Judgments, forecasts and decisions: an analysis of fund managers over time

Decision theory is the study of models of judgement involved in, and leading to, deliberate and (usually) rational choice. In real estate investment there are normative models for the allocation of assets. These asset allocation models suggest an optimum allocation between the respective asset classes based on the investors’ judgements of performance and risk. Real estate is selected, as other assets, on the basis of some criteria, e.g. commonly its marginal contribution to the production of a mean variance efficient multi asset portfolio, subject to the investor’s objectives and capital rationing constraints. However, decisions are made relative to current expectations and current business constraints. Whilst a decision maker may believe in the required optimum exposure levels as dictated by an asset allocation model, the final decision may/will be influenced by factors outside the parameters of the mathematical model. This paper discusses investors' perceptions and attitudes toward real estate and highlights the important difference between theoretical exposure levels and pragmatic business considerations. It develops a model to identify “soft” parameters in decision making which will influence the optimal allocation for that asset class. This “soft” information may relate to behavioural issues such as the tendency to mirror competitors; a desire to meet weight of money objectives; a desire to retain the status quo and many other non-financial considerations. The paper aims to establish the place of property in multi asset portfolios in the UK and examine the asset allocation process in practice, with a view to understanding the decision making process and to look at investors’ perceptions based on an historic analysis of market expectation; a comparison with historic data and an analysis of actual performance.

Rational expectations? Developer behaviour and development cycles in the central London office market

Purpose – Expectations of future market conditions are acknowledged to be crucial for the development decision and hence for shaping the built environment. The purpose of this paper is to study the central London office market from 1987 to 2009 and test for evidence of rational, adaptive and naive expectations. Design/methodology/approach – Two parallel approaches are applied to test for either rational or adaptive/naive expectations: vector auto-regressive (VAR) approach with Granger causality tests and recursive OLS regression with one-step forecasts. Findings – Applying VAR models and a recursive OLS regression with one-step forecasts, the authors do not find evidence of adaptive and naïve expectations of developers. Although the magnitude of the errors and the length of time lags between market signal and construction starts vary over time and development cycles, the results confirm that developer decisions are explained, to a large extent, by contemporaneous and historic conditions in both the City and the West End, but this is more likely to stem from the lengthy design, financing and planning permission processes rather than adaptive or naive expectations. Research limitations/implications – More generally, the results of this study suggest that real estate cycles are largely generated endogenously rather than being the result of large demand shocks and/or irrational behaviour. Practical implications – Developers may be able to generate excess profits by exploiting market inefficiencies but this may be hindered in practice by the long periods necessary for planning and construction of the asset. Originality/value – This paper focuses the scholarly debate of real estate cycles on the role of expectations. It is also one of very few spatially disaggregate studies of the subject matter.

Effect of patient age on management decisions in breast cancer: consensus from a national consultation

This qualitative study investigated the attitudes, perceptions, and practices of breast cancer specialists with reference to the effect of patient age on management decisions in breast cancer, and attempted to identify national consensus on this issue. One hundred thirty-three relevant specialists, including 75 surgeons and 43 oncologists, participated in a virtual consultation using e-mailed questionnaires and open-ended discussion documents, culminating in the development of proposed consensus statements sent to participants for validation. A strong consensus was seen in favor of incorporating minimum standards of diagnostic services, treatment, and care for older patients with breast cancer into relevant national guidance, endorsed by professional bodies. Similarly, an overwhelming majority of participants agreed that simple, evidence-based protocols or guidelines on standardizing assessment of biological and chronological age should be produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the Scottish Medicines Consortium, developed in collaboration with specialist oncogeriatricians, and endorsed by professional bodies. A further recommendation that all breast cancer patient treatment and diagnostic procedures be undertaken in light of up-to-date, relevant scientific data met with majority support. This study was successful in gauging national specialist opinion regarding the effect of patient age on management decisions in breast cancer in the U.K.