International evidence on the predictability of returns to securitized real estate assets: econometric models versus neural networks

The performance of various statistical models and commonly used financial indicators for forecasting securitised real estate returns are examined for five European countries: the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy. Within a VAR framework, it is demonstrated that the gilt-equity yield ratio is in most cases a better predictor of securitized returns than the term structure or the dividend yield. In particular, investors should consider in their real estate return models the predictability of the gilt-equity yield ratio in Belgium, the Netherlands and France, and the term structure of interest rates in France. Predictions obtained from the VAR and univariate time-series models are compared with the predictions of an artificial neural network model. It is found that, whilst no single model is universally superior across all series, accuracy measures and horizons considered, the neural network model is generally able to offer the most accurate predictions for 1-month horizons. For quarterly and half-yearly forecasts, the random walk with a drift is the most successful for the UK, Belgian and Dutch returns and the neural network for French and Italian returns. Although this study underscores market context and forecast horizon as parameters relevant to the choice of the forecast model, it strongly indicates that analysts should exploit the potential of neural networks and assess more fully their forecast performance against more traditional models.

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 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 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.

When does direct real estate improve portfolio performance?

For over twenty years researchers have been recommending that investors diversify their portfolios by adding direct real estate. Based on the tenets of modern portfolio theory (MPT) investors are told that the primary reason they should include direct real estate is that they will enjoy decreased volatility (risk) through increased diversification. However, the MPT methodology hides where this reduction in risk originates. To over come this deficiency we use a four-quadrant approach to break down the co-movement between direct real estate and equities and bonds into negative and positive periods. Then using data for the last 25-years we show that for about 70% of the time a holding in direct real estate would have hurt portfolio returns, i.e. when the other assets showed positive performance. In other words, for only about 30% of the time would a holding in direct real estate lead to improvements in portfolio returns. However, this increase in performance occurs when the alternative asset showed negative returns. In addition, adding direct real estate always leads to reductions in portfolio risk, especially on the downside. In other words, although adding direct real estate helps the investor to avoid large losses it also reduces the potential for large gains. Thus, if the goal of the investor is offsetting losses, then the results show that direct real estate would have been of some benefit. So in answer to the question when does direct real estate improve portfolio performance the answer is on the downside, i.e. when it is most needed.

Monetary integration and real estate markets: an investigation of the impact of the introduction of a single currency on real estate performance

This paper assesses the impact of the monetary integration on different types of stock returns in Europe. In order to isolate European factors, the impact of global equity integration and small cap factors are investigated. European countries are sub-divided according to the process of monetary convergence. Analysis shows that national equity indices are strongly influenced by global market movements, with a European stock factor providing additional explanatory power. The global and European factors explain small cap and real estate stocks much less well –suggesting an increased importance of ‘local’ drivers. For real estate, there are notable differences between core and non-core countries. Core European countries exhibit convergence – a convergence to a European rather than a global factor. The non-core countries do not seem to exhibit common trends or movements. For the non-core countries, monetary integration has been associated with increased dispersion of returns, lower correlation and lower explanatory power of a European factor. It is concluded that this may be explained by divergence in underlying macro-economic drivers between core and non-core countries in the post-Euro period.

Serial persistence in individual real estate returns in the UK

Persistence of property returns is a topic of perennial interest to fund managers as it suggests that choosing those properties that will perform well in the future is as simple as looking at those that performed well in the past. Consequently, much effort has been expended to determine if such a rule exists in the real estate market. This paper extends earlier studies in US, Australian, and UK markets in two ways. First, this study applies the same methodology originally used in Young and Graff (1996) making the results directly comparable with those in the US and Australian property markets. Second, this study uses a much longer and larger database covering all commercial property data available from the Investment Property Databank (IPD), for the years 1981 to 2002 for as many as 216,758 individual property returns. While the performance results of this study mimic the US and Australian results of greater persistence in the extreme first and fourth quartiles, they also evidence persistence in the moderate second and third quartiles, a notable departure from previous studies. Likewise patterns across property type, location, time, and holding period are remarkably similar leading to the conjecture that behaviors in the practice of commercial real estate investment management are themselves deeply rooted and persistent and perhaps influenced for good or ill by agency effects