Liquidity in commercial property markets: deconstructing the transaction process

This paper draws from a wider research programme in the UK undertaken for the Investment Property Forum examining liquidity in commercial property. One aspect of liquidity is the process by which transactions occur including both how properties are selected for sale and the time taken to transact. The paper analyses data from three organisations; a property company, a major financial institution and an asset management company, formally a major public sector pension fund. The data covers three market states and includes sales completed in 1995, 2000 and 2002 in the UK. The research interviewed key individuals within the three organisations to identify any common patterns of activity within the sale process and also identified the timing of 187 actual transactions from inception of the sale to completion. The research developed a taxonomy of the transaction process. Interviews with vendors indicated that decisions to sell were a product of a combination of portfolio, specific property and market based issues. Properties were generally not kept in a “readiness for sale” state. The average time from first decision to sell the actual property to completion had a mean time of 298 days and a median of 190 days. It is concluded that this study may underestimate the true length of the time to transact for two reasons. Firstly, the pre-marketing period is rarely recorded in transaction files. Secondly, and more fundamentally, studies of sold properties may contain selection bias. The research indicated that vendors tended to sell properties which it was perceived could be sold at a ‘fair’ price in a reasonable period of time.

Broker use and the cost of liquidity in commercial real estate investment

Purpose – Commercial real estate is a highly specific asset: heterogeneous, indivisible and with less information transparency than most other commonly held investment assets. These attributes encourage the use of intermediaries during asset acquisition and disposal. However, there are few attempts to explain the use of different brokerage models (with differing costs) in different markets. This study aims to address this gap. Design/methodology/approach – The study analyses 9,338 real estate transactions in London and New York City from 2001 to 2011. Data are provided by Real Capital Analytics and cover over $450 billion of investments in this period. Brokerage trends in the two cities are compared and probit regressions are used to test whether the decision to transact with broker representation varies with investor or asset characteristics. Findings – Results indicate greater use of brokerage in London, especially by purchasers. This persists when data are disaggregated by sector, time or investor type, pointing to the role of local market culture and institutions in shaping brokerage models and transaction costs. Within each city, the nature of the investors involved seems to be a more significant influence on broker use than the characteristics of the assets being traded. Originality/value – Brokerage costs are the single largest non-tax charge to an investor when trading commercial real estate, yet there is little research in this area. This study examines the role of brokers and provides empirical evidence on factors that influence the use and mode of brokerage in two major investment destinations.

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.

Liquidity review: dimensions, causes, measures and empirical applications in real estate markets

Liquidity is a fundamentally important facet of investments, but there is no single measure that quantifies it perfectly. Instead, a range of measures are necessary to capture different dimensions of liquidity such as the breadth and depth of markets, the costs of transacting, the speed with which transactions can occur and the resilience of prices to trading activity. This article considers how different dimensions have been measured in financial markets and for various forms of real estate investment. The purpose of this exercise is to establish the range of liquidity measures that could be used for real estate investments before considering which measures and questions have been investigated so far. Most measures reviewed here are applicable to public real estate, but not all can be applied to private real estate assets or funds. Use of a broader range of liquidity measures could help real estate researchers tackle issues such as quantification of illiquidity premiums for the real estate asset class or different types of real estate, and how liquidity differences might be incorporated into portfolio allocation models.