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.

Risk reduction and diversification in UK commercial property portfolios

The issue of diversification in direct real estate investment portfolios has been widely studied in academic and practitioner literature. Most work, however, has been done using either partially aggregated data or data for small samples of individual properties. This paper reports results from tests of both risk reduction and diversification that use the records of 10,000+ UK properties tracked by Investment Property Databank. It provides, for the first time, robust estimates of the diversification gains attainable given the returns, risks and cross‐correlations across the individual properties available to fund managers. The results quantify the number of assets and amount of money needed to construct both ‘balanced’ and ‘specialist’ property portfolios by direct investment. Target numbers will vary according to the objectives of investors and the degree to which tracking error is tolerated. The top‐level results are consistent with previous work, showing that a large measure of risk reduction can be achieved with portfolios of 30–50 properties, but full diversification of specific risk can only be achieved in very large portfolios. However, the paper extends previous work by demonstrating on a single, large dataset the implications of different methods of calculating risk reduction, and also by showing more disaggregated results relevant to the construction of specialist, sector‐focussed funds.

Non-normal real estate return distributions by property type in the UK

Investment risk models with infinite variance provide a better description of distributions of individual property returns in the IPD UK database over the period 1981 to 2003 than normally distributed risk models. This finding mirrors results in the US and Australia using identical methodology. Real estate investment risk is heteroskedastic, but the characteristic exponent of the investment risk function is constant across time – yet it 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. The results, therefore, indicate that multi‐risk factor portfolio allocation models based on measures of investment codependence from finite‐variance statistics are ineffective in the real estate context

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.

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 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 “case for property” all the time?

The “case for property” in the mixed-asset portfolio is a topic of continuing interest to practitioners and academics. Such an analysis typically is performed over a fixed period of time and the optimum allocation to property inferred from the weight assigned to property through the use of mean-variance analysis. It is well known, however, that the parameters used in the portfolio analysis problem are unstable through time. Thus, the weight proposed for property in one period is unlikely to be that found in another. Consequently, in order to assess the case for property more thoroughly, the impact of property in the mixed-asset portfolio is evaluated on a rolling basis over a long period of time. In this way we test whether the inclusion of property significantly improves the performance of an existing equity/bond portfolio all of the time. The main findings are that the inclusion of direct property into an existing equity/bond portfolio leads to increase or decreases in return, depending on the relative performance of property compared with the other asset classes. However, including property in the mixed-asset portfolio always leads to reductions in portfolio risk. Consequently, adding property into an equity/bond portfolio can lead to significant increases in risk-adjusted performance. Thus, if the decision to include direct property in the mixed-asset portfolio is based upon its diversification benefits the answer is yes, there is a “case for property” all the time!

Fixing the currency: analysing the implications for property investment performance

This paper analyses the historic effects of exchange rate movements on returns, risk and diversification of office markets within the Euro zone in order to gain insights into the investment consequences of conversion to a fixed rate currency regime. The data used in the study represents annual office rental growth rates for 22 European cities from nine European Union countries between 1985 and 1996. Relative performance is reported in terms of domestic currency and in terms of deutsche marks. The evidence presented suggests that Euro zone property investors in ‘southern’ countries are now protected from short term jump risk associated with flexible peg currency arrangements and medium/long-term currency volatility. Historically exchange rate movements have produced decreases in returns and increases in volatility. For northern ‘bloc’ cities, the effects of fixing the exchange rate are minimal. For these cities, national exchange rate fluctuations against the deutsche mark have been minor and the resultant implications for property risk and return to non-domestic SCA investors have been negligible. Moreover, although previous research would suggest that the effect of currency volatility is to decrease market correlation, this cannot be observed within the Euro zone.

The relative importance of sectors v's regions in determining property returns

A number of studies have investigated the benefits of sector versus regional diversification within a real estate portfolio without explicitly quantify the relative benefits of one against the other. This paper corrects this omission by adopting the approach of Heston and Rouwenhorst (1994) and Beckers, Connor and Curds (1996) on a sample of 187 property data points using annual data over the period 1981-1995. The general conclusion of which is the sector diversification explains on average 22% of the variability of property returns compared with 8% for administratively defined regions. A result in line with previous work. Implying that sector diversification should be the first level of analysis in constructing and managing the real estate portfolio. However, unlike previous work functionally defined regions provide less of an explanation of regional diversification than administrative regions. Which may be down to the weak definition of economic regions employed in this study.

Asset allocation, cross-class correlation and the structure of property returns

Practical applications of portfolio optimisation tend to proceed on a “top down” basis where funds are allocated first at asset class level (between, say, bonds, cash, equities and real estate) and then, progressively, at sub-class level (within property to sectors, office, retail, industrial for example). While there are organisational benefits from such an approach, it can potentially lead to sub-optimal allocations when compared to a “global” or “side-by-side” optimisation. This will occur where there are correlations between sub-classes across the asset divide that are masked in aggregation – between, for instance, City offices and the performance of financial services stocks. This paper explores such sub-class linkages using UK monthly stock and property data. Exploratory analysis using clustering procedures and factor analysis suggests that property performance and equity performance are distinctive: there is little persuasive evidence of contemporaneous or lagged sub-class linkages. Formal tests of the equivalence of optimised portfolios using top-down and global approaches failed to demonstrate significant differences, whether or not allocations were constrained. While the results may be a function of measurement of market returns, it is those returns that are used to assess fund performance. Accordingly, the treatment of real estate as a distinct asset class with diversification potential seems justified.

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.