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.

Systematic property risk: quantifying UK property betas 1983-2005

The increased frequency in reporting UK property performance figures, coupled with the acceptance of the IPD database as the market standard, has enabled property to be analysed on a comparable level with other more frequently traded assets. The most widely utilised theory for pricing financial assets, the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), gives market (systematic) risk, beta, centre stage. This paper seeks to measure the level of systematic risk (beta) across various property types, market conditions and investment holding periods. This paper extends the authors’ previous work on investment holding periods and how excess returns (alpha) relate to those holding periods. We draw on the uniquely constructed IPD/Gerald Eve transactions database, containing over 20,000 properties over the period 1983-2005. This research allows us to confirm our initial findings that properties held over longer periods perform in line with overall market performance. One implication of this is that over the long-term performance may be no different from an index tracking approach.

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.

Information sources and advice used by small business tenants when leasing commercial property

Many small businesses lease commercial premises. The terms of a lease can affect the ability of the business to grow and adapt and have an impact on cashflow. Ensuring that they have the information with which to negotiate terms is part of the UK government policy focus on small businesses. Such information is most effectively disseminated through the sources of advice that small businesses use during the leasing process. Therefore these sources of advice need identifying. An interview survey of small business tenants who have recently taken leases provides initial results that suggest small businesses do not seek out advice during the leasing process or see the need to be better informed. The only formal professional input is from solicitors but this is not until after the main commercial terms have been agreed. The landlords’ letting agents play a key, but ambiguous, role in providing information as well as advice. These results suggest that the most effective way of disseminating information by government could be via the letting agents, the very people with whom the tenants are negotiating.

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.

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