An analysis of commercial real estate returns: an anatomy of smoothing in asset and index returns

In this article, we investigate the commonly used autoregressive filter method of adjusting appraisal-based real estate returns to correct for the perceived biases induced in the appraisal process. Many articles have been written on appraisal smoothing but remarkably few have considered the relationship between smoothing at the individual property level and the amount of persistence in the aggregate appraisal-based index. To investigate this issue we analyze a large sample of appraisal data at the individual property level from the Investment Property Databank. We find that commonly used unsmoothing estimates at the index level overstate the extent of smoothing that takes place at the individual property level. There is also strong support for an ARFIMA representation of appraisal returns at the index level and an ARMA model at the individual property level.

ASSET: moving forward through feedback

Providing high quality and timely feedback to students is often a challenge for many staff in higher education as it can be both time-consuming and frustratingly repetitive. From the student perspective, feedback may sometimes be considered unhelpful, confusing and inconsistent and may not always be provided within a timeframe that is considered to be ‘useful’. The ASSET project, based at the University of Reading, addresses many of these inherent challenges by encouraging the provision of feedback that supports learning, i.e. feedback that contains elements of ‘feed-forward’, is of a high quality and is delivered in a timely manner. In particular, the project exploits the pedagogic benefits of video/audio media within a Web 2.0 context to provide a new, interactive resource, ‘ASSET’, to enhance the feedback experience for both students and staff. A preliminary analysis of both our quantitative and qualitative pedagogic data demonstrate that the ASSET project has instigated change in the ways in which both staff and students think about, deliver, and engage with feedback. For example, data from our online questionnaires and focus groups with staff and students indicate a positive response to the use of video as a medium for delivering feedback to students. In particular, the academic staff engaged in piloting the ASSET resource indicated that i) using video has made them think more, and in some cases differently, about the ways in which they deliver feedback to students and ii) they now see video as an effective means of making feedback more useful and engaging for students. Moreover, the majority of academic staff involved in the project have said they will continue to use video feedback. From the student perspective, 60% of those students whose lecturers used ASSET to provide video feedback said that “receiving video feedback encouraged me to take more notice of the feedback compared with normal methods” and 80% would like their lecturer to continue to use video as a method for providing feedback. An important aim of the project was for it to complement existing University-wide initiatives on feedback and for ASSET to become a ‘model’ resource for staff and students wishing to explore video as a medium for feedback provision. An institutional approach was therefore adopted and key members of Senior Management, academics, T&L support staff, IT support and Student Representatives were embedded within the project from the start. As with all initiatives of this kind, a major issue is the future sustainability of the ASSET resource and to have had both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ support for the project has been extremely beneficial. In association with the project team the University is currently exploring the creation of an open-source, two-tiered video supply solution and a ‘framework’ (that other HEIs can adopt and/or adapt) to support staff in using video for feedback provision. In this way students and staff will have new opportunities to explore video and to exploit the benefits of this medium for supporting learning.

The dynamics of asset prices and transaction activity in illiquid markets: the case of private commercial real estate

This paper investigates the relationship between capital flows, turnover and returns for the UK private real estate market. We examine a number of possible implication of capital flows and turnover on capital returns testing for evidence of a price pressure effect, ‘return chasing’ behaviour and information revelation. The main tool of analysis is a panel vector autoregressive (VAR) regression model in which institutional capital flows, turnover and returns are specified as endogenous variables in a two equation system in which we also control for macro-economic variables. Data on flows, turnover and returns are obtained for the 10 market segments covering the main UK commercial real estate sectors. Our results do not support the widely-held belief among practitioners that capital flows have a ‘price pressure’ effect. Although there is some evidence of return chasing behaviour, the short timescales involved suggest this finding may be due to delayed recording of flows relative to returns given the difficulties of market entry. We find a significant positive relationship between lagged turnover and contemporaneous capital returns, suggesting that asset turnover provides pricing information.

Asset allocation, cross-class correlation and the structure of property returns

Practical applications of portfolio optimisation tend to proceed on a “top down” basis where funds are allocated first at asset class level (between, say, bonds, cash, equities and real estate) and then, progressively, at sub-class level (within property to sectors, office, retail, industrial for example). While there are organisational benefits from such an approach, it can potentially lead to sub-optimal allocations when compared to a “global” or “side-by-side” optimisation. This will occur where there are correlations between sub-classes across the asset divide that are masked in aggregation – between, for instance, City offices and the performance of financial services stocks. This paper explores such sub-class linkages using UK monthly stock and property data. Exploratory analysis using clustering procedures and factor analysis suggests that property performance and equity performance are distinctive: there is little persuasive evidence of contemporaneous or lagged sub-class linkages. Formal tests of the equivalence of optimised portfolios using top-down and global approaches failed to demonstrate significant differences, whether or not allocations were constrained. While the results may be a function of measurement of market returns, it is those returns that are used to assess fund performance. Accordingly, the treatment of real estate as a distinct asset class with diversification potential seems justified.

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.

Can company-fund manager meetings convey informational benefits? Exploring the rationalisation of equity investment decision making by UK fund managers

Conventional economic theory, applied to information released by listed companies, equates ‘useful’ with ‘price-sensitive’. Stock exchange rules accordingly prohibit the selec- tive, private communication of price-sensitive information. Yet, even in the absence of such communication, UK equity fund managers routinely meet privately with the senior execu- tives of the companies in which they invest. Moreover, they consider these brief, formal and formulaic meetings to be their most important sources of investment information. In this paper we ask how that can be. Drawing on interview and observation data with fund managers and CFOs, we find evidence for three, non-mutually exclusive explanations: that the characterisation of information in conventional economic theory is too restricted, that fund managers fail to act with the rationality that conventional economic theory assumes, and/or that the primary value of the meetings for fund managers is not related to their investment decision making but to the claims of superior knowledge made to clients in marketing their active fund management expertise. Our findings suggest a disconnect between economic theory and economic policy based on that theory, as well as a corre- sponding limitation in research studies that test information-usefulness by assuming it to be synonymous with price-sensitivity. We draw implications for further research into the role of tacit knowledge in equity investment decision-making, and also into the effects of the principal–agent relationship between fund managers and their clients.

Aligning asset allocation and real estate investment: some lessons from the last cycle

Asset allocation is concerned with the development of multi--‐asset portfolio strategies that are likely to meet an investor’s objectives based on the interaction of expected returns, risk, correlation and implementation from a range of distinct asset classes or beta sources. Challenges associated with the discipline are often particularly significant in private markets. Specifically, composition differences between the ‘index’ or ‘benchmark’ universe and the investible universe mean that there can often be substantial and meaningful deviations between the investment characteristics implied in asset allocation decisions and those delivered by investment teams. For example, while allocation decisions are often based on relatively low--‐risk diversified real estate ‘equity’ exposure, implementation decisions frequently include exposure to higher risk forms of the asset class as well as investments in debt based instruments. These differences can have a meaningful impact on the contribution of the asset class to the overall portfolio and, therefore, lead to a potential misalignment between asset allocation decisions and implementation. Despite this, the key conclusion from this paper is not that real estate investors should become slaves to a narrowly defined mandate based on IPD / NCREIF or other forms of benchmark replication. The discussion suggests that such an approach would likely lead to the underutilization of real estate in multi--‐asset portfolio strategies. Instead, it is that to achieve asset allocation alignment, real estate exposure should be divided into multiple pools representing distinct forms of the asset class. In addition, the paper suggests that associated investment guidelines and processes should be collaborative and reflect the portfolio wide asset allocation objectives of each pool. Further, where appropriate they should specifically target potential for ‘additional’ beta or, more marginally, ‘alpha’.