The impact of 9/11 on US REIT returns: fundamental or financial?

Following the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 volatility of daily returns of the US stock market rose sharply. This increase in volatility may reflect fundamental changes in the economic determinants of prices such as expected earnings, interest rates, real growth and inflation. Alternatively, the increase in volatility may simply reflect the effects of increased uncertainty in the financial markets. This study therefore sets out to determine if the effects of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 had a fundamental or purely financial impact on US real estate returns. In order to do this we compare pre- and post-9/11 crisis returns for a number of US REIT indexes using an approach suggested by French and Roll (1986), as extended by Tuluca et al (2003). In general we find no evidence that the effects of 9/11 had a fundamental effect on REIT returns. In other words, we find that the effect of the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11 had only a financial effect on REIT returns and therefore was transitory.

The return due to diversification of real estate to the US mixed-asset portfolio

Booth and Fama (1992) observe that the compound return and so the terminal wealth of a portfolio is greater than the weighted average of the compound returns of the individual investments, a difference referred to as the return due to diversification (RDD). Thus assets that offer high RDD should be particularly attractive investments. This paper test the proposition that US direct real estate is such an asset class using annual data over the period 1951-2001. The results show that adding real estate to an existing mixed-asset portfolio increases the compound return and so the terminal wealth of the fund. However, the results are dependent on the percentage allocation to real estate and the asset class replaced.

Biofuel policies in the EU, US and Brazil

The development of biofuels has been one of the most visible and controversial manifestations of the use of biomass for energy. Biofuels policies in the EU, US and Brazil have been particularly important for the development of the industry in these three important markets. All three have used a variety of measures, including consumption or use mandates, tax incentives and import protection to promote the production and use of biofuels. Despite this, it is uncertain whether the EU will achieve its objective of a 10 per cent share for renewables in transport fuels by 2020. The US is also running into difficulties in meeting consumption mandates for biofuels. Questions are being raised about the continuation of tax credits and import protection. Brazil has liberalised its domestic ethanol market and adopted a more market-oriented approach to biofuels policy, but the management of domestic petroleum prices and the inter-relationship between the sugar market and ethanol production are important factors affecting domestic consumption and exports. In both the EU and the US an ongoing debate about the benefits of reliance on biofuels derived from food crops and concern about the efficacy of current biofuels policies may put their future in doubt.