Spatial concentration in institutional investment in the UK: some comparisons between the retail and office sectors

Geographic diversity is a fundamental tenet in portfolio management. Yet there is evidence from the US that institutional investors prefer to concentrate their real estate investments in favoured and specific areas as primary locations for the properties that occupy their portfolios. The little work done in the UK draws similar conclusions, but has so far focused only on the office sector; no work has examined this issue for the retail sector. This paper therefore examines the extent of real estate investment concentration in institutional Retail portfolios in the UK at two points in time; 1998 and 2003, and presents some comparisons with equivalent concentrations in the office sector. The findings indicate that retail investment correlates more closely with the UK urban hierarchy than that for offices when measured against employment, and is focused on urban areas with high populations and large population densities which have larger numbers of retail units in which to invest.

Changes in the relative importance of sector and regional factors: 1987-2002

A stylised fact in the real estate portfolio diversification literature is that sector (property-type) effects are relatively more important than regional (geographical) factors in determining property returns. Thus, for those portfolio managers who follow a top-down approach to portfolio management, they should first choose in which sectors to invest and then select the best properties in each market. However, the question arises as to whether the dominance of the sector effects relative to regional effects is constant. If not property fund managers will need to take account of regional effects in developing their portfolio strategy. Using monthly data over the period 1987:1 to 2002:12 for a sample of over 1000 properties the results show that the sector-specific factors dominate the regional-specific factors for the vast majority of the time. Nonetheless, there are periods when the regional factors are of equal or greater importance than the sector effects. In particular, the sector effects tend to dominate during volatile periods of the real estate cycle; however, during calmer periods the sector and regional effects are of equal importance. These findings suggest that the sector effects are still the most important aspect in the development of an active portfolio strategy.

European CMBS pricing: bond, mortgage and real estate characteristics

The recent global economic crisis is often associated with the development and pricing of mortgage-backed securities (i.e. MBSs) and underlying products (i.e. sub-prime mortgages). This work uses a rich database of MBS issues and represents the first attempt to price commercial MBSs (i.e. CMBSs) in the European market. Our results are consistent with research carried out in the US market and we find that bond-, mortgage-, real estate-related and multinational characteristics show different degrees of significance in explaining European CMBS spreads at issuance. Multiple linear regression analysis using a databank of CMBSs issued between 1997 and 2007 indicates a strong relationship with bond-related factors, followed by real estate and mortgage market conditions. We also find that multinational factors are significant, with country of issuance, collateral location and access to more liquid markets all being important in explaining the cost of secured funding for real estate companies. As floater coupon tranches tend to be riskier and exhibit higher spreads, we also estimate a model using this sub-set of data and results hold, hence reinforcing our findings. Finally, we estimate our model for both tranches A and B and find that real estate factors become relatively more important for the riskier investment products.