Private property vehicles: the valuation of interests in limited partnerships

This paper examines the extent to which the valuation of partial interests in private property vehicles should be closely aligned to the valuation of the underlying assets. A sample of vehicle managers and investors replied to a questionnaire on the qualities of private property vehicles relative to direct property investment. Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) technique the relative importance of the various advantages and disadvantages of investment in private property vehicles relative to acquisition of the underlying assets are assessed. The results suggest that the main drivers of the growth of the this sector have been the ability for certain categories of investor to acquire interests in assets that are normally inaccessible due to the amount of specific risk. Additionally, investors have been attracted by the ability to ‘outsource’ asset management in a manner that minimises perceived agency problems. It is concluded that deviations from NAV should be expected given that investment in private property vehicles differs from investment in the underlying assets in terms of liquidity, management structures, lot size, financial structure inter alia. However, reliably appraising the pricing implications of these variations is likely to be extremely difficult due to the lack of secondary market trading and vehicle heterogeneity.

Explaining deviations from NAV in UK property companies: rationality and sentimentality

One of the most vexing issues for analysts and managers of property companies across Europe has been the existence and persistence of deviations of Net Asset Values of property companies from their market capitalisation. The issue has clear links to similar discounts and premiums in closed-end funds. The closed end fund puzzle is regarded as an important unsolved problem in financial economics undermining theories of market efficiency and the Law of One Price. Consequently, it has generated a huge body of research. Although it can be tempting to focus on the particular inefficiencies of real estate markets in attempting to explain deviations from NAV, the closed end fund discount puzzle indicates that divergences between underlying asset values and market capitalisation are not a ‘pure’ real estate phenomenon. When examining potential explanations, two recurring factors stand out in the closed end fund literature as often undermining the economic rationale for a discount – the existence of premiums and cross-sectional and periodic fluctuations in the level of discount/premium. These need to be borne in mind when considering potential explanations for real estate markets. There are two approaches to investigating the discount to net asset value in closed-end funds: the ‘rational’ approach and the ‘noise trader’ or ‘sentiment’ approach. The ‘rational’ approach hypothesizes the discount to net asset value as being the result of company specific factors relating to such factors as management quality, tax liability and the type of stocks held by the fund. Despite the intuitive appeal of the ‘rational’ approach to closed-end fund discounts the studies have not successfully explained the variance in closed-end fund discounts or why the discount to net asset value in closed-end funds varies so much over time. The variation over time in the average sector discount is not only a feature of closed-end funds but also property companies. This paper analyses changes in the deviations from NAV for UK property companies between 2000 and 2003. The paper present a new way to study the phenomenon ‘cleaning’ the gearing effect by introducing a new way of calculating the discount itself. We call it “ungeared discount”. It is calculated by assuming that a firm issues new equity to repurchase outstanding debt without any variation on asset side. In this way discount does not depend on an accounting effect and the analysis should better explain the effect of other independent variables.

Another look at the relative importance of sectors and regions in determining property returns

This paper re-examines the relative importance of sector and regional effects in determining property returns. Using the largest property database currently available in the world, we decompose the returns on individual properties into a national effect, common to all properties, and a number of sector and regional factors. However, unlike previous studies, we categorise the individual property data into an ever-increasing number of property-types and regions, from a simple 3-by-3 classification, up to a 10 by 63 sector/region classification. In this way we can test the impact that a finer classification has on the sector and regional effects. We confirm the earlier findings of previous studies that sector-specific effects have a greater influence on property returns than regional effects. We also find that the impact of the sector effect is robust across different classifications of sectors and regions. Nonetheless, the more refined sector and regional partitions uncover some interesting sector and regional differences, which were obscured in previous studies. All of which has important implications for property portfolio construction and analysis.

Pricing the options inherent in leased commercial property: a UK case study

This paper sets out the findings of a group of research and development projects carried out at the Department of Real Estate & Planning at the University of Reading and at Oxford Property Systems over the period 1999 – 2003. The projects have several aims: these are to identify the fundamental drivers of the pricing of different lease terms in the UK property sector; to identify current and best market practice and uncover the main variations in lease terms; to identify key issues in pricing lease terms; and to develop a model for the pricing of rent under a variety of lease variations. From the landlord’s perspective, the main factors driving the required ‘compensation’ for a lease term amendment include expected rental volatility, expected probability of tenant vacation, and the expected costs of tenant vacation. These data are used in conjunction with simulation technology to reflect the options inherent in certain lease types to explore the required rent adjustment. The resulting cash flows have interesting qualities which illustrate the potential importance of option pricing in a non-complex and practical way.

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.

Evaluating the effectiveness of common structures in property portfolio construction

A good portfolio structure enables an investor to diversify more effectively and understand systematic influences on their performance. However, in the property market, the choice of structure is affected by data constraints and convenience. Using individual return data, this study tests the hypothesis that some common structures in the UK do not explain a significant amount about property returns. It is found that, in the periods studied, not all the structures were effective and, for the annual returns, no structures were significant in all periods. The results suggest that the drivers represented by the structures take some time to be reflected in individual property returns. They also confirm the results of other studies in finding property type a much stronger factor in explaining returns than regions.