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 relationship between size, diversification and risk

Property portfolio diversification takes many forms, most of which can be associated with asset size. In other words larger property portfolios are assumed to have greater diversification potential than small portfolios. In addition, since greater diversification is generally associated with lower risk it is assumed that larger property portfolios will also have reduced return variability compared with smaller portfolios. If large property portfolios can simply be regarded as scaled-up, better-diversified versions of small property portfolios, then the greater a portfolio’s asset size, the lower its risk. This suggests a negative relationship between asset size and risk. However, if large property portfolios are not simply scaled-up versions of small portfolios, the relationship between asset size and risk may be unclear. For instance, if large portfolios hold riskier assets or pursue more volatile investment strategies, it may be that a positive relationship between asset size and risk would be observed, even if large property portfolios are more diversified. This paper tests the empirical relationship between property portfolio size, diversification and risk, in Institutional portfolios in the UK, during the period from 1989 to 1999 to determine which of these two characterisations is more appropriate.

Sector, region or function? A MAD reassessment of real estate diversification in Great Britain

This paper re-examines whether it is more advantageous in terms of risk reduction to diversify by sector or region by comparing the performance of the ‘conventional’ regional classification of the UK with one based on modern socio-economic criteria using a much larger real estate data set than any previous study and the MAD portfolio approach. The general conclusion of this analysis is that property market sectors still dominate regions, however defined and so should be the first level of analysis when developing a portfolio diversification strategy. This is in line with previous research. When the performance of Functional groups is compared with the ‘conventional’ administrative regions the results here show that, when functionally based, groupings can in some cases provide greater risk reduction. In addition the underlying characteristics of these functional groups may be much more insightful and acceptable to real estate portfolio managers in considering the assets that a portfolio might contain.

Is there a place for property in the multi-asset portfolio?

The case for property has typically rested on the application of modern portfolio theory (MPT), in that property has been shown to offer increased diversification benefits within a multi asset portfolio without hurting portfolio returns especially for lower risk portfolios. However this view is based upon the use of historic, usually appraisal based, data for property. Recent research suggests strongly that such data significantly underestimates the risk characteristics of property, because appraisals explicitly or implicitly smooth out much of the real volatility in property returns. This paper examines the portfolio diversification effects of including property in a multi-asset portfolio, using UK appraisal based (smoothed) data and several derived de-smoothed series. Having considered the effects of de-smoothing, we then consider the inclusion of a further low risk asset (cash) in order to investigate further whether property's place in a low risk portfolio is maintained. The conclusions of this study are that the previous supposed benefits of including property have been overstated. Although property may still have a place in a 'balanced' institutional portfolio, the case for property needs to be reassessed and not be based simplistically on the application of MPT.

Essays on robust portfolio selection and pension finance

This thesis examines three different, but related problems in the broad area of portfolio management for long-term institutional investors, and focuses mainly on the case of pension funds. The first idea (Chapter 3) is the application of a novel numerical technique – robust optimization – to a real-world pension scheme (the Universities Superannuation Scheme, USS) for first time. The corresponding empirical results are supported by many robustness checks and several benchmarks such as the Bayes-Stein and Black-Litterman models that are also applied for first time in a pension ALM framework, the Sharpe and Tint model and the actual USS asset allocations. The second idea presented in Chapter 4 is the investigation of whether the selection of the portfolio construction strategy matters in the SRI industry, an issue of great importance for long term investors. This study applies a variety of optimal and naïve portfolio diversification techniques to the same SRI-screened universe, and gives some answers to the question of which portfolio strategies tend to create superior SRI portfolios. Finally, the third idea (Chapter 5) compares the performance of a real-world pension scheme (USS) before and after the recent major changes in the pension rules under different dynamic asset allocation strategies and the fixed-mix portfolio approach and quantifies the redistributive effects between various stakeholders. Although this study deals with a specific pension scheme, the methodology can be applied by other major pension schemes in countries such as the UK and USA that have changed their rules.

Changes in the relative importance of sector and regional factors: 1987-2002

A stylised fact in the real estate portfolio diversification literature is that sector (property-type) effects are relatively more important than regional (geographical) factors in determining property returns. Thus, for those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to portfolio management, they should first choose in which sectors to invest and then select the best properties in each market. However, the question arises as to whether the dominance of the sector effects relative to regional effects is constant. If not property fund managers will need to take account of regional effects in developing their portfolio strategy. Using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2002:12 for a sample of over 1000 properties the results show that the sector-specific factors dominate the regional-specific factors for the vast majority of the time. Nonetheless, there are periods when the regional factors are of equal or greater importance than the sector effects. In particular, the sector effects tend to dominate during volatile periods of the real estate cycle; however, during calmer periods the sector and regional effects are of equal importance. These findings suggest that the sector effects are still the most important aspect in the development of an active portfolio strategy.

Changes in the relative importance of sector and regional Factors: 1987-2002

A stylised fact in the real estate portfolio diversification literature is that sector (property-type) effects are relatively more important than regional (geographical) factors in determining property returns. Thus, for those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to portfolio management, they should first choose in which sectors to invest and then select the best properties in each market. However, the question arises as to whether the dominance of the sector effects relative to regional effects is constant. If not property fund managers will need to take account of regional effects in developing their portfolio strategy. We find the results show that the sector-specific factors dominate the regional-specific factors for the vast majority of the time. Nonetheless, there are periods when the regional factors are of equal or greater importance than the sector effects. In particular, the sector effects tend to dominate during volatile periods of the real estate cycle; however, during calmer periods the sector and regional effects are of equal importance. These findings suggest that the sector effects are still the most important aspect in the development of an active portfolio strategy.

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.

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.

Diversification when it hurts? The joint distributions of real estate and equity markets

Much of the literature on the construction of mixed asset portfolios and the case for property as a risk diversifier rests on correlations measured over the whole of a given time series. Recent developments in finance, however, focuses on dependence in the tails of the distribution. Does property offer diversification from equity markets when it is most needed - when equity returns are poor. The paper uses an empirical copula approach to test tail dependence between property and equity for the UK and for a global portfolio. Results show strong tail dependence: in the UK, the dependence in the lower tail is stronger than in the upper tail, casting doubt on the defensive properties of real estate stocks.

The marginal benefit of diversification in commercial real estate portfolios

The number of properties to hold to achieve a well-diversified real estate property portfolio presents a puzzle, as the estimated number is considerably higher than that seen in actual portfolios. However, Statman (1987) argues that investors should only increase the number of holdings as long as the marginal benefits of diversification exceed their costs. Using this idea we find that the marginal benefits of diversification in real estate portfolios are so small that investors are probably rational in holding small portfolios, at least as far as the reduction in standard deviation is concerned.

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.

The case for REITs in the mixed-asset portfolio in the short and long run

The poor performance of the Stock Market in the US up to the middle of 2003 has meant that REITs are increasingly been seen as an attractive addition to the mixed-asset portfolio. However, there is little evidence to indicate the consistency of the role REITs should play a role in the mixed-asset portfolio over different investment horizons. The results highlight that REITs do play a significant role over both different time horizons and holding periods. The findings show that REITs attractiveness as a diversification asset increase as the holding period increases. In addition, their diversification qualities span the entire efficient frontier, providing return enhancement properties at the lower end, switching to risk reduction qualities at the top end of the frontier.

Correlation shifts and real estate portfolio management

The success of any diversification strategy depends upon the quality of the estimated correlation between assets. It is well known, however, that there is a tendency for the average correlation among assets to increase when the market falls and vice-versa. Thus, assuming that the correlation between assets is a constant over time seems unrealistic. Nonetheless, these changes in the correlation structure as a consequence of changes in the market’s return suggests that correlation shifts can be modelled as a function of the market return. This is the idea behind the model of Spurgin et al (2000), which models the beta or systematic risk, of the asset as a function of the returns in the market. This is an approach that offers particular attractions to fund managers as it suggest ways by which they can adjust their portfolios to benefit from changes in overall market conditions. In this paper the Spurgin et al (2000) model is applied to 31 real estate market segments in the UK using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2000:12. The results show that a number of market segments display significant negative correlation shifts, while others show significantly positive correlation shifts. Using this information fund managers can make strategic and tactical portfolio allocation decisions based on expectations of market volatility alone and so help them achieve greater portfolio performance overall and especially during different phases of the real estate cycle.