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.

Non-normal real estate return distributions by property type in the U.K.

Investment risk models with infinite variance provide a better description of distributions of individual property returns in the IPD database over the period 1981 to 2003 than Normally distributed risk models, which mirrors results in the U.S. and Australia using identical methodology. Real estate investment risk is heteroscedastic, but the Characteristic Exponent of the investment risk function is constant across time yet 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. Multi-risk factor portfolio allocation models based on measures of investment codependence from finite-variance statistics are ineffectual in the real estate context.

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.

The impact of real estate on the mixed-asset portfolio in periods of financial stress

The case for holding real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio is typically made on its stabilising effect as a result of its diversification benefits. However, portfolio diversification often fails when it is most needed, i.e. during periods of financial stress. In these periods, the variability of returns for most asset classes increases thus reducing the stabilising effect of a diversified portfolio. This paper applies the approach of Chow et al (1999) to the US domestic mixed-asset portfolio to establish whether real estate, represented by REITs, is especially useful in times of financial stress. To this end monthly returns data on five assets classes: large cap stocks, small cap stocks, long dated government bonds, cash (T-Bills) and real estate (REITs) are evaluated over the period January 1972 to December 2001. The results indicate that the inclusion of REITs in the mixed-asset portfolio can lead to increases or decreases in returns depending on the asset class replaced and whether the period is one of calm or stress. However, the inclusion of REITs invariably leads to reductions in portfolio risk that are greater than any loss in return, especially in periods of financial stress. In other words, REITs acts as a stabilising force on the mixed-asset portfolio when it is most needed, i.e. in periods of financial stress.

The case for REITs in the mixed-asset portfolio in the short and long run

The poor performance of the Stock Market in the US up to the middle of 2003 has meant that REITs are increasingly been seen as an attractive addition to the mixed-asset portfolio. However, there is little evidence to indicate the consistency of the role REITs should play a role in the mixed-asset portfolio over different investment horizons. The results highlight that REITs do play a significant role over both different time horizons and holding periods. The findings show that REITs attractiveness as a diversification asset increase as the holding period increases. In addition, their diversification qualities span the entire efficient frontier, providing return enhancement properties at the lower end, switching to risk reduction qualities at the top end of the frontier.

An analysis of commercial real estate returns: an anatomy of smoothing in asset and index returns

In this article, 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. Many articles have been written on appraisal smoothing but remarkably few have considered the relationship between smoothing at the individual property level and the amount of persistence in the aggregate appraisal-based index. To investigate this issue we analyze a large sample of appraisal data at the individual property level from the Investment Property Databank. We find that commonly used unsmoothing estimates at the index level 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 at the index level and an ARMA model at the individual property level.

Risk management and the corporate real estate portfolio

In a global business economy, firms have a broad range of corporate real estate needs. During the past decade, multiple strategies and tactics have emerged in the corporate real estate community for meeting those needs. We propose here a framework for analysing and prioritising the various types of risk inherent in corporate real estate decisions. From a business strategy perspective, corporate real estate must serve needs beyond the simple one of shelter for the workforce and production process. Certain uses are strategic in that they allow access to externalities, embody the business strategy, or provide entrée to new markets. Other uses may be tactical, in that they arise from business activities of relatively short duration or provide an opportunity to pre-empt competitors. Still other corporate real estate uses can be considered “core” to the existence of the business enterprise. These might be special use properties or may be generic buildings that have become embodiments of the organisation’s culture. We argue that a multi-dimensional matrix approach organised around three broad themes and nine sub-categories allow the decision-maker to organise and evaluate choices with an acceptable degree of rigor and thoroughness. The three broad themes are Use (divided into Core, Cyclical or Casual) – Asset Type (which can be Strategic, Specialty or Generic) and Market Environment (which ranges from Mature Domestic to Emerging Economy). Proper understanding of each of these groupings brings critical variables to the fore and allows for efficient resource allocation and enhanced risk management.

Manipulating resource allocation in plants

The distribution of nutrients and assimilates in different organs and tissues is in a constant state of flux throughout the growth and development of a plant. At key stages during the life cycle profound changes occur, and perhaps one of the most critical of these is during seed filling. By restricting the competition for reserves in Arabidopsis plants, the ability to manipulate seed size, seed weight, or seed content has been explored. Removal of secondary inflorescences and lateral branches resulted in a stimulation of elongation of the primary inflorescence and an increase in the distance between siliques. The pruning treatment also led to the development of longer and larger siliques that contained fewer, bigger seeds. This seems to be a consequence of a reduction in the number of ovules that develop and an increase in the fatty acid content of the seeds that mature. The data show that shoot architecture could have a substantial impact on the partitioning of reserves between vegetative and reproductive tissues and could be an important trait for selection in rapid phenotyping screens to optimize crop performance.

ASSET: moving forward through feedback

Providing high quality and timely feedback to students is often a challenge for many staff in higher education as it can be both time-consuming and frustratingly repetitive. From the student perspective, feedback may sometimes be considered unhelpful, confusing and inconsistent and may not always be provided within a timeframe that is considered to be ‘useful’. The ASSET project, based at the University of Reading, addresses many of these inherent challenges by encouraging the provision of feedback that supports learning, i.e. feedback that contains elements of ‘feed-forward’, is of a high quality and is delivered in a timely manner. In particular, the project exploits the pedagogic benefits of video/audio media within a Web 2.0 context to provide a new, interactive resource, ‘ASSET’, to enhance the feedback experience for both students and staff. A preliminary analysis of both our quantitative and qualitative pedagogic data demonstrate that the ASSET project has instigated change in the ways in which both staff and students think about, deliver, and engage with feedback. For example, data from our online questionnaires and focus groups with staff and students indicate a positive response to the use of video as a medium for delivering feedback to students. In particular, the academic staff engaged in piloting the ASSET resource indicated that i) using video has made them think more, and in some cases differently, about the ways in which they deliver feedback to students and ii) they now see video as an effective means of making feedback more useful and engaging for students. Moreover, the majority of academic staff involved in the project have said they will continue to use video feedback. From the student perspective, 60% of those students whose lecturers used ASSET to provide video feedback said that “receiving video feedback encouraged me to take more notice of the feedback compared with normal methods” and 80% would like their lecturer to continue to use video as a method for providing feedback. An important aim of the project was for it to complement existing University-wide initiatives on feedback and for ASSET to become a ‘model’ resource for staff and students wishing to explore video as a medium for feedback provision. An institutional approach was therefore adopted and key members of Senior Management, academics, T&L support staff, IT support and Student Representatives were embedded within the project from the start. As with all initiatives of this kind, a major issue is the future sustainability of the ASSET resource and to have had both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ support for the project has been extremely beneficial. In association with the project team the University is currently exploring the creation of an open-source, two-tiered video supply solution and a ‘framework’ (that other HEIs can adopt and/or adapt) to support staff in using video for feedback provision. In this way students and staff will have new opportunities to explore video and to exploit the benefits of this medium for supporting learning.