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 persistence of real estate fund performance

This paper examines the short and long-term persistence of tax-exempt real estate funds in the UK through the use of winner-loser contingency table methodology. The persistence tests are applied to a database of varying numbers of funds from a low of 16 to a high of 27 using quarterly returns over the 12 years from 1990 Q1 to 2001 Q4. The overall conclusion is that the real estate funds in the UK show little evidence of persistence in the short-term (quarterly and semi-annual data) or for data over a considerable length of time (bi-annual to six yearly intervals). In contrast, the results are better for annual data with evidence of significant performance persistence. Thus at this stage, it seems that an annual evaluation period, provides the best discrimination of the winner and loser phenomenon in the real estate market. This result is different from equity and bond studies, where it seems that the repeat winner phenomenon is stronger over shorter periods of evaluation. These results require careful interpretation, however, as the results show that when only small samples are used significant adjustments must be made to correct for small sample bias and second the conclusions are sensitive to the length of the evaluation period and specific test used. Nonetheless, it seems that persistence in performance of real estate funds in the UK does exist, at least for the annual data, and it appears to be a guide to beating the pack in the long run. Furthermore, although the evidence of persistence in performance for the overall sample of funds is limited, we have found evidence that two funds were consistent winners over this period, whereas no one fund could be said to be a consistent loser.

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.

The impact of minimum services laws on real estate brokerage competitive intensity

As many as fourteen US states have now mandated minimum service requirements for real estate brokerage relationships in residential transactions. This study attempts to determine whether these minimum service laws have any impact on brokerage competition. Federal government agencies allege such laws discourage competition because they limit the offering of nontraditional brokerage services. However, alternatively, a legislative “bright line” definition of the lowest level of acceptable service may reduce any perceived risk in offering non-traditional brokerage services and therefore encourage competition. Using several empirical strategies and state-level data over nine years (2000-08), we do not find any consistent and significant impact (positive/negative) of minimum services laws on number of licensees per 100 households, our proxy for competition. Interestingly, we also find that association strength, as measured by Realtor association membership penetration, has a strong deterring effect on competition.