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.

Non-normal real estate return distributions by property type in the UK

Investment risk models with infinite variance provide a better description of distributions of individual property returns in the IPD UK database over the period 1981 to 2003 than normally distributed risk models. This finding mirrors results in the US and Australia using identical methodology. Real estate investment risk is heteroskedastic, but the characteristic exponent of the investment risk function is constant across time – yet it may vary by property type. Asset diversification is far less effective at reducing the impact of non‐systematic investment risk on real estate portfolios than in the case of assets with normally distributed investment risk. The results, therefore, indicate that multi‐risk factor portfolio allocation models based on measures of investment codependence from finite‐variance statistics are ineffective in the real estate context

Real estate portfolio size and risk reduction

The reduction of portfolio risk is important to all investors but is particularly important to real estate investors as most property portfolios are generally small. As a consequence, portfolios are vulnerable to a significant risk of under-performing the market, or a target rate of return and so investors may be exposing themselves to greater risk than necessary. Given the potentially higher risk of underperformance from owning only a few properties, we follow the approach of Vassal (2001) and examine the benefits of holding more properties in a real estate portfolio. Using Monte Carlo simulation and the returns from 1,728 properties in the IPD database, held over the 10-year period from 1995 to 2004, the results show that increases in portfolio size offers the possibility of a more stable and less volatile return pattern over time, i.e. down-side risk is diminished with increasing portfolio size. Nonetheless, increasing portfolio size has the disadvantage of restricting the probability of out-performing the benchmark index by a significant amount. In other words, although increasing portfolio size reduces the down-side risk in a portfolio, it also decreases its up-side potential. Be that as it may, the results provide further evidence that portfolios with large numbers of properties are always preferable to portfolios of a smaller size.

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.

The relative importance sector and regional factors in Italy

The benefits of sector and regional diversification have been well documented in the literature but have not previously been investigated in Italy. In addition, previous studies have used geographically defined regions, rather than economically functional areas, when performing the analysis even though most would argue that it is the economic structure of the area that will lead to differences in demand and hence property performance. This study therefore uses economically defined regions of Italy to test the relative benefits of regional diversification versus sector diversification within the Italian real estate portfolio. To examine this issue we use constrained cross-section regressions the on the sector and regional affiliation of 14 cities in Italy to extract the “pure” return effects of the different factors using annual data over the period 1989 to 2003. In contrast, to previous studies we find that regional factors effects in Italy have a much greater influence on property returns than sector-specific effects, which is probably a direct result of using the extremely diverse economic regions of Italy rather than arbitrary geographically locations. Be that as it may, the results strongly suggest that that diversification across the regions of Italy used here is likely to offer larger risk reduction benefits than a sector diversification strategy within a region. In other words, fund managers in Italy must monitor the regional composition of their portfolios more closely than its sector allocation. Additionally, the results supports that contemporary position that ‘regional areas’ based on economic function, provide greater diversification benefits rather than areas defined by geographical location.