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.

Time weighted portfolio optimisation

In estimating the inputs into the Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) portfolio optimisation problem, it is usual to use equal weighted historic data. Equal weighting of the data, however, does not take account of the current state of the market. Consequently this approach is unlikely to perform well in any subsequent period as the data is still reflecting market conditions that are no longer valid. The need for some return-weighting scheme that gives greater weight to the most recent data would seem desirable. Therefore, this study uses returns data which are weighted to give greater weight to the most recent observations to see if such a weighting scheme can offer improved ex-ante performance over that based on un-weighted data.

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.

Better cross hedges with composite hedging? Hedging equity portfolios using financial and commodity futures

Unless a direct hedge is available, cross hedging must be used. In such circumstances portfolio theory implies that a composite hedge (the use of two or more hedging instruments to hedge a single spot position) will be beneficial. The study and use of composite hedging has been neglected; possibly because it requires the estimation of two or more hedge ratios. This paper demonstrates a statistically significant increase in out-of-sample effectiveness from the composite hedging of the Amex Oil Index using S&P500 and New York Mercantile Exchange crude oil futures. This conclusion is robust to the technique used to estimate the hedge ratios, and to allowance for transactions costs, dividends and the maturity of the futures contracts.

The conditional performance of UK property funds

The evaluation of investment fund performance has been one of the main developments of modern portfolio theory. Most studies employ the technique developed by Jensen (1968) that compares a particular fund's returns to a benchmark portfolio of equal risk. However, the standard measures of fund manager performance are known to suffer from a number of problems in practice. In particular previous studies implicitly assume that the risk level of the portfolio is stationary through the evaluation period. That is unconditional measures of performance do not account for the fact that risk and expected returns may vary with the state of the economy. Therefore many of the problems encountered in previous performance studies reflect the inability of traditional measures to handle the dynamic behaviour of returns. As a consequence Ferson and Schadt (1996) suggest an approach to performance evaluation called conditional performance evaluation which is designed to address this problem. This paper utilises such a conditional measure of performance on a sample of 27 UK property funds, over the period 1987-1998. The results of which suggest that once the time varying nature of the funds beta is corrected for, by the addition of the market indicators, the average fund performance show an improvement over that of the traditional methods of analysis.

A note on the use of spreadsheet optimisers in real estate analysis

Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT) has been advocated as a more rational approach to the construction of real estate portfolios. The application of MPT can now be achieved with relative ease using the powerful facilities of modern spreadsheet, and does not necessarily need specialist software. This capability is to be found in the use of an add-in Tool now found in several spreadsheets, called an Optimiser or Solver. The value in using this kind of more sophisticated analysis feature of spreadsheets is increasingly difficult to ignore. This paper examines the use of the spreadsheet Optimiser in handling asset allocation problems. Using the Markowitz Mean-Variance approach, the paper introduces the necessary calculations, and shows, by means of an elementary example implemented in Microsoft's Excel, how the Optimiser may be used. Emphasis is placed on understanding the inputs and outputs from the portfolio optimisation process, and the danger of treating the Optimiser as a Black Box is discussed.

The future returns for property required by UK pension funds

In the 1970s Real Estate represented over 17% of the average pension funds total assets. Today such funds hold less than 4%, a figure not seen since the 1960s. This reduction in Real Estate holdings is mainly attributable to the relatively poor performance of Real Estate against other asset classes since the 1980s. Whether pension funds will increase their holding at any point in the future depends therefore on the expected return of Real Estate by comparison with that required to justify a particular asset holding. Using the technique of Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT), this paper assesses the required return that Real Estate would have to offer to justify a 15% holding in a mixed asset portfolio. This figure and the risk/return characteristics of the major asset classes is taken from survey data. Under a number of scenarios it is found that Real Estate can play a part in a mixed asset portfolio at the 15% level. In some cases however, the expected returns of Real Estate are not sufficient to justify a weight of 15% in this asset.

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.

Bias or rationality? The case of UK commercial real estate investment

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to test the hypothesis that investment decision making in the UK direct property market does not conform to the assumption of economic rationality underpinning portfolio theory. Design/methodology/approach – The developing behavioural real estate paradigm is used to challenge the idea that investor “man” is able to perform with economic rationality, specifically with reference to the analysis of the spatial dispersion of the entire UK “investible stock” and “investible locations” against observed spatial patterns of institutional investment. Location quotients are derived, combining different data sets. Findings – Considerably greater variation in institutional property holdings is found across the UK than would be expected given the economic and stock characteristics of local areas. This appears to provide evidence of irrationality (in the strict traditional economic sense) in the behaviour of institutional investors, with possible herding underpinning levels of investment that cannot be explained otherwise. Research limitations/implications – Over time a lack of distinction has developed between the cause and effect of comparatively low levels of development and institutional property investment across the regions. A critical examination of decision making and behaviour in practice could break this cycle, and could in turn promote regional economic growth. Originality/value – The entire “population” of observations is used to demonstrate the relationships between economic theory and investor performance exploring, for the first time, stock and local area characteristics.