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 persistence of real estate fund performance

This paper examines the short and long-term persistence of tax-exempt real estate funds in the UK through the use of winner-loser contingency table methodology. The persistence tests are applied to a database of varying numbers of funds from a low of 16 to a high of 27 using quarterly returns over the 12 years from 1990 Q1 to 2001 Q4. The overall conclusion is that the real estate funds in the UK show little evidence of persistence in the short-term (quarterly and semi-annual data) or for data over a considerable length of time (bi-annual to six yearly intervals). In contrast, the results are better for annual data with evidence of significant performance persistence. Thus at this stage, it seems that an annual evaluation period, provides the best discrimination of the winner and loser phenomenon in the real estate market. This result is different from equity and bond studies, where it seems that the repeat winner phenomenon is stronger over shorter periods of evaluation. These results require careful interpretation, however, as the results show that when only small samples are used significant adjustments must be made to correct for small sample bias and second the conclusions are sensitive to the length of the evaluation period and specific test used. Nonetheless, it seems that persistence in performance of real estate funds in the UK does exist, at least for the annual data, and it appears to be a guide to beating the pack in the long run. Furthermore, although the evidence of persistence in performance for the overall sample of funds is limited, we have found evidence that two funds were consistent winners over this period, whereas no one fund could be said to be a consistent loser.

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.

Monetary integration and real estate markets: an investigation of the impact of the introduction of a single currency on real estate performance

This paper assesses the impact of the monetary integration on different types of stock returns in Europe. In order to isolate European factors, the impact of global equity integration and small cap factors are investigated. European countries are sub-divided according to the process of monetary convergence. Analysis shows that national equity indices are strongly influenced by global market movements, with a European stock factor providing additional explanatory power. The global and European factors explain small cap and real estate stocks much less well –suggesting an increased importance of ‘local’ drivers. For real estate, there are notable differences between core and non-core countries. Core European countries exhibit convergence – a convergence to a European rather than a global factor. The non-core countries do not seem to exhibit common trends or movements. For the non-core countries, monetary integration has been associated with increased dispersion of returns, lower correlation and lower explanatory power of a European factor. It is concluded that this may be explained by divergence in underlying macro-economic drivers between core and non-core countries in the post-Euro period.

Real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio: the question of consistency

The recent poor performance of the equity market in the UK has meant that real estate is increasingly been seen as an attractive addition to the mixed-asset portfolio. However, determining whether the good return enjoyed by real estate is a temporary or long-term phenomenon is a question that remains largely unanswered. In other words, there is little or no evidence to indicate whether real estate should play a consistent role in the mixed-asset portfolio over short- and long-term investment horizons. Consistency in this context refers to the ability of an asset to maintain a positive allocation in an efficient portfolio over different holding periods. Such consistency is a desirable trait for any investment, but takes on particular significance when real estate is considered, as the asset class is generally perceived to be a long-term investment due to illiquidity. From an institutional investor’s perspective, it is therefore crucial to determine whether real estate can be reasonably expected to maintain a consistent allocation in the mixed-asset portfolio in both the short and long run and at what percentage. To address the question of consistency the allocation of real estate in the mixed-asset portfolio was calculated over different holding periods varying from 5- to 25-years.

Is ESG commitment linked to investment performance in the real estate sector?

The linkage between corporate commitment to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues and investment performance has generated a substantial body of research outside the real estate sector. Nevertheless, the relationship between the environmental performance and financial performance of companies is still not well understood as studies have found mixed and contradicting results. Drawing upon the KLD database which contains ratings on seven ESG dimensions from 2003-2009, this paper investigates the relationship between the ESG rating and the financial performance of a sample of US real estate firms. Since the primary transmission channel from ESG activities to financial performance may be better reflected by a firm's intangible assets, we model both Tobin's q and the total annual return in a panel framework with time and sector specific fixed effects. Our results are largely consistent with the existing literature finding a positive relationship between CFP and CSP. Further, the time scale of the lagged effects seems plausible.

Re-thinking commercial real estate market segmentation

Investments in direct real estate are inherently difficult to segment compared to other asset classes due to the complex and heterogeneous nature of the asset. The most common segmentation in real estate investment analysis relies on property sector and geographical region. In this paper, we compare the predictive power of existing industry classifications with a new type of segmentation using cluster analysis on a number of relevant property attributes including the equivalent yield and size of the property as well as information on lease terms, number of tenants and tenant concentration. The new segments are shown to be distinct and relatively stable over time. In a second stage of the analysis, we test whether the newly generated segments are able to better predict the resulting financial performance of the assets than the old dichotomous segments. Applying both discriminant and neural network analysis we find mixed evidence for this hypothesis. Overall, we conclude from our analysis that each of the two approaches to segmenting the market has its strengths and weaknesses so that both might be applied gainfully in real estate investment analysis and fund management.