Threshold autoregressive and Markov switching models: an application to commercial real estate

Although financial theory rests heavily upon the assumption that asset returns are normally distributed, value indices of commercial real estate display significant departures from normality. In this paper, we apply and compare the properties of two recently proposed regime switching models for value indices of commercial real estate in the US and the UK, both of which relax the assumption that observations are drawn from a single distribution with constant mean and variance. Statistical tests of the models' specification indicate that the Markov switching model is better able to capture the non-stationary features of the data than the threshold autoregressive model, although both represent superior descriptions of the data than the models that allow for only one state. Our results have several implications for theoretical models and empirical research in finance.

Measuring European property investment performance: comparing different approaches

Purpose – Price indices for commercial real estate markets are difficult to construct because assets are heterogeneous, they are spatially dispersed and they are infrequently traded. Appraisal-based indices are one response to these problems, but may understate volatility or fail to capture turning points in a timely manner. This paper estimates “transaction linked indices” for major European markets to see whether these offer a different perspective on market performance. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – The assessed value method is used to construct the indices. This has been recently applied to commercial real estate datasets in the USA and UK. The underlying data comprise appraisals and sale prices for assets monitored by Investment Property Databank (IPD). The indices are compared to appraisal-based series for the countries concerned for Q4 2001 to Q4 2012. Findings – Transaction linked indices show stronger growth and sharper declines over the course of the cycle, but they do not notably lead their appraisal-based counterparts. They are typically two to four times more volatile. Research limitations/implications – Only country-level indicators can be constructed in many cases owing to low trading volumes in the period studied, and this same issue prevented sample selection bias from being analysed in depth. Originality/value – Discussion of the utility of transaction-based price indicators is extended to European commercial real estate markets. The indicators offer alternative estimates of real estate market volatility that may be useful in asset allocation and risk modelling, including in a regulatory context.

Liquidity and the drivers of search, due diligence and transaction times for UK commercial real estate investments

Trading commercial real estate involves a process of exchange that is costly and which occurs over an extended and uncertain period of time. This has consequences for the performance and risk of real estate investments. Most research on transaction times has occurred for residential rather than commercial real estate. We study the time taken to transact commercial real estate assets in the UK using a sample of 578 transactions over the period 2004 to 2013. We measure average time to transact from a buyer and seller perspective, distinguishing the search and due diligence phases of the process, and we conduct econometric analysis to explain variation in due diligence times between assets. The median time for purchase of real estate from introduction to completion was 104 days and the median time for sale from marketing to completion was 135 days. There is considerable variation around these times and results suggest that some of this variation is related to market state, type and quality of asset, and type of participants involved in the transaction. Our findings shed light on the drivers of liquidity at an individual asset level and can inform models that quantify the impact of uncertain time on market on real estate investment risk.