How often does direct real estate increase the risk-adjusted performance of the US mixed-asset portfolio?

The “case for real estate” in the mixed-asset portfolio is a topic of continuing interest to practitioners and academics. The argument is typically made by comparing efficient frontiers of portfolio with real estate to those that exclude real estate. However, most investors will have held inefficient portfolios. Thus, when analysing the real estate’s place in the mixed-asset portfolio it seems illogical to do so by comparing the difference in risk-adjusted performance between efficient portfolios, which few if any investor would have held. The approach adopted here, therefore, is to compare the risk-adjusted performance of a number of mixed-asset portfolios without real estate (which may or not be efficient) with a very large number of mixed-asset portfolios that include real estate (which again may or may not be efficient), to see the proportion of the time when there is an increase in risk-adjusted performance, significant or otherwise using appraisal-based and de-smoothed annual data from 1952-2003. So to the question how often does the addition of private real estate lead to increases the risk-adjusted performance compared with mixed-asset portfolios without real estate the answer is almost all the time. However, significant increases are harder to find. Additionally, a significant increase in risk-adjusted performance can come from either reductions in portfolio risk or increases in return depending on the investors’ initial portfolio structure. In other words, simply adding real estate to a mixed-asset portfolio is not enough to ensure significant increases in performance as the results are dependent on the percentage added and the proper reallocation of the initial portfolio mix in the expanded portfolio.

The impact of real estate on the terminal wealth of the UK mixed-asset portfolio

The argument for the inclusion of real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio has concentrated on examining its effect in reducing the portfolio risk - the time series standard deviation (TSSD), mainly using ex-post time series data. However, the past as such is not really relevant to the long-term institutional investors, such as the insurance companies and pension funds, who are more concerned the terminal wealth (TW) of their investments and the variability of this wealth, the terminal wealth standard deviation (TWSD), since it is from the TW of their investment portfolio that policyholders and pensioners will derive their benefits. These kinds of investors with particular holding period requirements will be less concerned about the within period volatility of their portfolios and more by the possibility that their portfolio returns will fail to finance their liabilities. This variability in TW will be closely linked to the risk of shortfall in the quantity of assets needed to match the institution’s liabilities. The question remains therefore can real estate enhance the TW of the mixed-asset portfolio and/or reduce the variability of the TW. This paper uses annual data from the United Kingdom (UK) for the period 1972-2001 to test whether real estate is an asset class that not only reduces ex-post portfolio risk but also enhances portfolio TW and/or reduces the variability of TW.

Evaluating the effectiveness of common structures in property portfolio construction

A good portfolio structure enables an investor to diversify more effectively and understand systematic influences on their performance. However, in the property market, the choice of structure is affected by data constraints and convenience. Using individual return data, this study tests the hypothesis that some common structures in the UK do not explain a significant amount about property returns. It is found that, in the periods studied, not all the structures were effective and, for the annual returns, no structures were significant in all periods. The results suggest that the drivers represented by the structures take some time to be reflected in individual property returns. They also confirm the results of other studies in finding property type a much stronger factor in explaining returns than regions.

The impact of real estate on the mixed-asset portfolio in periods of financial stress

The case for holding real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio is typically made on its stabilising effect as a result of its diversification benefits. However, portfolio diversification often fails when it is most needed, i.e. during periods of financial stress. In these periods, the variability of returns for most asset classes increases thus reducing the stabilising effect of a diversified portfolio. This paper applies the approach of Chow et al (1999) to the US domestic mixed-asset portfolio to establish whether real estate, represented by REITs, is especially useful in times of financial stress. To this end monthly returns data on five assets classes: large cap stocks, small cap stocks, long dated government bonds, cash (T-Bills) and real estate (REITs) are evaluated over the period January 1972 to December 2001. The results indicate that the inclusion of REITs in the mixed-asset portfolio can lead to increases or decreases in returns depending on the asset class replaced and whether the period is one of calm or stress. However, the inclusion of REITs invariably leads to reductions in portfolio risk that are greater than any loss in return, especially in periods of financial stress. In other words, REITs acts as a stabilising force on the mixed-asset portfolio when it is most needed, i.e. in periods of financial stress.

The return due to diversification of real estate to the US mixed-asset portfolio

Booth and Fama (1992) observe that the compound return and so the terminal wealth of a portfolio is greater than the weighted average of the compound returns of the individual investments, a difference referred to as the return due to diversification (RDD). Thus assets that offer high RDD should be particularly attractive investments. This paper test the proposition that US direct real estate is such an asset class using annual data over the period 1951-2001. The results show that adding real estate to an existing mixed-asset portfolio increases the compound return and so the terminal wealth of the fund. However, the results are dependent on the percentage allocation to real estate and the asset class replaced.

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.

Different risk measures: different portfolio compositions?

Traditionally, the measure of risk used in portfolio optimisation models is the variance. However, alternative measures of risk have many theoretical and practical advantages and it is peculiar therefore that they are not used more frequently. This may be because of the difficulty in deciding which measure of risk is best and any attempt to compare different risk measures may be a futile exercise until a common risk measure can be identified. To overcome this, another approach is considered, comparing the portfolio holdings produced by different risk measures, rather than the risk return trade-off. In this way we can see whether the risk measures used produce asset allocations that are essentially the same or very different. The results indicate that the portfolio compositions produced by different risk measures vary quite markedly from measure to measure. These findings have a practical consequence for the investor or fund manager because they suggest that the choice of model depends very much on the individual’s attitude to risk rather than any theoretical and/or practical advantages of one model over another.