Can company-fund manager meetings convey informational benefits? Exploring the rationalisation of equity investment decision making by UK fund managers

Conventional economic theory, applied to information released by listed companies, equates ‘useful’ with ‘price-sensitive’. Stock exchange rules accordingly prohibit the selec- tive, private communication of price-sensitive information. Yet, even in the absence of such communication, UK equity fund managers routinely meet privately with the senior execu- tives of the companies in which they invest. Moreover, they consider these brief, formal and formulaic meetings to be their most important sources of investment information. In this paper we ask how that can be. Drawing on interview and observation data with fund managers and CFOs, we find evidence for three, non-mutually exclusive explanations: that the characterisation of information in conventional economic theory is too restricted, that fund managers fail to act with the rationality that conventional economic theory assumes, and/or that the primary value of the meetings for fund managers is not related to their investment decision making but to the claims of superior knowledge made to clients in marketing their active fund management expertise. Our findings suggest a disconnect between economic theory and economic policy based on that theory, as well as a corre- sponding limitation in research studies that test information-usefulness by assuming it to be synonymous with price-sensitivity. We draw implications for further research into the role of tacit knowledge in equity investment decision-making, and also into the effects of the principal–agent relationship between fund managers and their clients.

Country, sector and regional factors in European property returns

For those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to fund management when they are trying to develop a pan-European investment strategy they need to know which are the most important factors affecting property returns, so as to concentrate their management and research efforts accordingly. In order to examine this issue this paper examines the relative importance of country, sector and regional effects in determining property returns across Europe using the largest database of individual property returns currently available. Using annual data over the period 1996 to 2002 for a sample of over 25,000 properties the results show that the country-specific effects dominate sector-specific factors, which in turn dominate the regional-specific factors. This is true even for different sub-sets of countries and sectors. In other words, real estate returns are mainly determined by local (country specific) conditions and are only mildly affected by general European factors. Thus, for those institutional investors contemplating investment into Europe the first level of analysis must be an examination of the individual countries, followed by the prospects of the property sectors within the country and then an assessment of the differences in expected performance between the main city and the rest of the country.

Re-thinking commercial real estate market segmentation

Investments in direct real estate are inherently difficult to segment compared to other asset classes due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of the asset. The most common segmentation in real estate investment analysis relies on property sector and geographical region. In this paper, we compare the predictive power of existing industry classifications with a new type of segmentation using cluster analysis on a number of relevant property attributes including the equivalent yield and size of the property as well as information on lease terms, number of tenants and tenant concentration. The new segments are shown to be distinct and relatively stable over time. In a second stage of the analysis, we test whether the newly generated segments are able to better predict the resulting financial performance of the assets than the old dichotomous segments. Applying both discriminant and neural network analysis we find mixed evidence for this hypothesis. Overall, we conclude from our analysis that each of the two approaches to segmenting the market has its strengths and weaknesses so that both might be applied gainfully in real estate investment analysis and fund management.

Integration and segmentation in European investment services markets: assessing the implications for international real estate investment

This paper analyses developments in the growth and configuration of the institutional savings markets within the European Union. The paper discusses the changing socio-economic context in which investment services within the EU are being delivered. The is followed by an examination of drivers of market integration such as the growth and consolidation of the fund management industry, the demographic and fiscal pressures for reform of pensions markets and the process and effects of the deregulation of investment services markets. There is a review of outstanding sources of market segmentation. The projections for future growth in pensions are outlined and implications for real estate investment assessed. It is concluded that, although numerous imponderables render reliable quantitative projections problematic, growth and restructuring of the institutional savings market is likely to increase cross-border capital flows to real estate markets.

Drivers of fund performance: a panel data analysis

The principle aim of this research is to elucidate the factors driving the total rate of return of non-listed funds using a panel data analytical framework. In line with previous results, we find that core funds exhibit lower yet more stable returns than value-added and, in particular, opportunistic funds, both cross-sectionally and over time. After taking into account overall market exposure, as measured by weighted market returns, the excess returns of value-added and opportunity funds are likely to stem from: high leverage, high exposure to development, active asset management and investment in specialized property sectors. A random effects estimation of the panel data model largely confirms the findings obtained from the fixed effects model. Again, the country and sector property effect shows the strongest significance in explaining total returns. The stock market variable is negative which hints at switching effects between competing asset classes. For opportunity funds, on average, the returns attributable to gearing are three times higher than those for value added funds and over five times higher than for core funds. Overall, there is relatively strong evidence indicating that country and sector allocation, style, gearing and fund size combinations impact on the performance of unlisted real estate funds.

Does active management add any value?

The question as to whether active management adds any value above that of the funds investment policy is one of continual interest to investors. In order to investigate this issue in the UK real estate market we examine a number of related questions. First, how much return variability is explained by investment policy? Second, how similar are the policies across funds? Third, how much of a fund’s return is determined by investment policy? Finally, how was this added value achieved? Using data for 19 real estate funds we find that investment policy explains less than half of the variability in returns over time, nothing of the variation across funds and that more than 100% of a level of return is attributed to investment policy. The results also show UK real estate fund focus exclusively on trying to pick winners to add value and that in pursuit of active return fund mangers incur high tracking error risk, consequently, successful active management is very difficult to achieve. In addition, the results are dependent on the benchmark used to represent the investment policy of the fund. Nonetheless, active management can indeed add value to a real estate funds performance. This is the good news. The bad news is adding value is much more difficult to achieve than is generally accepted.

A meta analysis of real estate fund performance

This paper provides evidence regarding the risk-adjusted performance of 19 UK real estate funds in the UK, over the period 1991-2001. Using Jensen’s alpha the results are generally favourable towards the hypothesis that real estate fund managers showed superior risk-adjusted performance over this period. However, using three widely known parametric statistical procedures to jointly test for timing and selection ability the results are less conclusive. The paper then utilises the meta-analysis technique to further examine the regression results in an attempt to estimate the proportion of variation in results attributable to sampling error. The meta-analysis results reveal strong evidence, across all models, that the variation in findings is real and may not be attributed to sampling error. Thus, the meta-analysis results provide strong evidence that on average the sample of real estate funds analysed in this study delivered significant risk-adjusted performance over this period. The meta-analysis for the three timing and selection models strongly indicating that this out performance of the benchmark resulted from superior selection ability, while the evidence for the ability of real estate fund managers to time the market is at best weak. Thus, we can say that although real estate fund managers are unable to outperform a passive buy and hold strategy through timing, they are able to improve their risk-adjusted performance through selection ability.

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.

Property fund flows and returns

This study is concerned with the impacts on property returns from property fund flows, and with the possibility of a reverse transmission from property fund flows to property returns. In other words this study investigates whether property returns “cause” fund flow changes, or whether fund flow changes “cause” property returns, or causality works in both directions.

Required returns for real estate in UK pension fund portfolios

The position of Real Estate within a multi-asset portfolio has received considerable attention recently. Previous research has concentrated on the percentage holding property would achieve given its risk/return characteristics. Such studies have invariably used Modern Portfolio Theory and these approaches have been criticised for both the quality of the real estate data and problems with the methodology itself. The first problem is now well understood, and the second can be addressed by the use of realistic constraints on asset holdings. This paper takes a different approach. We determine the level of return that Real Estate needs to achieve to justify an allocation within the multi asset portfolio. In order to test the importance of the quality of the data we use historic appraisal based and desmoothed returns to examine the sensitivity of the results. Consideration is also given to the Holding period and the imposition of realistic constraints on the asset holdings in order to model portfolios held by pension fund investors. We conclude, using several benchmark levels of portfolio risk and return, that using appraisal based data the required level of return for Real Estate was less than that achieved over the period 1972-1993. The use of desmoothed series can reverse this result at the highest levels of desmoothing although within a restricted holding period Real Estate offered returns in excess of those required to enter the portfolio and might have a role to play in the multi-asset portfolio.