German open ended funds: was there a valuation problem?

In late 2005, a number of German open ended funds suffered significant withdrawals by unit holders. The crisis was precipitated by a long term bear market in German property investment and the fact that these funds offered short term liquidity to unit holders but had low levels of liquidity in the fund. A more controversial suggestion was that the crisis was exacerbated by a perception that the valuations of the fund were too infrequent and inaccurate. As units are priced by reference to these valuations with no secondary market, the valuation process is central to the process. There is no direct evidence that these funds were over-valued but there is circumstantial evidence and this paper examines the indirect evidence of the process to see whether the hypothesis that valuation is an issue for the German funds holds any credibility. It also discusses whether there is a wider issue for other funds of this nature or whether it is a parochial problem confined to Germany. The conclusions are that there is reason to believe that German valuation processes make over-valuation in a recession more likely than in other countries and that more direct research into the German valuation system is required to identify the issues which need to be addressed to make the valuation system more trusted.

Property funds: how much diversification is enough?

t is well known that when assets are randomly-selected and combined in equal proportions in a portfolio, the risk of the portfolio declines as the number of different assets increases without affecting returns. In other words, increasing portfolio size should improve the risk/return trade-off compared with a portfolio of asset size one. Therefore, diversifying among several property funds may be a better alternative for investors compared to holding only one property fund. Nonetheless, it also well known that with naïve diversification although risk always decreases with portfolio size, it does so at a decreasing rate so that at some point the reduction in portfolio risk, from adding another fund, becomes negligible. Based on this fact, a reasonable question to ask is how much diversification is enough, or in other words, how many property funds should be included in a portfolio to minimise return volatility.

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.

Separating skill from luck in REIT mutual funds

This study uses a bootstrap methodology to explicitly distinguish between skill and luck for 80 Real Estate Investment Trust Mutual Funds in the period January 1995 to May 2008. The methodology successfully captures non-normality in the idiosyncratic risk of the funds. Using unconditional, beta conditional and alpha-beta conditional estimation models, the results indicate that all but one fund demonstrates poor skill. Tests of robustness show that this finding is largely invariant to REIT market conditions and maturity.

Sources of alpha and beta in property funds

This paper examines issues related to potential analytical performance systems for global property funds. These will include traditional attribution methods but will also cover the performance concepts of alpha and beta widely used in other asset classes. We look at issues including...what creates beta, and what drives alpha in real estate investment? How can it be measured and isolated? How do these concepts relate to traditional attribution systems? Can performance records and performance fees adequately distinguish between these drivers? In this paper we illustrate these issues by reference to a case study addressing the complete performance record of a single unlisted fund.

Unlisted property funds and the emerging property markets

This paper sets out to describe the changing nature of global property investment, to provide background information regarding the nature of unlisted property funds and their managers and investors, and especially the role played by unlisted property funds in facilitating cross-border investing. In particular, it focuses on the development of unlisted funds as intermediary structures carrying institutional capital from developed to developing markets. It presents the results of new research by UK research firm Property Funds Research (PFR) and the University of Reading which explores the extent to which this new vehicle has been effective in delivering capital to emerging markets. The research relates the number of funds targetting particular countries and to population and GDP per capita. It finds that there is a very strong relationship between the popularity of a country for investment through this vehicle format and these independent variables. More interesting, perhaps, is the identification of outlier countries where the amount of investment is significantly less - or greater - than that predicted by population and GDP per capita.

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.

The timing and selection ability of UK property funds: an empirical investigation

This paper examines the selectivity and market timing performance of a sample of 21 UK property funds over the period Q3 1977 through to Q2 1987. The main finding of which that there is evidence of some superior selectivity performance on the part of UK property funds but that there are few funds who are able to successfully time the market.

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.

The future returns for property required by UK pension funds: the BHS data

Previous studies of the place of Property in the multi-asset portfolio have generally relied on historical data, and have been concerned with the supposed risk reduction effects that Property would have on such portfolios. In this paper a different approach has been taken. Not only are expectations data used, but we have also concentrated upon the required return that Property would have to offer to achieve a holding of 15% in typical UK pension fund portfolios. Using two benchmark portfolios for pension funds, we have shown that Property's required return is less than that expected, and therefore it could justify a 15% holding.