The potential for high performance design adoption in retail property portfolios

Growing legislative pressures and increasing stakeholder awareness of environmental issues are pushing the property market to consider high-performance, low-impact retail buildings. The office sector is relatively advanced in its apparent appreciation of such buildings; however, the retail sector is slow to recognize these benefits. In exploring the business case for high-performance design adoption in the retail sector, this paper examines the overlaps between office and retail sector benefits and considers the potential benefits peculiar to retailers. Barriers to high-performance design adoption are then addressed through case research, interviews with key representatives from the retail property market and a questionnaire survey of FTSE listed retail company property departments. The paper concludes that information gaps are a significant hindrance to high-performance property development and that they can be reduced, to some extent, by the forthcoming introduction of the BREEAM Retail environmental assessment tool. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Attribution analysis of property portfolios

This paper aims to clarify the potential confusion about the application of attribution analysis to real estate portfolios. Its three primary objectives are: · To review, and as far as possible reconcile, the varying approaches to attribution analysis evident in the literature. · To give a clear statement of the purposes of attribution analysis, and its meaning for real-world property managers. · To show, using real portfolio data from IPD's UK performance measurement service, the practical implications of applying different attribution methods.

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.

Performance drivers of UK unlisted property funds

An unlisted property fund is a private investment vehicle which aims to provide direct property total returns and may also employ financial leverage which will accentuate performance. They have become a far more prevalent institutional property investment conduit since the early 2000’s. Investors have been primarily attracted to them due to the ease of executing a property exposure, both domestically and internationally, and for their diversification benefits given the capital intensive nature of constructing a well diversified commercial property investment portfolio. However, despite their greater prominence there has been little academic research conducted on the performance and risks of unlisted property fund investments. This can be attributed to a paucity of available data and limited time series where it exists. In this study we have made use of a unique dataset of institutional UK unlisted non-listed property funds over the period 2003Q4 to 2011Q4, using a panel modelling framework in order to determine the key factors which impact on fund performance. The sample provided a rich set of unlisted property fund factors including market exposures, direct property characteristics and the level of financial leverage employed. The findings from the panel regression analysis show that a small number of variables are able to account for the performance of unlisted property funds. These variables should be considered by investors when assessing the risk and return of these vehicles. The impact of financial leverage upon the performance of these vehicles through the recent global financial crisis and subsequent UK commercial property market downturn was also studied. The findings indicate a significant asymmetric effect of employing debt finance within unlisted property funds.

Real estate portfolio size and risk reduction

The reduction of portfolio risk is important to all investors but is particularly important to real estate investors as most property portfolios are generally small. As a consequence, portfolios are vulnerable to a significant risk of under-performing the market, or a target rate of return and so investors may be exposing themselves to greater risk than necessary. Given the potentially higher risk of underperformance from owning only a few properties, we follow the approach of Vassal (2001) and examine the benefits of holding more properties in a real estate portfolio. Using Monte Carlo simulation and the returns from 1,728 properties in the IPD database, held over the 10-year period from 1995 to 2004, the results show that increases in portfolio size offers the possibility of a more stable and less volatile return pattern over time, i.e. down-side risk is diminished with increasing portfolio size. Nonetheless, increasing portfolio size has the disadvantage of restricting the probability of out-performing the benchmark index by a significant amount. In other words, although increasing portfolio size reduces the down-side risk in a portfolio, it also decreases its up-side potential. Be that as it may, the results provide further evidence that portfolios with large numbers of properties are always preferable to portfolios of a smaller size.

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.

Portfolio size and the reduction of dispersion: the case of the United Kingdom commercial real estate market

This paper investigates the potential benefits and limitations of equal and value-weighted diversification using as the example the UK institutional property market. To achieve this it uses the largest sample (392) of actual property returns that is currently available, over the period 1981 to 1996. To evaluate these issues two approaches are adopted; first, an analysis of the correlations within the sectors and regions and secondly simulations of property portfolios of increasing size constructed both naively and with value-weighting. Using these methods it is shown that the extent of possible risk reduction is limited because of the high positive correlations between assets in any portfolio, even when naively diversified. It is also shown that portfolios exhibit high levels of variability around the average risk, suggesting that previous work seriously understates the number of properties needed to achieve a satisfactory level of diversification. The results have implications for the development and maintenance of a property portfolio because they indicate that the achievable level of risk reduction depends upon the availability of assets, the weighting system used and the investor’s risk tolerance.

Heritage property, tourism and the UK Disability Discrimination Act

Heritage tourism depends on a physical resource based primarily on listed buildings and scheduled monuments. Visiting or staying in a historic building provides a rich tourism experience, but historic environments date from eras when access for disabled people was not a consideration. Current UK Government policy now promotes social inclusion via an array of equal opportunities, widening participation and anti-discrimination policies. Historic environments enjoy considerable legislative protection from adverse change, but now need to balance conservation with public access for all. This paper discusses the basis of research being undertaken by The College of Estate Management funded by the Mercers Company of London and the Harold Samuel Trust. It assesses how the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act has changed the legal obligations of owners/operators in managing access to listed buildings in tourism use. It also examines the key stakeholders and power structures in the management of historic buildings and distinguishes other important players in the management process.

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

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.

Analyzing the performance of non-listed real estate funds: an panel data analysis

The rapid growth of non-listed real estate funds over the last several years has contributed towards establishing this sector as a major investment vehicle for gaining exposure to commercial real estate. Academic research has not kept up with this development, however, as there are still only a few published studies on non-listed real estate funds. This paper aims to identify the factors driving the total return over a seven-year period. Influential factors tested in our analysis include the weighted underlying direct property returns in each country and sector as well as fund size, investment style gearing and the distribution yield. Furthermore, we analyze the interaction of non-listed real estate funds with the performance of the overall economy and that of competing asset classes and found that lagged GDP growth and stock market returns as well as contemporaneous government bond rates are significant and positive predictors of annual fund performance.

Change & flexibility: the role of serviced office space in corporate real estate portfolios and office markets

With the increasing pace of change, organisations have sought new real estate solutions which provide greater flexibility. What appears to be required is not flexibility for all uses but appropriate flexibility for the volatile, risky and temporal part of a business. This is the essence of the idea behind the split between the core and periphery portfolio. The serviced office has emerged to fill the need for absolute flexibility. This market is very diverse in terms of the product, services and target market. It has grown and gained credibility with occupiers and more recently with the property investment market. Occupiers similarly use this space in a variety of ways. Some solely occupy serviced space while others use it to complement their more permanent space. It therefore appears that the market is fulfilling the role of providing periphery space for at least some of the occupiers. In all instances the key to this space is a focus on financial and tenurial flexibility which is not provided by other types of business space offered.