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.

Spatial concentration in institutional investment in the UK: some comparisons between the retail and office sectors

Geographic diversity is a fundamental tenet in portfolio management. Yet there is evidence from the US that institutional investors prefer to concentrate their real estate investments in favoured and specific areas as primary locations for the properties that occupy their portfolios. The little work done in the UK draws similar conclusions, but has so far focused only on the office sector; no work has examined this issue for the retail sector. This paper therefore examines the extent of real estate investment concentration in institutional Retail portfolios in the UK at two points in time; 1998 and 2003, and presents some comparisons with equivalent concentrations in the office sector. The findings indicate that retail investment correlates more closely with the UK urban hierarchy than that for offices when measured against employment, and is focused on urban areas with high populations and large population densities which have larger numbers of retail units in which to invest.

German open ended funds: was there a valuation problem?

In late 2005, a number of German open ended funds suffered significant withdrawals by unit holders. The crisis was precipitated by a long term bear market in German property investment and the fact that these funds offered short term liquidity to unit holders but had low levels of liquidity in the fund. A more controversial suggestion was that the crisis was exacerbated by a perception that the valuations of the fund were too infrequent and inaccurate. As units are priced by reference to these valuations with no secondary market, the valuation process is central to the process. There is no direct evidence that these funds were over-valued but there is circumstantial evidence and this paper examines the indirect evidence of the process to see whether the hypothesis that valuation is an issue for the German funds holds any credibility. It also discusses whether there is a wider issue for other funds of this nature or whether it is a parochial problem confined to Germany. The conclusions are that there is reason to believe that German valuation processes make over-valuation in a recession more likely than in other countries and that more direct research into the German valuation system is required to identify the issues which need to be addressed to make the valuation system more trusted.

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.

The impact of real estate on the terminal wealth of the UK mixed-asset portfolio

The argument for the inclusion of real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio has concentrated on examining its effect in reducing the portfolio risk - the time series standard deviation (TSSD), mainly using ex-post time series data. However, the past as such is not really relevant to the long-term institutional investors, such as the insurance companies and pension funds, who are more concerned the terminal wealth (TW) of their investments and the variability of this wealth, the terminal wealth standard deviation (TWSD), since it is from the TW of their investment portfolio that policyholders and pensioners will derive their benefits. These kinds of investors with particular holding period requirements will be less concerned about the within period volatility of their portfolios and more by the possibility that their portfolio returns will fail to finance their liabilities. This variability in TW will be closely linked to the risk of shortfall in the quantity of assets needed to match the institution’s liabilities. The question remains therefore can real estate enhance the TW of the mixed-asset portfolio and/or reduce the variability of the TW. This paper uses annual data from the United Kingdom (UK) for the period 1972-2001 to test whether real estate is an asset class that not only reduces ex-post portfolio risk but also enhances portfolio TW and/or reduces the variability of TW.