is also strong support for an ARFIMA representation of appraisal returns.

Geographical concentration in the institutional market for office property in England and Wales

This paper examines the regional investment practices of institutional investors in the commercial real estate office market in 1998 and 2003 in England and Wales. Consistent with previous studies in the US the findings show that investors concentrate their holdings in a few (urban) areas and that this concentration has become more pronounced as investors have rationalised their portfolio holdings. The findings also indicate that office investment does not fully correlate with the UK urban hierarchy, as measured by population, but is focused on urban areas with high service sector employment. Finally, the pre-eminence of the City of London and and West End office markets as the key focus of institutional investment is confirmed.

Depreciation and its impact on the total return of UK commercial real estate, 1994-2003

Depreciation is a key element of understanding the returns from and price of commercial real estate. Understanding its impact is important for asset allocation models and asset management decisions. It is a key input into well-constructed pricing models and its impact on indices of commercial real estate prices needs to be recognised. There have been a number of previous studies of the impact of depreciation on real estate, particularly in the UK. Law (2004) analysed all of these studies and found that the seemingly consistent results were an illusion as they all used a variety of measurement methods and data. In addition, none of these studies examined impact on total returns; they examined either rental value depreciation alone or rental and capital value depreciation. This study seeks to rectify this omission, adopting the best practice measurement framework set out by Law (2004). Using individual property data from the UK Investment Property Databank for the 10-year period between 1994 and 2003, rental and capital depreciation, capital expenditure rates, and total return series for the data sample and for a benchmark are calculated for 10 market segments. The results are complicated by the period of analysis which started in the aftermath of the major UK real estate recession of the early 1990s, but they give important insights into the impact of depreciation in different segments of the UK real estate investment market.

Capturing UK real estate volitility

Volatility, or the variability of the underlying asset, is one of the key fundamental components of property derivative pricing and in the application of real option models in development analysis. There has been relatively little work on volatility in real terms of its application to property derivatives and the real options analysis. Most research on volatility stems from investment performance (Nathakumaran & Newell (1995), Brown & Matysiak 2000, Booth & Matysiak 2001). Historic standard deviation is often used as a proxy for volatility and there has been a reliance on indices, which are subject to valuation smoothing effects. Transaction prices are considered to be more volatile than the traditional standard deviations of appraisal based indices. This could lead, arguably, to inefficiencies and mis-pricing, particularly if it is also accepted that changes evolve randomly over time and where future volatility and not an ex-post measure is the key (Sing 1998). If history does not repeat, or provides an unreliable measure, then estimating model based (implied) volatility is an alternative approach (Patel & Sing 2000). This paper is the first of two that employ alternative approaches to calculating and capturing volatility in UK real estate for the purposes of applying the measure to derivative pricing and real option models. It draws on a uniquely constructed IPD/Gerald Eve transactions database, containing over 21,000 properties over the period 1983-2005. In this first paper the magnitude of historic amplification associated with asset returns by sector and geographic spread is looked at. In the subsequent paper the focus will be upon model based (implied) volatility.

Systematic property risk: quantifying UK property betas 1983-2005

The increased frequency in reporting UK property performance figures, coupled with the acceptance of the IPD database as the market standard, has enabled property to be analysed on a comparable level with other more frequently traded assets. The most widely utilised theory for pricing financial assets, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), gives market (systematic) risk, beta, centre stage. This paper seeks to measure the level of systematic risk (beta) across various property types, market conditions and investment holding periods. This paper extends the authors’ previous work on investment holding periods and how excess returns (alpha) relate to those holding periods. We draw on the uniquely constructed IPD/Gerald Eve transactions database, containing over 20,000 properties over the period 1983-2005. This research allows us to confirm our initial findings that properties held over longer periods perform in line with overall market performance. One implication of this is that over the long-term performance may be no different from an index tracking approach.

The growth of private property vehicles in the UK: causes and conditions

The UK private indirect real estate market has seen a rapid growth in the last seven years. The gross asset value (GAV) of the private property vehicle (PPV) market has about tripled from a GAV of £22.6bn in 1998 to a GAV of £67.1 billion at the end of 2005 (OPC, 2006). Although this trend of growing syndication of real estate is not only a UK phenomenon, the rate of growth has been significantly faster in the UK. For example the German open-ended funds have grown over the same period from €50.4bn to €85.1bn (BVI, 2006). In the US the market capitalization of equity real estate investment trusts (REIT) has grown 155% since 1999 to US$ 301bn (NAREIT, 2006). Each jurisdiction is offering different formats to invest indirectly into real estate but at the core all these vehicles are the same in that they provide a different route for investors to access real estate. In the UK, although the range of ‘products’ is now quite diverse, all structures have in common the ‘wrapping’ of property assets into a multi-investor vehicle. This paper examines the nature, pattern and process of market growth in PPVs and constructs a series of associations between causes and effects to explain this market shift.

Information sources and advice used by small business tenants when leasing commercial property

Many small businesses lease commercial premises. The terms of a lease can affect the ability of the business to grow and adapt and have an impact on cashflow. Ensuring that they have the information with which to negotiate terms is part of the UK government policy focus on small businesses. Such information is most effectively disseminated through the sources of advice that small businesses use during the leasing process. Therefore these sources of advice need identifying. An interview survey of small business tenants who have recently taken leases provides initial results that suggest small businesses do not seek out advice during the leasing process or see the need to be better informed. The only formal professional input is from solicitors but this is not until after the main commercial terms have been agreed. The landlords’ letting agents play a key, but ambiguous, role in providing information as well as advice. These results suggest that the most effective way of disseminating information by government could be via the letting agents, the very people with whom the tenants are negotiating.

The impact of country risk on international real estate returns

Commercial real estate investors have well-established methods to assess the risks of a property investment in their home country. However, when the investment decision is overseas another dimension of uncertainty overlays the analysis. This additional dimension, typically called country risk, encompasses the uncertainty of achieving expected financial results solely due to factors relating to the investment’s location in another country. However, very little has been done to examine the effects of country risk on international real estate returns, even though in international investment decisions considerations of country risk dominate asset investment decisions. This study extends the literature on international real estate diversification by empirically estimating the impact of country risk, as measured by Euromoney, on the direct real estate returns of 15 countries over the period 1998-2004, using a pooled regression analysis approach. The results suggest that country risk data may help investor’s in their international real estate decisions since the country risk data shows a significant and consistent impact on real estate return performance.

Property funds: how much diversification is enough?

t is well known that when assets are randomly-selected and combined in equal proportions in a portfolio, the risk of the portfolio declines as the number of different assets increases without affecting returns. In other words, increasing portfolio size should improve the risk/return trade-off compared with a portfolio of asset size one. Therefore, diversifying among several property funds may be a better alternative for investors compared to holding only one property fund. Nonetheless, it also well known that with naïve diversification although risk always decreases with portfolio size, it does so at a decreasing rate so that at some point the reduction in portfolio risk, from adding another fund, becomes negligible. Based on this fact, a reasonable question to ask is how much diversification is enough, or in other words, how many property funds should be included in a portfolio to minimise return volatility.