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.

The impact of exchanges rates on international real estate portfolio allocation

This paper, examines whether the asset holdings and weights of an international real estate portfolio using exchange rate adjusted returns are essentially the same or radically different from those based on unadjusted returns. The results indicate that the portfolio compositions produced by exchange rate adjusted returns are markedly different from those based on unadjusted returns. However following the introduction of the single currency the differences in portfolio composition are much less pronounced. The findings have a practical consequence for the investor because they suggest that following the introduction of the single currency international investors can concentrate on the real estate fundamentals when making their portfolio choices, rather than worry about the implications of exchange rate risk.

Hedging private international real estate

The performance of an international real estate investment can be critically affected by currency fluctuations. While survey work suggests large international investors with multi-asset portfolios tend to hedge their overall currency exposure at portfolio level, smaller and specialist investors are more likely to hedge individual investments and face considerable specific risk. This presents particular problems in direct real estate investment due to the lengthy holding period. Prior research investigating the issue relies on ex post portfolio measure, understating the risk faced. This paper examines individual risk using a forward-looking simulation approach to model uncertain cashflow. The results suggest that a US investor can greatly reduce the downside currency risk inherent in UK real estate by using a swap structure – but at the expense of dampening upside potential.

Private property vehicles: the valuation of interests in limited partnerships

This paper examines the extent to which the valuation of partial interests in private property vehicles should be closely aligned to the valuation of the underlying assets. A sample of vehicle managers and investors replied to a questionnaire on the qualities of private property vehicles relative to direct property investment. Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique the relative importance of the various advantages and disadvantages of investment in private property vehicles relative to acquisition of the underlying assets are assessed. The results suggest that the main drivers of the growth of the this sector have been the ability for certain categories of investor to acquire interests in assets that are normally inaccessible due to the amount of specific risk. Additionally, investors have been attracted by the ability to ‘outsource’ asset management in a manner that minimises perceived agency problems. It is concluded that deviations from NAV should be expected given that investment in private property vehicles differs from investment in the underlying assets in terms of liquidity, management structures, lot size, financial structure inter alia. However, reliably appraising the pricing implications of these variations is likely to be extremely difficult due to the lack of secondary market trading and vehicle heterogeneity.

How often does direct real estate increase the risk-adjusted performance of the US mixed-asset portfolio?

The “case for real estate” in the mixed-asset portfolio is a topic of continuing interest to practitioners and academics. The argument is typically made by comparing efficient frontiers of portfolio with real estate to those that exclude real estate. However, most investors will have held inefficient portfolios. Thus, when analysing the real estate’s place in the mixed-asset portfolio it seems illogical to do so by comparing the difference in risk-adjusted performance between efficient portfolios, which few if any investor would have held. The approach adopted here, therefore, is to compare the risk-adjusted performance of a number of mixed-asset portfolios without real estate (which may or not be efficient) with a very large number of mixed-asset portfolios that include real estate (which again may or may not be efficient), to see the proportion of the time when there is an increase in risk-adjusted performance, significant or otherwise using appraisal-based and de-smoothed annual data from 1952-2003. So to the question how often does the addition of private real estate lead to increases the risk-adjusted performance compared with mixed-asset portfolios without real estate the answer is almost all the time. However, significant increases are harder to find. Additionally, a significant increase in risk-adjusted performance can come from either reductions in portfolio risk or increases in return depending on the investors’ initial portfolio structure. In other words, simply adding real estate to a mixed-asset portfolio is not enough to ensure significant increases in performance as the results are dependent on the percentage added and the proper reallocation of the initial portfolio mix in the expanded portfolio.

Gauging the investment potential of international real estate markets

Investing in real estate markets overseas means venturing into the unknown, where you meet unfamiliar political and economic environments, unstable currencies, strange cultures and languages, and so although the advantages of international diversification might appear attractive, the risks of international investment must not be overlooked. However, capital markets are becoming global markets, and commercial real estate markets are no exception, accordingly despite the difficulties posed by venturing overseas no investor can overlook the potential international investment holds out. Thus, what strategies are appropriate for capitalising on this potential? Three issues must be considered: (1) the potential of the countries real estate market in general; (2) the potential of the individual market sectors; and (3) the investment process itself. Although each step in foreign real estate investment is critical, the initial assessment of opportunities is especially important. Various methods can be used to achieve this but a formal and systematic analysis of aggregate market potential should prove particularly fruitful. The work reported here, therefore, develops and illustrates such a methodology for the over 50 international real estate markets.

The consistency of private and public real estate within mixed-asset portfolios

This study considers the consistency of the role of both the private and public real estate markets within a mixed-asset context. While a vast literature has developed that has examined the potential role of both the private and public real estate markets, most studies have largely relied on both single time horizons and single sample periods. This paper builds upon the analysis of Lee and Stevenson (2005) who examined the consistency of REITs in a US capital market portfolio. The current paper extends that by also analyzing the role of the private market. To address the question, the allocation of both the private and traded markets is evaluated over different holding periods varying from 5- to 20-years. In general the results show that optimum mixed-asset portfolios already containing private real estate have little place for public real estate securities, especially in low risk portfolios and for longer investment horizons. Additionally, mixed-asset portfolios with public real estate either see the allocations to REITs diminished or eliminated if private real estate is also considered. The results demonstrate that there is a still a strong case for private real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio on the basis of an increase in risk-adjusted performance, even if the investor is already holding REITs, but that the reverse is not always the case.

Evaluating the effectiveness of common structures in property portfolio construction

A good portfolio structure enables an investor to diversify more effectively and understand systematic influences on their performance. However, in the property market, the choice of structure is affected by data constraints and convenience. Using individual return data, this study tests the hypothesis that some common structures in the UK do not explain a significant amount about property returns. It is found that, in the periods studied, not all the structures were effective and, for the annual returns, no structures were significant in all periods. The results suggest that the drivers represented by the structures take some time to be reflected in individual property returns. They also confirm the results of other studies in finding property type a much stronger factor in explaining returns than regions.

When does direct real estate improve portfolio performance?

For over twenty years researchers have been recommending that investors diversify their portfolios by adding direct real estate. Based on the tenets of modern portfolio theory (MPT) investors are told that the primary reason they should include direct real estate is that they will enjoy decreased volatility (risk) through increased diversification. However, the MPT methodology hides where this reduction in risk originates. To over come this deficiency we use a four-quadrant approach to break down the co-movement between direct real estate and equities and bonds into negative and positive periods. Then using data for the last 25-years we show that for about 70% of the time a holding in direct real estate would have hurt portfolio returns, i.e. when the other assets showed positive performance. In other words, for only about 30% of the time would a holding in direct real estate lead to improvements in portfolio returns. However, this increase in performance occurs when the alternative asset showed negative returns. In addition, adding direct real estate always leads to reductions in portfolio risk, especially on the downside. In other words, although adding direct real estate helps the investor to avoid large losses it also reduces the potential for large gains. Thus, if the goal of the investor is offsetting losses, then the results show that direct real estate would have been of some benefit. So in answer to the question when does direct real estate improve portfolio performance the answer is on the downside, i.e. when it is most needed.

Different risk measures: different portfolio compositions?

Traditionally, the measure of risk used in portfolio optimisation models is the variance. However, alternative measures of risk have many theoretical and practical advantages and it is peculiar therefore that they are not used more frequently. This may be because of the difficulty in deciding which measure of risk is best and any attempt to compare different risk measures may be a futile exercise until a common risk measure can be identified. To overcome this, another approach is considered, comparing the portfolio holdings produced by different risk measures, rather than the risk return trade-off. In this way we can see whether the risk measures used produce asset allocations that are essentially the same or very different. The results indicate that the portfolio compositions produced by different risk measures vary quite markedly from measure to measure. These findings have a practical consequence for the investor or fund manager because they suggest that the choice of model depends very much on the individual’s attitude to risk rather than any theoretical and/or practical advantages of one model over another.

Modelling the implied volatility of options on long gilt futures

This paper investigates the properties of implied volatility series calculated from options on Treasury bond futures, traded on LIFFE. We demonstrate that the use of near-maturity at the money options to calculate implied volatilities causes less mis-pricing and is therefore superior to, a weighted average measure encompassing all relevant options. We demonstrate that, whilst a set of macroeconomic variables has some predictive power for implied volatilities, we are not able to earn excess returns by trading on the basis of these predictions once we allow for typical investor transactions costs.

European CMBS pricing: bond, mortgage and real estate characteristics

The recent global economic crisis is often associated with the development and pricing of mortgage-backed securities (i.e. MBSs) and underlying products (i.e. sub-prime mortgages). This work uses a rich database of MBS issues and represents the first attempt to price commercial MBSs (i.e. CMBSs) in the European market. Our results are consistent with research carried out in the US market and we find that bond-, mortgage-, real estate-related and multinational characteristics show different degrees of significance in explaining European CMBS spreads at issuance. Multiple linear regression analysis using a databank of CMBSs issued between 1997 and 2007 indicates a strong relationship with bond-related factors, followed by real estate and mortgage market conditions. We also find that multinational factors are significant, with country of issuance, collateral location and access to more liquid markets all being important in explaining the cost of secured funding for real estate companies. As floater coupon tranches tend to be riskier and exhibit higher spreads, we also estimate a model using this sub-set of data and results hold, hence reinforcing our findings. Finally, we estimate our model for both tranches A and B and find that real estate factors become relatively more important for the riskier investment products.